The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Why I don't think it's a contradiction to be pro-choice as well as vegan

This discussion was started in the thread Is the life of the mother or father more important than a BABY??, which itself started as a debate on the comments page of the Vegetarian/Vegan Atheists group. In the former discussion, bringing in veganism to the abortion debate was considered to be broadening the discussion a bit too far and that a new discussion should be added. So, here it is.

I'm not saying anything that I hadn't said before, I don't think - first, while there aren't any tangible benefits to killing animals in terms of diet (see position paper by the ADA, as one example), the environment (see this report by the FAO - again, there's more, but I'm too lay to dig up additional resources right now), or clothing (I'm not supplying a link for this :P), there are many obvious adverse consequences to a woman who carries a child to term, including but not limited to physical pain, emotional complications, and financial losses.

Secondly, while many animals probably don't have the highly-developed sense of self-identity that human beings do, we still have reason to believe that they have some sense of self. For instance, an animal can tell the difference between an action taken by itself and another animal, can recognize friendly from non-friendly individuals, can discern between their own trail markings, songs and the like from those of others, and so on. These various facets of identity are generally recognized, I believe, to not develop in human beings until between two and eighteen months after birth. As a result, it seems reasonable to conclude that the death of a born animal is a greater loss of life than a fetus's, if such a thing can be measured.

As a result, I don't see any inherent contradiction in being pro-choice as well as vegan at the same time.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 22, 2009 at 11:57pm

BTW to answer specifically your last question: Singer I imagine could say yes to killing the dictator and saving dog on this grounds.

But one could also still respect the dictators life put him in gaol and still create more agregate happiness.

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 20, 2009 at 12:20am

Overall I don't like the reasoning for reasons I posted to AAron. Things have interests other than through desires. But what Singer and Rights/desires philosophers are trying to give are non artbitrary rules and coherent reasons what grounds moral worth.

After all having a preferred preferenced group has no moral grounding, that is what makes sexism and racism wrong. Singer also says that is what is wrong with just thinking belonging to the group Homo Spaiens is enough, making it speciest. This is another way of saying just because you prefer Mary or her baby social preferences don't count as they are relational preferences and sexist and racists do the same thing.

Again that is why they are trying to gound moral worth is some non arbitrary way, so you cannot have one group saying yes we can kill foetus because its our preference. If that was all that matters a preference for infanticide would also be a valid preference.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on October 20, 2009 at 12:47am

Every species is speciesist, or it wouldn't be a species. I've never thought Singer's antispeciesism made much sense. We prefer our species because we have the most genes in common with our species. Since our genes want to get into the future, we promote the interests of our own species over those of others. I don't see how this is immoral in any way, since morality is completely understandable as a survival strategy. Singer and other ethicists really need to look to evolutionary biology to inform their views.

Now, from a purely speciesist perspective, veganism makes perfect sense, because of the excess resources required to turn plants into animals before consuming them. A lot more of our species will survive if we eat a lot fewer animals and a lot more plants. Since I don't base the rationale for veganism on whether animals are killed or not, there's no conflict with abortion on demand. Having said that, I'm not a vegan because I can't seem to stop eating meat. But I know it's the more moral choice for my fellow humans.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 20, 2009 at 2:19am

Yes but we are supposed to be moral agents who think at a higher level.

The point is that just wanting to favour a group you have a preference for isn't a very good moral system because even other humans can pick another preferece and exclude you eg racism.

& as I've said before sure use evolutionary biology to base your system, but one can also justify rape and infanticide using evolutionary biology.

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on October 20, 2009 at 2:58pm

Actually, rape violates the Golden Rule, which is merely an outgrowth of evolutionary psychology. Infanticide, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is justified in rare occasions where not killing the baby would lead to more death (as is the case in a famine). It's hard to picture a realistic scenario in which rape would lead to less overall misery.

In any case, if you follow your line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then we should exterminate all life on the planet, including ourselves, in order to prevent one group from arbitrarily excluding another. Because that's the only way that would happen. To put it less drastically, judging the relative worth of organisms is required for life. It's inescapable because we have to eat. It's true that we don't have to eat meat, but it's still the case that we consider plants to have less value than animals. Once you are required to make one such demarcation, it's hard to see why other such demarcations are impermissible. And that brings us back to speciesism--it's hard to see much wrong with the idea that we prefer our own genes to those of other organisms. Genes are the whole driving force behind life on this planet. Any system of morality that ignores that won't be able to explain anything or provide useful guidance.

Permalink Reply by SecretWombat on October 19, 2009 at 6:15pm

Rubbish. Ethicists (another word for 'moral philosophers') are not just interested in absolute rules, they are interested in situational morality. It's called 'applied ethics'.

You want to base the argument on the capacity of the subject? Okay then. Capacity-wise a foetus can't survive outside its host. Capacity-wise it's not a baby or a person. Capacity-wise it's simply a parasite. So like I said 'take it out and let it frolic'.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 20, 2009 at 2:29am

Yes but even for applied ethics you are supposed to be non arbitrary or consistent and ignore things that aren't morally relevant.

& even RvW while in your favour points out if the foetus was proved to be a person that would change matters regardless of the 'where it is' factor. I'll try to find the quote.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Simon JM on October 20, 2009 at 6:37am

Rules are made to be broken, and whether the road to the best outcomes uses rules, acts, preferences, or desires, it should lead to the most optimal outcomes for the greatest number of people, and do the least amount of harm to the fewest.

The above could easily still apply within a Pro-Life world considering the millions of perfectly healthy humans aborted/killed each year. Or using same rationale we could a lot of good painlessly killing and using as body banks unwanted non person babies and infants from around the world.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jason Spicer on October 20, 2009 at 3:09pm

Painlessly killing healthy adults for body parts undervalues the healthy adults. Simon, you keep trying to argue as though people all have precisely the same value, when this is demonstrably incorrect. As far as I can tell, your proposed morality would require everybody to always treat every other organism exactly the same way, regardless of circumstance. That doesn't even make any sense. That's like saying that quadriplegics would be required to get on the treadmill for 30 minutes a day along with everybody else. Or everybody should be required to be bedridden. What the hell? Different people have different value. You can treat them all with respect, but you simply can't treat them all precisely the same.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Creature on October 20, 2009 at 3:47pm

Sapping resources in order to make a bunch of people miserable doesn't benefit anyone. Being abandoned or raised by someone that resents you is a painful thing to have to live with. It happens to enough kids, all of the time, without forcing pregnancies and creating millions more a year. But the physical and emotional well being of a woman, let alone the baby(once its been born) isn't even on the radar, is it?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by KC the Great on October 20, 2009 at 8:24am

So, technically I'm a vegan, though I don't always identify as such because I don't like being associated with evangelism of any sort. I also see a lot of sexism and racism going unexamined in the online largely-white vegan population, but that's a long story and one that's been done very well elsewhere.

I'm pro-choice, I've had an abortion, and it was safe and legal thankfully. Honestly, I find anti-choicers who consume and wear animal products to be big old hypocrites. Vegan anti-choicers bother me, too, but for different reasons.

I get tired of the recourse to arguments based on this or that moral philosopher, because they all seem to be men positing universal laws based on the experience of moving through life in a one-size-fits-all male body. Female body processes never got written in. I'll tell you what, if pregnancy and childbirth suddenly switched teams and became a male bodily experience, moral philosophy would change pretty darn quickly to preserve the freedoms of men everywhere.