Anti-Abortion and atheist/agnostic

Post by mike
Hello all,
I was wondering, first of all, does anyone know a better way of getting
free usenet access other than google groups, which seems very slow at
updating.
Secondly, is it possible to be strongly pro-life (anti-women as some
people like to call it) but not believe in God or be religious in any
way.
Well, it is possible, cos I am, but is it common?
I have other questions too, but i forget them.
adam

This looks like a determined attempt to start off conversation in
this group again, but I'll bite.

It seems to me the question is similar to "Is it possible to be
strongly vegetarian and not believe in God or be religious in any
way?". Both the anti-abortion and vegetarian position stem from taking
the natural concern that human life should not be taken and extending
it, in the one case to animals, in the other case to unborn humans.
Plenty of people seem to combine being vegetarian (and I mean on moral
grounds, not just because they think it's healthier) with no particular
religious beliefs.

On the other hand, I'd say that taking a moral vegetarian stand *is* being
religious. It doesn't involve belief in God or anything, but it does
involve drawing a moral line and sticking to it, and a belief which isn't
rational if one takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe.

It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as being
modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion is usually
considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and despicable. It is odd,
because to me the two beliefs stem from much the same concerns.

Matthew Huntbach

Robert de Vincy

2005-06-22 10:07:18 UTC

Post by mike
Hello all,
I was wondering, first of all, does anyone know a better way of
getting free usenet access other than google groups, which seems very
slow at updating.
Secondly, is it possible to be strongly pro-life (anti-women as some
people like to call it) but not believe in God or be religious in any
way.
Well, it is possible, cos I am, but is it common?
I have other questions too, but i forget them.
adam

This looks like a determined attempt to start off conversation in
this group again, but I'll bite.
It seems to me the question is similar to "Is it possible to be
strongly vegetarian and not believe in God or be religious in any
way?". Both the anti-abortion and vegetarian position stem from taking
the natural concern that human life should not be taken and extending
it, in the one case to animals, in the other case to unborn humans.
Plenty of people seem to combine being vegetarian (and I mean on moral
grounds, not just because they think it's healthier) with no
particular religious beliefs.
On the other hand, I'd say that taking a moral vegetarian stand *is*
being religious. It doesn't involve belief in God or anything, but it
does involve drawing a moral line and sticking to it, and a belief
which isn't rational if one takes a strictly materialistic view of the
universe.
It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as
being modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion
is usually considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and
despicable. It is odd, because to me the two beliefs stem from much
the same concerns.

For a limited definition of "the same concerns".

How about the people who object to the way that "meat" animals are
treated, and those that think that we shouldn't use animals for our
own selfish needs when there is an alternative (i.e. vegetarianism)?

None of those arguments have an analogue in the (anti-)abortion
issue (babies are not factory-farmed, and we don't produce them just
to extract their nutrients), so I think your bewilderment is only
coming from one very narrowly selected set of reasons (that of the
"Life is sacred" type).

--
BdeV

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-22 14:33:26 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as
being modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion
is usually considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and
despicable. It is odd, because to me the two beliefs stem from much
the same concerns.

For a limited definition of "the same concerns".
How about the people who object to the way that "meat" animals are
treated, and those that think that we shouldn't use animals for our
own selfish needs when there is an alternative (i.e. vegetarianism)?
None of those arguments have an analogue in the (anti-)abortion
issue (babies are not factory-farmed, and we don't produce them just
to extract their nutrients), so I think your bewilderment is only
coming from one very narrowly selected set of reasons (that of the
"Life is sacred" type).

I think most people who are vegetarians are so on a "life is sacred"
set of reasons. They wouldn't be happy eating meat from animals
that weren't factory farmed - they don't eat meat because they believe
it to be wrong to kill animals.

Foetuses which are subject to abortion are by and large produced as
a by-product of our desire for sexual enjoyment. I think there is at
least some parallel there with animals produced for our enjoyment
as meat.

Matthew Huntbach

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-23 21:03:26 UTC

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:33:26 +0100, Matthew Huntbach

I basically agree with this - most veggies who I've ever taken to task
will not eat free range organically farmed rare breed meat - and you
can't get much better than that most of the time. I have no idea why
they wouldn't - doing so is actually sending a far more powerful
message to factory farmers and evil agro-giants (tm) than avoidng
eating meat does imo.

But then, they're only vegetarians aren't they?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

mike

2005-06-23 21:42:03 UTC

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:33:26 +0100, Matthew Huntbach

Plus it tastes better.

My mate bought tesco value chicken legs from ... well ... from tesco.

Turns out one of the chickens had broken it's leg. My mate discovered
this whilst doing his post-mortem (i.e. eating it).

La

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-24 18:56:54 UTC

Post by mike
Plus it tastes better.

Depends how you cook it of course - buggered beef will still taste
like crap no matter where it comes from.

Post by mike
My mate bought tesco value chicken legs from ... well ... from tesco.
Turns out one of the chickens had broken it's leg. My mate discovered
this whilst doing his post-mortem (i.e. eating it).

That's not uncommon with mass chicken - legs and wings tend to get it
with the cages and the transport and the abatoir. I tend to avoid
"value" meat - I mean, come on, we're talking about a vulnerable food
here, one that could kill you if you fuck it up. Why the hell do I
want to buy cheap stuff? Cheap just means it hasn't been looked after
properly - either before it died or afterwards. Both of which have to
increase the chances of killing me imo.

