Here's an update on the Kansas abortion bill which I posted earlier.
--Katharine English
---------------------
By Judy Lundstrom Thomas, The Wichita Eagle, Kan. Knight-Ridder/Tribune
Business News
TOPEKA, Kan.--Mar. 26--The Kansas Senate, for the first time this year, is
gearing up for an abortion debate. On Monday, senators are scheduled to take
up a bill that would require physicians to report abortions to the state. The
House passed the bill Friday 103-22.
"I assume there will be various amendments offered by both sides of the
issue, " said Senate Majority Leader Jerry Moran, R-Hays. "There will
probably be a lengthy and intense debate, and I'd not be surprised if the
bill ultimately passes the Senate. But the question is, in what form?"
Under the bill, all medical facilities and private physicians would have to
report to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment each year the
number of abortions that occurred and the type of medical facility in which
they were performed.
The reports would not include the patients' names, and the information in the
reports - including the name of the physician or facility that submitted the
report - would be kept confidential.
The House passed the bill Feb. 10, but the Senate Judiciary Committee killed
it last week. So on Monday, the House Health and Human Services Committee
gutted a hepatitis-screening bill and replaced it with the abortion-reporting
bill.
Rep. Carlos Mayans, R-Wichita, chairman of the committee, said the action was
taken because senators have avoided debating the abortion issue all session.
The abortion-reporting bill passed after the hepatitis-screening measure was
put back in.
The hepatitis measure had been requested by the Department of Health and
Environment and would require that doctors test pregnant women for hepatitis
B. According to the department, about 1 percent of Americans are infected
with hepatitis B, and, if untreated at the time of birth, about 90 percent of
the children of infected mothers will become infected. About one-fourth will
die from complications of the disease.
Some abortion-rights supporters in the House said that the hepatitis-
screening bill was so important that they voted for the abortion-reporting
bill because it included the other measure.
END!A$6?WI-ABORTION
Transmitted: 95-03-26 19:12:51 EST
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 13:08:42 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 14:08:30 CST
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shawn Boeser)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: animal rights
I agree with Margaret when she says "factory farming
is immoral whether it's tomatoes OR chickens."
However, I choose to be a vegetarian because I believe
it is a lessor form of violence. Given the fact that
we must eat, killing plant foods causes less suffering
than killing animals (not to mention less ecological destruction,
lower on the food chain, and better personal health).
People may argue that plants are sentient, however, it is
widely held that they do not suffer pain the way human and
non-human animals do. The plant sentiency argument is often used
simply to evade the issue of destructive eating habits.
If an individual hasn't resolved the question of eating animals
yet, eating organic/free-range is definitely less violent for the
earth and the animals. There's a great ecofeminist book that addresses
these very issues. _Cooking, Eating, Thinking_ by Deane Curtin.
He an ecofeminist philospher.
Still trying to go vegan,
Shawn Boeser
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 14:33:00 MST 1995
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 16:33:33 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Ecology & The Food Chain
Margaret wrote to Glynis:
> I've been lurking for months, Glynis, you hit on a question I've >struggled
>with a lot in the past year. I was a vegetarian for 10 years, >vegan for
>about half that, but the closer I got to really studying and >understanding
>and worshipping all of life the more I realized that my >distinction (kill
plants OK,
>kill animals not OK) was based on wishy-washy identification >with similar
>life forms and speciesist hierarchy and overall ignorance of >the nature of
>plant life.
>Now I just buy cook and eat vegan because it uses a hell of a >lot less
>land and bad farming (if you shop as much as possible organic >and local,
>living in the Central Valley of California made me realize >factory farming
>is immoral whether it's tomatoes OR chickens) and every >now and then
>when someone else is doing the cooking I eat meat and dairy >and if I
>had access to organically raised stuff or hunted or fished I >would
>probably eat more.
>My dad always used to tell me to read Gary Snyder's "Song of >the Taste"
>and he was right but he eats a lot less meat these days too.
