Animal rights, Vegans/Vegetarians, abortion and suffering?

Question

I have a few questions for the animal rights activists, Vegans and Vegetarians that have that lifestyle because they would like to see a reduction in the amount of suffering in the world.

If abortion was a painful way for the foetus to die, would you be against it? What if it wasn't painful for it?

Are you ok with the humane raising and slaughter of animals? For example if someone has a small farm and gives their animals a lot of love and care as they grow, and then slaughters them humanely.

Obviously it would be better to reduce the number of unwanted animals, but in the current situation are you ok with euthanising healthy animals because there are too many to look after?

Is it possible to be against legalised abortion and a meat-eater without having an underlying religious reason?

Answer 1

Uh.... What???!??  You know, most places serve decaf.

Answer 2

uh are you serious?? these 2 issues are totally different!!  

Answer 3

Yes, but I'd still say that it should be legal.

Uh, no. Duh.

Yes. Totally okay.

Unfortunate, but better than letting them starve. I'm more in favor of the "fix and release" programs out there.

Probably.  

Answer 4

yes it's possible.  i'm one and most people i know are.  we are meat eaters and we are not abortionists.

Answer 5

hmmm.. I have a feeling this answer may take a while so please bear with me :)

And just for the record: I'm a vegan, firm supporter of animal rights and yes... I am such because I "want to see a reduction in the amount of suffering in the world" (as well as health/environmental reasons).

Abortion:

My views on animal rights are based upon sentience (i.e. the capacity to feel pain) and the interests of an animal to continue it's existence.

While I admit there may be grey areas regarding the sentience of late term foetuses, it is clear that early term foetuses are not sentient. Also, foetuses do not have in interest in continuing their existence (as a consequence of its non-sentience).

For these reasons (not taking the woman/societal pressures into account) I am pro-choice. So in answer to your question would I oppose abortion if it was not painful for the foetus... it isn't and so no I don't.

When it comes to your (hypothetical) scenario that abortion was actually painful for the foetus... this presents a unique dilemma (very different to the situation in which we kill other animals). The foetus is not a separate entity from the woman. One right holder exists within another. We can not just remove a foetus from the woman without impinging on the woman's bodily autonomy and forcing her to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. As the foetus is dependant on the woman for having its interests in the first place I would err on the side of the woman, granting her final power to decide the fate of her body and the right-holder within.

Also, even if I were to decide that abortion causes more suffering than the continuation of an unwanted pregnancy, many woman (due to the conflict described above) would disagree with my decision. Even if we made abortion illegal, women would still seek to abort their pregnancies (as they have done in the past). The horrors of illegal abortions should be sufficient to convince anyone to be pro-choice even if they are not pro-abortion (in my opinion).

So to simplify: If it were painful for the foetus, the situation is more complicated. However, I would still be pro-choice as the rights of the foetus (afforded by hypothetical sentience) impinge on the rights of the woman.

Humane raising and slaughter of animals:

Firstly I would like to point out that in our modern agricultural system this is impossible. Animals are viewed as production units. It is not profitable to love/care for animals and slaughter them "humanely".

Secondly, I would question whether any slaughter can be considered humane. I assume that you are referring to a situation where the animal in question is euthanized while it sleeps.

Imagine I did that to you. Certainly the process of your death would not have caused you to suffer, however, most people would still assume it to be wrong, and me to be a murderer. Why? Because by killing you (however "humanely") I am depriving you of any future experiences you may have had as a sentient being.

Am I ok with the "humane raising and slaughter of animals"? In my view there is not such thing.

As for the argument that "humaner" options should be promoted as they are better than the status quo:

I'm an abolitionist and believe that encouraging the use of more "humane" animal products (such as free range, CAK etc) only re-inforces the idea that animal exploitation is ok and makes it more profitable for the companies involved. "Kinder, gentler" exploitation is not the answer and, if anything, only encourages more animal use.

Unwanted animals:

Yes, many animals suffer as a result of our domestication and then abandonment of them. However, I do not see the euthanizing of these animals as a morally acceptable solution.

There are also many homeless people in the world, should we euthanize them as well?

No, of course not! We should do all in our power to make sure they are cared for and to change the social conditions which resulted in them becoming homeless. The same for "unwanted" animals.

"No-kill" shelters do this by setting up sanctuaries where "adoptable" animals can either be reconditioned to human company or live the rest of their lives in peace. They solve the myth of pet overpopulation by actively searching for good homes for these animals (rather than waiting for potential adopters to visit the shelter themselves).

Anti-abortion, Meat Eater, non-religious:

Yes I think this is possible, if only because many people act in ways which are not logical. I'm sure there are non-religious meat eating anti-abortionists out there who think their views are perfectly justified. I assume they are based upon a view that humans (including foetuses) are superior to all other animals (including women). Personally I do not understand this logic (if any body who fits the above description wants to email me and clarify their position feel free!). Being vegan and pro-choice I find it hard to grasp this side of the argument!

Answer 6

It's possible to be a meat eater who has no religious reason. Definitely. If that's what you mean by that question. It is also possible to be against abortion without a religious reason.

However, only being concerned about animals sufferings is not enough. It is us who suffer for the act of taking a life. Call it a religious reason or not. It's karma.

Answer 7

No (my body), no (my body), yes, yes, you tell me.

Answer 8

Of course it's possible. If you look for them you can find a person that believes in just about everything. Abortion and meat eating are not even really related issues, so people will believe in each or be against each depending on who they are.