(I accept, btw, that I'm wealthy enough to be able to opt for more
expensive meat)

Otoh, Sainsburys value range of crumpets are excellent - 24p for 8 and
there's loads less salt and additives in them than the expensive ones
(which taste worse as well).

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Becky

2005-06-28 22:11:47 UTC

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I think most people who are vegetarians are so on a "life is sacred"
set of reasons. They wouldn't be happy eating meat from animals
that weren't factory farmed - they don't eat meat because they believe
it to be wrong to kill animals.
Foetuses which are subject to abortion are by and large produced as
a by-product of our desire for sexual enjoyment. I think there is at
least some parallel there with animals produced for our enjoyment
as meat.

I'm vegetarian, largely influenced in my decision by the way animals
are farmed. That said, as posted below, I'm one of these wouldn't eat
organic, free-range meat. I can survive perfectly well without it, so,
in my case, I can't find much justification *for* eating it.

I'm also strongly pro-choice. I know these positions might seem
inconsistent, but there you go. Abortion, for me, isn't an issue of
defending the defenceless or the sanctity of life. It's about allowing
a woman choice over her own body and not forcing her (and possibly a
child) to 'pay' for accidents or mistakes. There's a fair amount of
misogyny tied up in abortion debates, especially when it comes to
late-term abortions: women, by and large, *don't* see a termination as
a legitimate form of contraception; most don't get to five months and
think, 'actually, nah'; and many feel more guilty than they ought. In
fact, one of the worst things is that people want and expect women
who've had terminations to feel terribly guilty about it.

Becky

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-29 11:42:05 UTC

I'm vegetarian, largely influenced in my decision by the way animals
are farmed. That said, as posted below, I'm one of these wouldn't eat
organic, free-range meat. I can survive perfectly well without it, so,
in my case, I can't find much justification *for* eating it.
I'm also strongly pro-choice. I know these positions might seem
inconsistent, but there you go. Abortion, for me, isn't an issue of
defending the defenceless or the sanctity of life. It's about allowing
a woman choice over her own body and not forcing her (and possibly a
child) to 'pay' for accidents or mistakes. There's a fair amount of
misogyny tied up in abortion debates, especially when it comes to
late-term abortions: women, by and large, *don't* see a termination as
a legitimate form of contraception; most don't get to five months and
think, 'actually, nah'; and many feel more guilty than they ought. In
fact, one of the worst things is that people want and expect women
who've had terminations to feel terribly guilty about it.

Isn't the line you put in your first paragraph one is expect people who
eat meat to feel guilty about it?

What I'm really getting at is that there seems to be a lot of stereotyping
when it comes to people commenting on the anti-abortion issue. There
always seems to be an assumption that anyone who is anti-abortion is
so on misogynistic grounds, and rarely is there a willingness to concede
they may genuinely hold to that position through the same sort of concerns
that turn people into vegetarians. In this thread we have seen the
position put that stereotypes anyone who is opposed to abortion as a
particular sort of person - politically right-wing, having a
"funadamentalist" sort of religion and being very extreme in what they
are prepared to do to oppose abortion. That is rather like supposing
anyone who is vegetarian must be an ALF extremist.

Matthew Huntbach

Becky

2005-06-29 19:53:34 UTC

I deliberately used the words 'in my case'. It's not for me to decide
whether anyone else should opt for vegetarianism or not, just as I
don't believe it's for anyone else to deny women the option of
terminations. That's a funny old association, but, either way, I don't
go round proselytising.

I don't assume that people who are anti-abortion are misogynistic: I
accept that they may believe in the sacredness of life and so on. It's
just that recent public abortion debate - think Michael Howard and even
TB before the election, and I woudn't call either of them extremists -
has tended to look at late-term abortion and completely misrepresent
the situation on that basis.

Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

mike

2005-06-29 20:30:14 UTC

Post by Becky
I deliberately used the words 'in my case'. It's not for me to decide
whether anyone else should opt for vegetarianism or not,

IMO that's a funny moral position. You believe that animals raised for
food are treated unfairly/you don't agree with the raising of them for
food or whatever, yet you don't have a problem with people doing it.

I disagree with the <getting lost for words here, please excuse my
vocabulary> mass rearing of meat and chickens or whatever, and whenever
I see a friend of mine considering buying "cheap" meat, I like to think
I would always try to point out to them how it was brought up and
recommend they buy organic stuff instead ... plus it tastes nicer.

People who have strong moral beliefs but keep them to themselves and
let everyone else do whatever they want are, IMO, exactly the same as
people who have no such moral beliefs. They aren't making a difference.
Their beliefs count for exactly nothing. (Or, rather, exactly one sixth
billionth of something).

Post by Becky
just as I
don't believe it's for anyone else to deny women the option of
terminations. That's a funny old association, but, either way, I don't
go round proselytising.
I don't assume that people who are anti-abortion are misogynistic: I
accept that they may believe in the sacredness of life and so on. It's
just that recent public abortion debate - think Michael Howard and even
TB before the election, and I woudn't call either of them extremists -
has tended to look at late-term abortion and completely misrepresent
the situation on that basis.
Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

Congrats!

adam

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-29 22:22:49 UTC

Post by Becky
Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

<big hug (can I get away witha cyber-kiss as well?)>

Excellent - clever, hard-working, dude-person. Just think, you could
have stayed in Norwich... (or is my memory mixing becky's again?)

What's next then?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Becky

2005-06-29 22:53:10 UTC

Post by Becky
Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

I'm in a good mood!