>>Begin forwarded message:
>>Dear Amanda,
>> I love plants--all plants from trees to mosses--and I'm >>curious
>>what reply you would make to my questions: Given that >>human beings must
>>eat to live, is it any less wrong/destructive/immoral/etc. to >>eat plants
>>than to eat animals? Are animals inherently more deserving >>than plants
of
>>our sympathy/protection/concern? If so, why? (Because >>they are more
>>similar to us?) I, too, like you, am struggling to understand >>the
>>politics of diet, the politics of food.
-------------------------------
Great discussion, and I commend you, Margaret, for pointing out that bad
farming is bad farming, no matter what is being harvested. One thing I'd
like to interject, though, is the ecosystem/food chain consideration.
Ecologists commonly classify organisms according to their function in the
environment, the two main groups being autotrophs ("self-nourishers," also
called producers) and heterotrophs--a wide assortment of organisms--which
lack the metabolic machinery to synthesize their own food and so must obtain
it from other sources. (Human beings are obviously heterotrophs.) Some
heterotrophs--the herbivores--eat plants, and some--the carnivores, or
predators--eat animals. Omnivores eat both plants and animals; others eat
only dead plants and animals. Scavengers eat large dead organisms. (Whew!)
Herbivores speed the recycling of minerals -- and thus help the earth's
ability to sustain and replenish itself -- by eating plant parts and then
excreting many of those materials; minerals in the plants are returned to
the soil much _faster_ than if the plants had _not_ been eaten (this same
model works extremely well for thinking about composting -- any of you who do
compost will know what I mean). Scavengers help by breaking down large dead
organisms faster than bacteria or fungi alone, and bacteria and fungi
eventually break down fecal material and other smaller organic matter into
its mineral components. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for
carnivores, although they do help somewhat by excreting minerals they injest
from eating herbivores. (I know this is long, but bear with me.)
The problem, comes, I think, when our diets become largely meat-based and not
plant-based. Western culture is a meat-eating culture (someone is welcome
here to launch the patriarchal component of this phenomenon), not a
plant-eating one, and as a result, we are not only disturbing the natural
process of our ecosystem's ability to recycle itself, we are interfering with
the careful balance of our food chain.
As the ultimate predator, we sit atop a long and very complex web of
food-consuming organisms. We can only begin to guess the important links
some of the animals we consume provide in maintaining a balanced composition
of diversity in our ecosystem. We should, therefore, logically be eating
LOWER on the food chain, to effectively "close the circle" of consumption
without disturbing the eating heirarchy. Moreover, by over-producing animals
on factory farms, we are interfering with the system's ability to naturally
balance its own populations, effectively _removing_ the species from its
natural habitat and creating a new, controlled habitat for them that really
cannot sustain itself (there are too many interferences from humans to allow
that to happen).
Also, because we sit atop the food chain, the amount of chemicals and
pesticides we consume is increased multi-fold, simply by virtue of the fact
that we eat those who eat from the ground up -- we're not only getting
pesticides and other chemicals from the actual food we consume, we're getting
them from the animals who consumed them as well, usually in larger doses and
higher concentrations.
So, as much as I think the argument for animal compassion is compelling (and
I do), I also think there are much larger, biological considerations that
should prompt us to reevaluate whether we want to be eating meat. We no
longer live in a hunting & gathering society where occasional animals were
captured for purposes of real survival -- not to mention the fact that the
animals' lives in those societies were revered, and that every single atom of
the animal was utilized to some end within the culture of the group. Modern
society doesn't _need_ to eat meat. We have options now (to farm
responsibly), and we have greater access to information about health,
nutrition, innovative food technhology (just look at the soybean) and
biodiversity. Funny how so many aboriginal peoples seemed to know all this
without science having to tell them . . . .
Just food for thought.
