4 ms·

I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick?

ceejayoz 6y ago
For anti-abortion vegans/vegetarians, quite possibly. If you're already eating meat, you're already demonstrably OK with the killing of an animal.
- SkyBelow 6y ago
  Morals of meat treatment seems to be a vast whirlwind of inconsistency that I think largely stem from people know having a full understanding of how their meat gets on the table. I've grown up rural enough to have butchered a few animals and can easily talk about it while at the dinner table, but many people seem to have this extremely strong line between the animal and the meat, and even if they intellectually known they are related, it isn't emotionally connecting.
- orblivion 6y ago
  > anti-abortion vegans/vegetarians Probably not many out there. Which is funny since it would seem at a distance to come from the same instinct. My best guess is that it's political tribalism that creates the split.
wnoise 6y ago
They generally don't care because it's not humans being killed. You'd need to ask an anti-abortion vegan.
- corytheboyd 6y ago
  Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally. I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections) For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized, and seeing such clear pandering to emotion to win votes is so fucking tiring to see happen now, it’s tiring to read about it throughout history, and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future.
  - deathanatos 6y ago
    While I don't agree with the right's view, I wish more people would take the approach of steelmanning[1] their political stance before trying to debate it. Do you really not see how someone on the right could simply accuse you of the same bad behavior as you have of them? > For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized But put yourself in a charitable version of your opponent's shoes: they believe it's a violation of the 5th amendment, and tantamount to murder. From the GOP platform, > the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed While I have personally heard convincing counter-arguments to this (as I said, I don't agree with the right), I don't hear them being stated by anyone at a high level on the left. The left's repeated talking point is that women have a right to their own body; but that view ignores, I think, that it's fully possible for someone on the right to believe that, but simultaneously believe that the rights of the unborn child take precedence. I have yet to hear someone high on the left address why either they believe that the right's stance on an unborn child's right to the 5th is wrong (and thus, a woman's right prevails as it is the only thing) or why the unborn child's right to the 5th is trumped by the woman's right to her body. > and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future. I sincerely think that if the left took the time to argue against the steelmanned argument from the right, we might actually make progress at convincing people, and actually moving the debate forward. But, as it is, one side is screaming "it's murder!" the other "women's right's!", neither addressing the other's position or views. How is that ever to move forward? Yes, there are plenty of uncharitable arguments made by politicians on the right, and one can no doubt cherry-pick an endless litany of examples. But that you can I do not believe frees you from the requirement of arguing a good, solid argument for your own viewpoint. Do you really think that half the nation is doing no more than "pandering to emotion", or that perhaps some subset of them might sincerely hold a view on the issue that might differ from your own? While I don't agree with the right, I can certainly see how anyone on that side would be left utterly unconvinced by the rhetoric being produced on the left. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
    - corytheboyd 6y ago
      I agree with you, you have two sides that believe their side is the only side. What do you do? Where do you start to break this impasse? Look I get that I was wrong in stating my own opinion, in such a way the vilified the other side. Such behavior will not lead to compromise, so I’m happy to say I myself have no influence over politics
disown 6y ago
> I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. I don't think it matter whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion since it's a chicken we are talking about. The abortion debate is about human life. Why post such flamebait? > In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick? Fundamentally, a male chick dies/ceases to exist/etc. I'm "pro-abortion" but the problem with fundamentalists like you is that you give everybody a bad name. Stop trying to turn everything to push your agenda. Would you be okay with someone stepping on an egg with a male chick inside it? Probably not. Does it make pro-abortion view hypocritical? Not really. Because at the extremes, things get uncomfortable for both sides of the argument.
finder83 6y ago
Anti-abortion person here, this is just my view/opinion. Well, my first thought was "this isn't no kill, it's just chicken abortion". They're still killing chickens regardless. Maybe there's someone for whom this makes a difference; I'm not one of them. But yeah...it's not human, and I eat chicken anyway. Religiously I am against human abortion because there is a sanctity in human life that does not apply to animals. In Christianity, humans are made in the image of God, are the only ones who contain a spirit, and are the only ones for whom there is a mandate in the Old Testament that if a human is murdered, then the one who murdered them should be put to death. That's not to say that animals are worthless in any way, and animal life is protected in other ways. Purposelessly killing animals bothers me too, in that it's wasteful and we should be better stewards of life in general. It feels that this article is rather disingenuous based on the title though.

ceejayoz 6y ago

For anti-abortion vegans/vegetarians, quite possibly. If you're already eating meat, you're already demonstrably OK with the killing of an animal.