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Excellent - clever, hard-working, dude-person. Just think, you could
have stayed in Norwich... (or is my memory mixing becky's again?)

No, that's the right Becky. I like to think, after my tour of
universities and Blue Period, it's all had a purpose in leading to a
Cambridge first.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
What's next then?

I'm currently applying for jobs in various wings of the not-for-profit
sector, in health and education and whatever takes my fancy. Nothing
is certain yet, though.

Becky

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-30 09:34:20 UTC

The problem here is that the sincere anti-abortionist believes the foetus
is a separate human life - so it is not just a matter of the woman.
In other culture and at other times, children were considered to be
the property of their parents to the point where their parents could
kill them if they want. Would you accept the argument "Well, I personally
would think it wrong to kill my baby, but I wouldn't interfere with
somneone else who thinks it's ok"?

Post by Becky
I don't assume that people who are anti-abortion are misogynistic: I
accept that they may believe in the sacredness of life and so on. It's
just that recent public abortion debate - think Michael Howard and even
TB before the election, and I woudn't call either of them extremists -
has tended to look at late-term abortion and completely misrepresent
the situation on that basis.

I don't recall any recent debate in the UK being misogynistic. All I
recall is that people feel there is something not quite right when
a foetus which could survive had it simply been a premature birth is
deliberately killed in a late abortion.

Matthew Huntbach

Ginnie Redston

2005-07-15 15:59:56 UTC

Post by Becky
I deliberately used the words 'in my case'. It's not for me to decide
whether anyone else should opt for vegetarianism or not, just as I
don't believe it's for anyone else to deny women the option of
terminations. That's a funny old association, but, either way, I don't
go round proselytising.
I don't assume that people who are anti-abortion are misogynistic: I
accept that they may believe in the sacredness of life and so on. It's
just that recent public abortion debate - think Michael Howard and even
TB before the election, and I woudn't call either of them extremists -
has tended to look at late-term abortion and completely misrepresent
the situation on that basis.
Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

Wow that's excellent! I was wondering how things were going with you the
other day - couldn't remember whether this was you final year or not. You
still thinking of teaching?

Ginnie

Becky

2005-07-17 18:53:09 UTC

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Becky
Becky (newly in possession on a first class honours degree, and I
couldn't let that go without a mention!)

Wow that's excellent! I was wondering how things were going with you the
other day - couldn't remember whether this was you final year or not. You
still thinking of teaching?

I'm not thinking of teaching for the time being, though it may well
still be in the long-term plan. At the moment I'm applying for a range
of jobs in the public/nfp sector: I'm currently waiting to hear whether
I'll get an interview for jobs I've applied for at a charity and a
political party, and I'm shortly to apply for another at a government
department. Fingers crossed that one of them will at least interview
me (after three other unsuccessfuls. Where are these jobs that you can
allegedly just walk into with a Cambridge degree?! ;)). In the
meantime I'm trying to do a bit of temping: tomorrow I'm working,
coincidentally, for the charity I've just applied to, and I'm going to
try to drop my application into conversation while I'm there!

Becky

mike

2005-06-29 20:42:29 UTC

I'm vegetarian, largely influenced in my decision by the way animals
are farmed. That said, as posted below, I'm one of these wouldn't eat
organic, free-range meat. I can survive perfectly well without it, so,
in my case, I can't find much justification *for* eating it.
I'm also strongly pro-choice. I know these positions might seem
inconsistent, but there you go. Abortion, for me, isn't an issue of
defending the defenceless or the sanctity of life. It's about allowing
a woman choice over her own body and not forcing her (and possibly a
child) to 'pay' for accidents or mistakes. There's a fair amount of
misogyny tied up in abortion debates, especially when it comes to
late-term abortions: women, by and large, *don't* see a termination as
a legitimate form of contraception; most don't get to five months and
think, 'actually, nah'; and many feel more guilty than they ought.

Obviously not at five months, but up to 12 weeks and maybe such an
opinion is widespread?

There are about 500 abortions a day in the UK. I dunno, from just
looking at the statistics and the ease with which early abortions can
be carried out, I would need to be convinced that people don't see them
as a form of contraception.

I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have that supports your
"by and large".

Post by Becky
In
fact, one of the worst things is that people want and expect women
who've had terminations to feel terribly guilty about it.

Well some amount of guilt yeah. I mean, if I'm pruning a hedge and I
accidenly chop off a branch which had the potential to flower into
something really amazing, instead of chopping off a dead branch, or if
I had to cut down a tree because it was in danger of falling onto some
telephone lines, I'd feel sad, for a few minutes.

And then there is human life.

Saying someone shouldn't feel guilty is like saying someone shouldn't
feel sad when someone dies. Of course they should, it's part of the
process of getting over something. If they didn't feel *some* guilt
then they wouldn't really be human/value human life.

Surely?

mike

Becky

2005-06-29 22:29:43 UTC

Post by mike
There are about 500 abortions a day in the UK. I dunno, from just
looking at the statistics and the ease with which early abortions can
be carried out, I would need to be convinced that people don't see them
as a form of contraception.
I'd be interested in seeing any evidence you have that supports your
"by and large".

Speak to the majority of women, for heaven's sake! I doubt they think,
'I won't use a condom, I'll just have an abortion if this goes wrong'.
Credit women with some intelligence, please.

Post by Becky
In
fact, one of the worst things is that people want and expect women
who've had terminations to feel terribly guilty about it.