--Katharine English
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 19:43:07 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 21:43:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Swarr Amanda Lock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: animal rights
To: Glynis Carr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Glynis Carr wrote:
> Dear Amanda,
> I love plants--all plants from trees to mosses--and I'm curious
> what reply you would make to my questions: Given that human beings must
> eat to live, is it any less wrong/destructive/immoral/etc. to eat plants
> than to eat animals? Are animals inherently more deserving than plants of
> our sympathy/protection/concern? If so, why? (Because they are more
> similar to us?) I, too, like you, am struggling to understand the
> politics of diet, the politics of food.
>
>
> Glynis Carr
>
>
Thanks for your thoughts, Glynis! There are three primary reasons why I
eat vegan out of a love for both plants AND animals.
1) Eating animals is essentially eating animals and plants. The amount
of plants necessary to keep a cow alive, for example, only adds to the
numbers of plants being killed.
2) Animals have central nervous systems and plants do not. Therefore, I
believe that killing animals cause a lot more pain and suffering than
killing animals.
3) It is easily possible (and, fact, preferable for health reasons) to
live on plants alone. I feel that a vegan diet is the least violent and
damaging way for me to subsist. :-)
-amanda
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 19:51:48 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 21:52:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Eat plants or animals?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks to Glynis for raising this issue. I agree with others who have
already discussed the advantages of eating plants in terms of ecological
advantages, and that was originally what compelled me to become vegan
three years ago.
I want to go out on a limb and propose that a typology, perhaps even
"hierarchy," can be advocated by ecofeminists (particularly the
materialists out there :) ), which is based on the notion of sensitivity
to violence. I agree with others who have posited that it is preferable
to eat plants than animals because they are "more like humans," because
-- at least as far as I can tell -- animals repond to violence with pain
and suffering in ways we understand intuitively. In other words, animals
with complex central nervous systems, I suspect, are more conscious of
violence, more frightened of death, more concerned about friends and
relatives, and more sensitive to the pain of being killed than plants.
Plants, I suspect are more sensitive than rocks, and therefore if I could
live on rocks, I would be a geoterian. For this reason I consider
becoming a fruititarian (eat only fruits which can be picked and eaten
without killing the plants, e.g. apples and pears but not potatoes, etc.)
a logical next step which I have considered for myself. But I am
hesitant because, in whatever ethical calculus I employ in my head, I
feel the violence-to-self of trying to live on such a diet would be
greater than the gain to the plant world.
Anyhow, I have said enough. I applaud all of us for working towards what
I think is really lacking today: a whole food ethic, which dynamically
considers environmental issues, ethical issues in terms of human labor
and violence to animals, nutrition, etc. etc. I can think of no better
context to consider these issues than ecofeminism, which necessarily ties
questions of social justice and personal needs with ecological sensitivities.
Joel Wainwright
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 20:50:46 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 95 22:46:49 EST
From: Katrin Zafiriadis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re[2]: animal rights
In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of WED 29 MAR 1995 07:44:17 EST
>
>
>On Wed, 29 Mar 1995, Glynis Carr wrote:
>
>> Dear Amanda,
>> I love plants--all plants from trees to mosses--and I'm curious
>> what reply you would make to my questions: Given that human beings must
>> eat to live, is it any less wrong/destructive/immoral/etc. to eat plants
>> than to eat animals? Are animals inherently more deserving than plants of
>> our sympathy/protection/concern? If so, why? (Because they are more
>> similar to us?) I, too, like you, am struggling to understand the
>> politics of diet, the politics of food.
>>
>>
>> Glynis Carr
>>
>>
>
>
>Thanks for your thoughts, Glynis! There are three primary reasons why I
>eat vegan out of a love for both plants AND animals.
>
>1) Eating animals is essentially eating animals and plants. The amount
>of plants necessary to keep a cow alive, for example, only adds to the
>numbers of plants being killed.
>
>2) Animals have central nervous systems and plants do not. Therefore, I
>believe that killing animals cause a lot more pain and suffering than
>killing animals.