SkyBelow 6y ago
Morals of meat treatment seems to be a vast whirlwind of inconsistency that I think largely stem from people know having a full understanding of how their meat gets on the table. I've grown up rural enough to have butchered a few animals and can easily talk about it while at the dinner table, but many people seem to have this extremely strong line between the animal and the meat, and even if they intellectually known they are related, it isn't emotionally connecting.
orblivion 6y ago
> anti-abortion vegans/vegetarians Probably not many out there. Which is funny since it would seem at a distance to come from the same instinct. My best guess is that it's political tribalism that creates the split.

wnoise 6y ago

They generally don't care because it's not humans being killed. You'd need to ask an anti-abortion vegan.

corytheboyd 6y ago
Warning: American viewpoint that might not make as much sense applied globally. I’d go so far as to say it’s also because it is not heavily politicized either. The political right already has (human) abortion to win the emotional vote, they have no reason to go any further as those people will never change their minds on average (which is good enough to win elections) For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized, and seeing such clear pandering to emotion to win votes is so fucking tiring to see happen now, it’s tiring to read about it throughout history, and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future.
- deathanatos 6y ago
  While I don't agree with the right's view, I wish more people would take the approach of steelmanning[1] their political stance before trying to debate it. Do you really not see how someone on the right could simply accuse you of the same bad behavior as you have of them? > For the record I don’t at all think abortion should be politicized But put yourself in a charitable version of your opponent's shoes: they believe it's a violation of the 5th amendment, and tantamount to murder. From the GOP platform, > the unborn child has a fundamental right to life which cannot be infringed While I have personally heard convincing counter-arguments to this (as I said, I don't agree with the right), I don't hear them being stated by anyone at a high level on the left. The left's repeated talking point is that women have a right to their own body; but that view ignores, I think, that it's fully possible for someone on the right to believe that, but simultaneously believe that the rights of the unborn child take precedence. I have yet to hear someone high on the left address why either they believe that the right's stance on an unborn child's right to the 5th is wrong (and thus, a woman's right prevails as it is the only thing) or why the unborn child's right to the 5th is trumped by the woman's right to her body. > and it’s tiring to know it’s going nowhere for the future. I sincerely think that if the left took the time to argue against the steelmanned argument from the right, we might actually make progress at convincing people, and actually moving the debate forward. But, as it is, one side is screaming "it's murder!" the other "women's right's!", neither addressing the other's position or views. How is that ever to move forward? Yes, there are plenty of uncharitable arguments made by politicians on the right, and one can no doubt cherry-pick an endless litany of examples. But that you can I do not believe frees you from the requirement of arguing a good, solid argument for your own viewpoint. Do you really think that half the nation is doing no more than "pandering to emotion", or that perhaps some subset of them might sincerely hold a view on the issue that might differ from your own? While I don't agree with the right, I can certainly see how anyone on that side would be left utterly unconvinced by the rhetoric being produced on the left. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning
  - corytheboyd 6y ago
    I agree with you, you have two sides that believe their side is the only side. What do you do? Where do you start to break this impasse? Look I get that I was wrong in stating my own opinion, in such a way the vilified the other side. Such behavior will not lead to compromise, so I’m happy to say I myself have no influence over politics

disown 6y ago

> I wonder where anti-abortion people come down on this. I don't think it matter whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion since it's a chicken we are talking about. The abortion debate is about human life. Why post such flamebait? > In their view, isn’t destroying the male egg the same as culling the male chick? Fundamentally, a male chick dies/ceases to exist/etc. I'm "pro-abortion" but the problem with fundamentalists like you is that you give everybody a bad name. Stop trying to turn everything to push your agenda. Would you be okay with someone stepping on an egg with a male chick inside it? Probably not. Does it make pro-abortion view hypocritical? Not really. Because at the extremes, things get uncomfortable for both sides of the argument.

finder83 6y ago

Anti-abortion person here, this is just my view/opinion. Well, my first thought was "this isn't no kill, it's just chicken abortion". They're still killing chickens regardless. Maybe there's someone for whom this makes a difference; I'm not one of them. But yeah...it's not human, and I eat chicken anyway. Religiously I am against human abortion because there is a sanctity in human life that does not apply to animals. In Christianity, humans are made in the image of God, are the only ones who contain a spirit, and are the only ones for whom there is a mandate in the Old Testament that if a human is murdered, then the one who murdered them should be put to death. That's not to say that animals are worthless in any way, and animal life is protected in other ways. Purposelessly killing animals bothers me too, in that it's wasteful and we should be better stewards of life in general. It feels that this article is rather disingenuous based on the title though.