Well some amount of guilt yeah. I mean, if I'm pruning a hedge and I
accidenly chop off a branch which had the potential to flower into
something really amazing, instead of chopping off a dead branch, or if
I had to cut down a tree because it was in danger of falling onto some
telephone lines, I'd feel sad, for a few minutes.
And then there is human life.
Saying someone shouldn't feel guilty is like saying someone shouldn't
feel sad when someone dies. Of course they should, it's part of the
process of getting over something. If they didn't feel *some* guilt
then they wouldn't really be human/value human life.
Surely?

You should feel however you feel about it: that might be regret, it
might be guilt, or it might be relief and confidence that you've done
just the right thing. I don't doubt that many women feel guilty, and
perhaps an element of guilt is healthy in the circumstances, but I
really object to the assumption that all women should or must be racked
with guilt after having a termination. This is rarely expected of the
bloke involved.

Becky

mike

2005-06-30 09:38:41 UTC

Speak to the majority of women, for heaven's sake! I doubt they think,
'I won't use a condom, I'll just have an abortion if this goes wrong'.
Credit women with some intelligence, please.

Terribly sorry, I meant contraception in the post-event use, like the
morning after pill, which, of course, isn't contraception at all.

But that's what I mean ... I get the impression that people chance it,
and don't bother with a MAP, and then if they get pregnant, they have a
termination. Which is completely disrespectful.

Oh, and to "speak to the majority of women" would take quite a while
(tho perhaps it might be easier now I've left gimperial).

Post by Becky
In
fact, one of the worst things is that people want and expect women
who've had terminations to feel terribly guilty about it.

Well some amount of guilt yeah. I mean, if I'm pruning a hedge and I
accidenly chop off a branch which had the potential to flower into
something really amazing, instead of chopping off a dead branch, or if
I had to cut down a tree because it was in danger of falling onto some
telephone lines, I'd feel sad, for a few minutes.
And then there is human life.
Saying someone shouldn't feel guilty is like saying someone shouldn't
feel sad when someone dies. Of course they should, it's part of the
process of getting over something. If they didn't feel *some* guilt
then they wouldn't really be human/value human life.
Surely?

FWIW I would expect the guy to feel guilt too. But naturally, he
wouldn't feel quite as much. Just in the same way a mother's bond to a
child is often a lot stronger than a father's.

ekim

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-30 09:45:18 UTC

Speak to the majority of women, for heaven's sake! I doubt they think,
'I won't use a condom, I'll just have an abortion if this goes wrong'.
Credit women with some intelligence, please.

Why shouldn't they think that way? You have been telling us there's
nothing wrong with late abortions, people should not feel guilty about
them. So why not "Oh, I'm having sex without a condom, but abortion is
always there is I get pregnant"? From the many abortions that *do* occur
where the only reason is an unexpected pregnancy, it is clear this mode
of thinking *is* present in society.

Post by mike
Saying someone shouldn't feel guilty is like saying someone shouldn't
feel sad when someone dies. Of course they should, it's part of the
process of getting over something. If they didn't feel *some* guilt
then they wouldn't really be human/value human life.

It most definitely should be.

But we live in a society where sex is seen as entertainment. We have
had television programmes which centre on putting men and women together
in close confines in the hope that they will have sex, and newspapers
urging them on and offering rewards if they do have sex. Where is the
consideration in this that sex can lead to pregnancy? Suppose a
"Big Brother" or "Love Island" contestant does get pregnant. Will this
still be seen as entertainment? If they have an abortion, should the
television producers and newspaper commentators feel guilty?

Matthew Huntbach

Becky

2005-06-30 10:24:08 UTC

Post by Becky
Speak to the majority of women, for heaven's sake! I doubt they think,
'I won't use a condom, I'll just have an abortion if this goes wrong'.
Credit women with some intelligence, please.

Why shouldn't they think that way? You have been telling us there's
nothing wrong with late abortions, people should not feel guilty about
them.

I have not said there is nothing wrong with late abortions at all;
rather, I have suggested that the debate on late-term abortions is
misinformed: less than 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.
Tests like amniocentesis are usually only done at 17-19 weeks, so a
high proportion of those terminations are reckoned to be among women
whose babies have foetal abnormality, not just women who've only now
decided they've had enough. It is, of course, really not ideal to
decide to terminate a healthy pregnancy that late in proceedings, but
I, at least, have some faith that doctors and pregnant women between
them know what they're doing.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
So why not "Oh, I'm having sex without a condom, but abortion is
always there is I get pregnant"? From the many abortions that *do* occur
where the only reason is an unexpected pregnancy, it is clear this mode
of thinking *is* present in society.

It may be present, but I really don't think it proliferates. The
decision to have a termination is still pretty weighty, and there is
widespread distaste at the idea of using abortion as contraception.

Becky

mike

2005-06-30 13:26:32 UTC

Why shouldn't they think that way? You have been telling us there's
nothing wrong with late abortions, people should not feel guilty about
them.

I don't know how misinformed it is. Certainly, I am confident that the
doctors (who today decided to keep the 24 week limit) know what they
are doing.

The debates I read (albeit in philosophy books and not tabloid
newspapers) tend to focus on any abortion, rather than setting a
precise limit, which should, of course, be left to doctors.

Where am I going with this ... I dunno. I guess people are either for
or against abortion. Calling a limit a "comprimise" is ridicluous, so
the debate on abortion being about how long the limit should be is also
ridicluous.

The debate *should* be about the wording of the law, which currently
allows for an abortion for any reason whatsoever.

