At Sun, 24 Jan 1999 01:38:15 EST, you wrote:
>
>I believe we have reached a hesitant compromise regarding the evils of factory
>farming ; now the debate centers around whether it is a necessary evil or not
>at the present time.
>
>I would argue that it is not, and that the industrial masses can eat quite
>fine without meat. In fact, even better!
I argue that they won't, and you can't make them without killing them, which you just
might be "fiery" and "passionate" enough to do (as are doctor-killing
antiabortionists). You sound quite prepared to destroy the global village in order to
save it, if it will not kneel in obesiance to your ideology. Well, save a bullet for
me, then; you're gonna need it.
>
>As to whether I sound like a Southern Baptist or Jehovah's Witness, I find it
>sad that Joe has had no other examples of passionate people in his life!
The aforementioned antiabortionists are, as well as creationists, sexists, racists and
homophobes. Passion does not magically proffer truth on those who possess it.
I
>have stated over and over again if it were simply a matter of taste and
>choice, I would completely respect another's choice of style .. but when that
>choice involves another's life, it is no longer simply a matter of style ; an
>ethical conflict has occurred.
Exactly the Antiabortion position. Your only difference with them is where you draw
your line, and you can't point to any god that makes your line position right and
theirs wrong (though, unlike you, they try).
Now for some reason Joe keeps wanting to draw
>me into a debate over antiabortionism, which I resist. I suspect the strategy
>is somewhat as follows : demonstrate the transference of the veggie debate to
>the abortion debate, somehow establish that through analogy I must be
>antiabortion (AS WELL AS antichoice), assume that there is a kneejerk feminist
>agenda of proabortion (rather than the ambiguities of choice), and therefore
>discredit my arguments. I will state again, if a meateater were to put the
>amount of soulsearching, anguish, and ethical complexity into every piece of
>factoryfarmed meat they eat that most women put into an abortion, I suspect we
>would see a lot less meat consumption. And even women who have four or five
>abortions aren't having abortion on a regular basis : imagine a meat eater who
>only ate meat four or five times in their life!!!
People eat more frequently than they reproduce; it's a fact of and neccessity of, life.
Regardless, there is also
>the issue of viability. At a certain point, a developing human being is not
>viable. This is no pronouncement on its preciousness!!!!, but it does draw a
>distinction between those living beings who are viable and those who have not
>yet emerged into it. The abortion debate is really only applicable to
>vegetarianism if we are arguing over eating fertilized eggs, and comparing
>nonhuman eggs to human "eggs" or developing beings .. otherwise, we are
>discussing fully viable, developed living beings in which case the abortion
>issue is no longer relevant ; the issue becomes one of killing of viable,
>developed living beings
The antiabortionists would disagree with you on which is more valuable, but in you
both devalue born humans in relation to your "pet" obsession.
. But more importantly, our entire attitude and
>relation towards living beings. I find it amusing to be placed alongside
>Jehovah's Witnesses ; much more appropriate, I think, would be the fire and
>"fanaticism" if you will of the Abolitionists, who were certainly thought
>"unreasonable" and "moralistic" amongst many of their fellows.
You do yourself no favor among either blacks or Jews by comparing them to animals.
>(un)leash
>
>
>
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