>
>3) It is easily possible (and, fact, preferable for health reasons) to
>live on plants alone. I feel that a vegan diet is the least violent and
>damaging way for me to subsist. :-)
>
>
amanda
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 21:29:32 MST 1995
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 1995 23:23:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Bertina Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Kylie Matthews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ecofeminism and animal rights
In-Reply-To: <v0151010363193821bda4@[203.8.222.24]>
*nod* I believe Kant was giving another viewpoint other than Darwin's
view that since we evolved from animals we must respect them as we do
ourselves. I think there is a happy medium, but to some there arent many
shades of gray when it comes to how one treats domesticated animals or pets.
Bertina Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Kylie Matthews wrote:
> >I think it was Kant (philosopher) who did not believe animals had rights
> >and argued against such belief, but he argued that since the animal was
> >owned by a human being that it would be a violation of the human owners
> >rights to disrespect his/her pet.
>
> It would have been his pet then. A similar argument was used by men to
> excuse domestic violence and rape against their wives. In fact it was only
> in the last ten years that rape against a womyn in marriage was considered
> a crime in England. There was the idea that a womyn was the property of
> her father until she married then she was the property of her husband.
> Hence 'who gives this woman?' And 'promise to love honour and OBEY'. Also
> abuse of children was within the law if done by their lawful owners - the
> parents. The first child abuse case to be successfully tried in Britain
> was using the RSPCA. It was against the law to be cruel to animals, a
> child is an animal , therefore. That was sometime in the early 1900's I
> think.
>
> >As for me, Im sort of in the middle of that one. I love animals and find
> >cruelty to any disgusting, but realize not everyone will find that animal
> >testing, for instance, exceptionally cruel because they rationalize its
> >for the betterment of mankind or something like that.
>
> For this argument they have to have the premise that humankind is far more
> importantant than animals. I believe that this argument stems from
> mans(sic) arogance. Dolphins are the most intelligent! :)
>
> Kylie
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> The thing women have got to learn is that nobody gives you power. You just
> take it. -- Roseanne Arnold.
>
>
>
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Mar 29 22:41:58 MST 1995
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 1995 00:42:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Wainwright Joel David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: materialist ecofeminism (fwd)
Kylie's last post about materialism is important to consider, I think:
> To me materialist means something quite diffeerent. I see it as meaning
> involved with the material more than the spirtual/moral/idealistic. But
> that this means that a materialist would be aligned with capitalism and be
> out for a quick buck. This would mean that a materialist would be more
> likely to be found in the forest industry (turning trees into just a
> materialist venture) than an ecofem mailing list.
I agree with Kylie that as ecofeminists we need to discuss the meanings
and ideas behind our language, and as the discourse on the meaning of
"materialist" demonstrates, the issue is central to how we conceive
ecofeminism.
I think Kylie's post demonstrates what I consider to be a MISconception of
"materialism" which I think is problematic. I could be misinterpreting
these statements, but my understanding of
this idea is that: materialism = love for the material world = love for
capitalism. I don't mean to oversimplify, but that is how I read this
conception of "materialism."
This conception of materialism is quite different from mine. I consider
myself a materialist (and non-spiritual in a formal sense), and I am
struck by the suggestion that, as a materialist, I should be inclined to
work for a timber company and not be on an ecofem list. And I don't
think I am alone -- I don't mean to sound like an old marxist, but lots
of people who have been materialists have been opposed to capitalism.
This is my third post on this topic, but I have been compelled to post
and re-post because I think this issue is central to ecofeminism. In my
mind, ecofeminism may be informed by both materialism and a Gaian, or
Pagan, or spiritual, or idealist, or ______ conception of the (Mother)
Earth. But the two perspectives would, I suspect, be irreconcilable at some
point.
In other words, I consider myself an ecofeminist, but I don't think there
is anything spiritual about the Earth. Why is that odd?
Joel Wainwright