Ug, I remember reading an article by Judith Jarvis Thompson which was
anti-babies. She likened it to waking up one morning finding a
violinist has become surgically attached to you and needs to remain
there for 9 months.

Ug ug ug.

Anyway, lunchtime

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-30 15:18:13 UTC

Why shouldn't they think that way? You have been telling us there's
nothing wrong with late abortions, people should not feel guilty about
them.

I have not said there is nothing wrong with late abortions at all;

So why do you think there is something wrong with them?

Post by Becky
rather, I have suggested that the debate on late-term abortions is
misinformed: less than 2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks.
Tests like amniocentesis are usually only done at 17-19 weeks, so a
high proportion of those terminations are reckoned to be among women
whose babies have foetal abnormality, not just women who've only now
decided they've had enough. It is, of course, really not ideal to
decide to terminate a healthy pregnancy that late in proceedings, but
I, at least, have some faith that doctors and pregnant women between
them know what they're doing.

Why do you think the debate is "misinformed"? I have not myself seen
anyone, who suggests that late abortions are routine and are carried
out for trivial reasons. Once again, it looks like you are stereotyping
your opponents - I think this is why abortion debates are so often
fruitless because it seems that both sides just can't get over viewing
the other in terms of ridiculous stereotypes.

But why is it "weighty"? I think you say this because you *do* regard
abortion as taking a life in some way, albeit a life which you don't
regard as fully human.

Matthew Huntbach

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-29 22:22:48 UTC

Post by Becky
I'm vegetarian, largely influenced in my decision by the way animals
are farmed. That said, as posted below, I'm one of these wouldn't eat
organic, free-range meat. I can survive perfectly well without it, so,
in my case, I can't find much justification *for* eating it.

Red-rag that one :-)

Taste
Protein - don't get too many source sof HBV protein in veggies
Useful stuff like gelatine
Ease of ordering a meal
Choice & Variety
Primeval urge to eat ribs every now and again

I've said before here that I feel that eating meat is a pro landscape
and animlal-welfare choice (given that we're going to insist on
properly reared meat). No-one eats meat what happens to all the sheep,
sheep farmers, hillsides and rural communities?

I agree with your other argument in general.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Becky

2005-06-29 22:45:31 UTC

None of those really works on me, I'm afraid.
- I don't miss the taste of meat
- I get plenty of protein from meat substitutes, lentils and beans and
so on;
- You can replace animal-derived gelatine fairly easily and I just
don't eat anything with gelatine in it
- Ease of ordering a meal is an argument from laziness! I can usually
find something I want to eat on a menu. Vegetarians aren't *that*
rare.

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
I've said before here that I feel that eating meat is a pro landscape
and animlal-welfare choice (given that we're going to insist on
properly reared meat). No-one eats meat what happens to all the sheep,
sheep farmers, hillsides and rural communities?

All the hippies can own a sheep and love it.

In reality, though, something like 7-8% of the population identify
themselves as vegetarians, so it's not many. Vegetarianism means
different things to different people, so many of those will eat chicken
and/or fish (and wind me up). I don't think the end of the meat
farming industry is round the corner.

Becky

Robert de Vincy

2005-06-29 23:13:16 UTC

Post by Becky
In reality, though, something like 7-8% of the population identify
themselves as vegetarians, so it's not many. Vegetarianism means
different things to different people, so many of those will eat chicken
and/or fish (and wind me up).

Oi! What's wrong with only eating the fish and poultry meats? That's
what I do.

Okay, I know, that's not your argument; it's the people who claim to
be "vegetarian" and then eat fish/poultry whom you're commenting you on.
But that's still a slightly elitist position to hold. "Oh, they're not
really one of *us* because they're not as extreme and/or orthodox as
we are." Hmmm. Personally, I gave up red meat because it's packed full
of unhealthy saturated fats, not because I want some perceived prestige
or bragging rights from being 100% "dyed-in-the-organic-wool" vegetarian.

--
BdeV

Becky

2005-06-29 23:57:22 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy
Okay, I know, that's not your argument; it's the people who claim to
be "vegetarian" and then eat fish/poultry whom you're commenting you on.
But that's still a slightly elitist position to hold. "Oh, they're not
really one of *us* because they're not as extreme and/or orthodox as
we are." Hmmm. Personally, I gave up red meat because it's packed full
of unhealthy saturated fats, not because I want some perceived prestige
or bragging rights from being 100% "dyed-in-the-organic-wool" vegetarian.

I am commenting on those, damn right, because they're a pain in the
arse for people who actually meet the most widely accepted definition
of 'vegetarian' - i.e., not eating meat or fish. They're the reason
some places will offer fish as the 'vegetarian option', for example.
They're actually worse than vegetarians for being sanctimonious, to be
honest: some of them want the kudos for being perceived as sensitive
and ethical and so on, but they don't actually follow it up by avoiding
animal products. I've lived with a 'vegan' who eats fish for the past
year: by saying she's 'vegan', she likes to think she's somehow better
than a vegetarian, yet she doesn't even fulfil the criteria for
vegetarianism.

I gave up meat before I gave up fish: I purposely did not say I was
'vegetarian', but that I 'didn't eat meat'. I had no problem with
that, and I was perfectly well aware of my hypocrisy and never tried to
defend it! :) Why can't people just say 'I don't eat X/Y/Z'? It's not
about being holier than thou, it's just about being accurate and
avoiding misrepresentations which can actually inconvenience other
people.

Becky

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-30 20:29:51 UTC

Post by Becky
I am commenting on those, damn right, because they're a pain in the
arse for people who actually meet the most widely accepted definition
of 'vegetarian' - i.e., not eating meat or fish.

I had to learn all the different types: lacto-ovo veggies and so on.
can't remember them now - pesco-veggie came up on the damned exam. No
idea what itmenas other than it's somethng to do with fish. Do they
eat them or not?

I agree with your sentiments entirely. I tend to look at their shoes
as well.

Post by Becky
They're the reason
some places will offer fish as the 'vegetarian option', for example.
They're actually worse than vegetarians for being sanctimonious, to be
honest: some of them want the kudos for being perceived as sensitive
and ethical and so on, but they don't actually follow it up by avoiding
animal products.

Ethical? OK, you know my pov...

Post by Becky
defend it! :) Why can't people just say 'I don't eat X/Y/Z'? It's not
about being holier than thou, it's just about being accurate and
avoiding misrepresentations which can actually inconvenience other
people.

I tend to avoid cauliflower as it happens.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-30 20:29:50 UTC

Post by Robert de Vincy
we are." Hmmm. Personally, I gave up red meat because it's packed full
of unhealthy saturated fats, not because I want some perceived prestige
or bragging rights from being 100% "dyed-in-the-organic-wool" vegetarian.

Did you give up biscuits as well?

The serious point is that some saturated fat is good for you. Too
much, sure, is bad news: have a fryup every morning and eat lots of
red meat and it's bad news. But that shouldn't exclude you from eating
red meat full stop on health grounds. In fact, almost the reverse
should be true.

I have a jolly nice biscuit recipe with olive oil in it btw.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-30 20:29:49 UTC

Post by Becky
None of those really works on me, I'm afraid.
- I don't miss the taste of meat

See, typical bloody vegetarians: no sodding taste buds *:-)*

Post by Becky
- I get plenty of protein from meat substitutes, lentils and beans and
so on;

Careful to complement your proteins though - unless you insist on
eating that damned soya.

Post by Becky
- You can replace animal-derived gelatine fairly easily and I just
don't eat anything with gelatine in it

The problem with agar-agar is that it's crap to use and tastes damned
awful. Carraghean is OK, but it has it's own taste. I can live with it
if I want that taste, but leaf gel is sooooo much easier to use and
generally cooler. No jelly!!!! No panna-cotta?! Noooooooo - don't go
there.

Post by Becky
- Ease of ordering a meal is an argument from laziness! I can usually
find something I want to eat on a menu. Vegetarians aren't *that*
rare.

I don't think it is laziness actually. Veggie plates tend to be one or
two of a kind - how much cal-med cooking do veggies have to put up
with? Why should they - there *are* interesting ways of using other
ingredients, but the choice in most half-decent joints tends to be
pretty lousy. And don't even talk about the food costs on veggie
options...

Anyway, go to France and what do you get left with?

Yeah, I know there are vegetarian options, but heck, I have so much
more choice over what I eat.

All the hippies can own a sheep and love it.

Careful. I could insert some innuendo into that ifIi wanted to...

But that's a reason for eating meat then isn't it?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

mike

2005-06-22 18:55:09 UTC

This looks like a determined attempt to start off conversation in
this group again, but I'll bite.
It seems to me the question is similar to "Is it possible to be
strongly vegetarian and not believe in God or be religious in any
way?". Both the anti-abortion and vegetarian position stem from taking
the natural concern that human life should not be taken and extending
it, in the one case to animals, in the other case to unborn humans.
Plenty of people seem to combine being vegetarian (and I mean on moral
grounds, not just because they think it's healthier) with no particular
religious beliefs.
On the other hand, I'd say that taking a moral vegetarian stand *is* being
religious. It doesn't involve belief in God or anything, but it does
involve drawing a moral line and sticking to it, and a belief which isn't
rational if one takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe.

Are you saying there is no rational anti-abortion/vegetarianism argument
which takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe?

Because my anti-abortion views stem precisely *from* materialism, and
only materialism. It's all about value, right? And I value human life
very highly. I value the lives of people I am close to very highly.

I have that weird anti-abortion view where I don't care what people on
the other side of the planet do, but if someone I was close to was
considering an abortion, I'd do everything I could to convince them not to.

Not for spiritual reasons. For material reasons. Human life is rare
(unlike, say, ant life), it is delicate, highly complex and has the
potential to literally change the world. Chickens can't do that. Nor can
cows.

So not so much about morality, but about value.

As for other people ... well, the value of an item falls as a proportion
of the square of the distance it is from me (not physical distance,
obviously, I care about aua more than i care about this penny on my desk).

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as being
modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion is usually
considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and despicable. It is odd,
because to me the two beliefs stem from much the same concerns.

Being vegetarian doesn't affect non-vegetarians. We can say "so you
don't eat meat huh?" whilst munching on a hamburger. It's a liberal
view. It's a "do what you want, just don't bug me" view.

Being anti-abortion usually involves trying to impose your views on as
many people as possible ... afterall, if you didn't, then your beliefs
would make little sense (unless you are me). It's a "do what I tell you
to do" view. A conservative/authoritarian view.

adamike

Matthew Huntbach

2005-06-23 08:26:24 UTC

Post by Matthew Huntbach
On the other hand, I'd say that taking a moral vegetarian stand *is*
being religious. It doesn't involve belief in God or anything, but it does
involve drawing a moral line and sticking to it, and a belief which isn't
rational if one takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe.

Are you saying there is no rational anti-abortion/vegetarianism argument
which takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe?
Because my anti-abortion views stem precisely *from* materialism, and only
materialism. It's all about value, right? And I value human life very
highly. I value the lives of people I am close to very highly.
I have that weird anti-abortion view where I don't care what people on the
other side of the planet do, but if someone I was close to was considering
an abortion, I'd do everything I could to convince them not to.
Not for spiritual reasons. For material reasons. Human life is rare
(unlike, say, ant life), it is delicate, highly complex and has the
potential to literally change the world. Chickens can't do that. Nor can
cows.

That sounds to me a very spiritual argument. A strictly materialistic line
would say all that matters is me, my survival, and my enjoyment. The
materialistic argument against murder is that if a convention against
it is established my life is preserved - I have made a deal with my
fellow human being that you don't kill me and I don't kill you. But
I can safely accept the killing of foetuses and animals because I am
neither a foetus nor an animal. If I believe there is some sort of higher
set of values beyond my own self-preservation, then I have already taken
a step towards the religious.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as being
modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion is
usually considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and despicable.
It is odd, because to me the two beliefs stem from much the same concerns.

Being vegetarian doesn't affect non-vegetarians. We can say "so you don't
eat meat huh?" whilst munching on a hamburger. It's a liberal view. It's a
"do what you want, just don't bug me" view.

It might have been said "being opposed to hunting does not affect
hunters - we can say 'so you don't hunt, huh?' whilst getting ready to
go out and follow the hounds". But now hunting is banned because the
majority feel it to be morally wrong. If people who were vegetarians
because they believe it to be morally wrong to kill animals became a
clear majority, for how long would slaughterhouses remain legal?

Post by mike
Being anti-abortion usually involves trying to impose your views on as many
people as possible ... afterall, if you didn't, then your beliefs would
make little sense (unless you are me). It's a "do what I tell you to do"
view. A conservative/authoritarian view.

Anti-abortionists believe killing foetuses is wrong, moral vegetarians
believe killing animals is wrong. I don't see why either is any more or
less likely to try to impose their views on others.

Matthew Huntbach

mike

2005-06-23 09:19:24 UTC

Are you saying there is no rational anti-abortion/vegetarianism
argument which takes a strictly materialistic view of the universe?
Because my anti-abortion views stem precisely *from* materialism, and
only materialism. It's all about value, right? And I value human life
very highly. I value the lives of people I am close to very highly.
I have that weird anti-abortion view where I don't care what people on
the other side of the planet do, but if someone I was close to was
considering an abortion, I'd do everything I could to convince them not to.
Not for spiritual reasons. For material reasons. Human life is rare
(unlike, say, ant life), it is delicate, highly complex and has the
potential to literally change the world. Chickens can't do that. Nor
can cows.

How does that account for a liking of money? Or random 'stuff' which
isn't necessary for a person's existence? Like art, or lots of computer
stuff, or teddy bears. *That's* materialism. These things are valued,
not because they are necessary for existence, but because the owner
places value upon them.

Same with life. I value life, not because I believe in a god who created
us and we must all worship, but because I think it is inherently
special. In the same way an art lover might think a painting painted by
someone famous is inherently special.

I value my computer processor because it is delicate, highly complex,
and has huge potential to compute stuff. However, there are millions of
them and it's very easy and cheap to go out and buy one, should this one
break. Furthermore, it's nowhere near as complex as a human brain. Thus,
I don't value it as highly as human life.

Where's the spirituality in that?

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It strikes me as odd that being vegetarian is usually considered as being
modern and progressive and admirable, while being anti-abortion is
usually considered to be old-fashioned and conservative and
despicable. It is odd, because to me the two beliefs stem from much
the same concerns.

Being vegetarian doesn't affect non-vegetarians. We can say "so you
don't eat meat huh?" whilst munching on a hamburger. It's a liberal
view. It's a "do what you want, just don't bug me" view.

That's a fair point. And there are some animal activist type people who
probably want everyone to stop eating meat. But these are a very few people.

Post by mike
Being anti-abortion usually involves trying to impose your views on as
many people as possible ... afterall, if you didn't, then your beliefs
would make little sense (unless you are me). It's a "do what I tell
you to do" view. A conservative/authoritarian view.

Anti-abortionists believe killing foetuses is wrong, moral vegetarians
believe killing animals is wrong. I don't see why either is any more or
less likely to try to impose their views on others.

Perhaps because anti-abortionists place a higher value on human life
than vegetarians place on animal life.

Or maybe because <adam prepares to duck> anti-aboritionists tend to be
religious, which has the whole "do what you are told else god will get
you" thing about it, so they lead authoritarian lives, being used to
follow orders and convention and doing what other people think they
should do (I'm thinking mainly about evangelical americans here who
display a remarkable inability to use their brain).

Whereas vegetarians are brought up in a meat-eating world, they have
been given the freedom of choice, they've made their decision and are
happy with it. But they respect the freedom of choice more, precisely
because they were allowed to live their life by it.

Or maybe the vegetarian argument is way harder than the anti-abortion
argument, so they just don't bother :)

am
di
ak
me

jrg

2005-06-25 16:26:28 UTC

Post by mike
Not for spiritual reasons. For material reasons. Human life is rare
(unlike, say, ant life), it is delicate, highly complex and has the
potential to literally change the world. Chickens can't do that. Nor can
cows.

Human life isn't that rare, there are what like 6 billion people on the
planet and scientists tell us it will be almost twice that before long.
And it's not hard to create lots more people (I'm sure I needn't
explain how it works). The life of insects is just as delicate and not
that much less complex than human life. Animals can change the world -
e.g. rats carrying fleas carrying the plague one wiped out half the
population of Europe.

I am neither a vegetarian nor pro-life/anti-abortion. As far as I'm
concerned the world is just a bunch of stuff that happens to happen.

James

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-06-26 22:10:41 UTC

Post by jrg

Human life isn't that rare,

But isn't the point that there are x zillion species on the planet yet
only one that perceives it in the way we do and has evolved to the
extent that it can dominate the others and their habitat in the way we
do?

Post by jrg
there are what like 6 billion people on the
planet and scientists tell us it will be almost twice that before long.

I could claim that it's geographers telling you that of course **:-)**

Post by jrg
And it's not hard to create lots more people (I'm sure I needn't
explain how it works).

Oh, but I wanted to learn that bit :-)

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Ian B.

2005-07-04 12:32:52 UTC

I'm guessing no-one answered question 1, I suggest you try
www.readfreenews.net for a great free news server. It works well enough
for me.

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-07-04 21:24:57 UTC

Post by Ian B.
I'm guessing no-one answered question 1, I suggest you try
www.readfreenews.net for a great free news server. It works well enough
for me.

Time passes eh? Once upon a time a geeky question like this would have
solicited 50 follow-ups whilst the ethical sub-question would have
gotten maybe 10 :-)

Hmm, can I add anything. My little one had his first day at school
today. See, time passes eh?

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

Ian B.

2005-07-05 19:12:43 UTC

Post by Ian B.
I'm guessing no-one answered question 1, I suggest you try
www.readfreenews.net for a great free news server. It works well enough
for me.

I can't remember a time when a cliché of an ethical question wouldn't
provoke a huge response, but I certainly remember a time when 50 answers
to a geeky question would be given. It's a sad state of affairs, this
used to be so good for answering geeky questions :-(.

Time does indeed pass too quick, have I really finished a year at
Imperial or was it all a dream, and I'll wake up tomorrow with an
A-level chemistry exam still to do? I reckon the latter ;-).

Ginnie Redston

2005-07-15 16:05:20 UTC

Post by Ian B.
I'm guessing no-one answered question 1, I suggest you try
www.readfreenews.net for a great free news server. It works well enough
for me.

Has time passed THAT quickly? He must have started young surely? Hope he
liked it.

:-)

Ginnie

Ian/Cath Ford

2005-07-15 18:51:00 UTC

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:05:20 +0000 (UTC), "Ginnie Redston"

Post by Ginnie Redston

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
Hmm, can I add anything. My little one had his first day at school
today. See, time passes eh?

Has time passed THAT quickly? He must have started young surely? Hope he
liked it.
:-)

Oh, time passes and I seem to be getting fatter as well :-)

Eoin seemed to be fine at school. He seems to be looking forward to it
and has already discovered that there's an Owen and 2 Georgia's in his
class. The people there seemed to think he had a nice time as well. I
guess being dumped at nursery 4 days a week since he was 6 months old
has some benefits anyway - we should get away with fewer tears in
September.

It's my last not-working Monday on Monday btw. I have to start working
them again in September :-( On the other hand it's also my last
working Friday next week as they said I could have that off now :-)

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin and Calum Ford
Beccles, Suffolk, UK

I loved the word you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

There's no e-mail address. We can talk here and go back to your place later

sachi

2005-07-14 12:56:10 UTC

Your second question is interesting.

Pro-life is a view/opinion about something. Religion is a big
structured set of views/opinions based around the central concept of
god (or so). You can have one view from a set and not necessarily share
the rest. But usually in these sets, one view relates/implies another
view in some way.

So you can do a few things i guess:
(1) Take on that view and ignore the links to related views, i.e. avoid
the 'why am i pro-life' question.
(2) Analyse views related to 'pro-life' (i.e. about god n stuff etc)
and decide from that if you should be pro-life etc

In most cases i've done (2) which means you have to answer the 'why'
question, i.e. why am i pro-life? Once you have an answer, use that
answer and make up a second why question to ask yourself. And so on
until you reach a question which you cannot answer, and nobody else
can.

So your question about 'is it possible to have one view and not the
rest' -> thats completely up to you -> you are your own category. You
can choose to be whatever you like, this may not be logical to someone
else -> i.e. blindly going with something -> but thats your buisness.

Rule of thumb: your all your knowledge to analyse all that you
hear/see/think without ignoring anything any-doctrine etc...as thats
the best you can do

sa

jrg

2005-07-17 00:16:26 UTC

It looks like it truly is sachi! Hello sachi! Maybe I just misremember,
but isn't that your first post in about 4 years? Unless you include the
fact that Niall quoted you in his signature for a while.

James

sachi

2005-08-10 18:04:08 UTC

Post by jrg
It looks like it truly is sachi! Hello sachi! Maybe I just misremember,
but isn't that your first post in about 4 years? Unless you include the
fact that Niall quoted you in his signature for a while.
James

yep first post for ages. i think i might have posted something in the
last year or so, but apart from that i've not been on the forum.
is niall still about? how u doing?

jrg

2005-08-13 18:45:25 UTC

No, Niall does not still to be about any more. Last time he posted here
he was flying to and from Finland and working for Symbian. I'm doing
OK, I'm currently working in IT in Norway and Sweden.

Perhaps more people should join the aua Scandinavian contingent.

Becky

2005-08-13 20:26:25 UTC