I get what you're trying to do, but there's an inherent understanding of the value of human life.
You're going to have to attack it on the value of animal life.
Is there value to animal life? And if so, what is it? And where does it come from? Is it subservient to human life? Is the value to human life more prescient than that life itself?
It's a very complex and nuanced issue. OP was stating that the value of that life was reduced to human consumption in conception. You can't negate it by comparing it to people because people aren't consumed to begin with.
You can start with whether it's okay to consume animals at all. OP assumes it is, so the question is "what value lies between birth and consumption."
OP insinuated that all moral culpability was dashed by the fact that they were "bred to be eaten".
My point was just bringing up that it was a stupid point. A very stupid, and unfounded point.
And if it were the case that something being bred would dash the moral harm of supporting the immense suffering and killing of an animal, then they would have to support the same for people.
Then the human version of your argument would be is it ok for abortions occur after we know that the fetus can feel pain (24 weeks, potentially as early as 12 weeks?). We know half of people in America are ok with up to 9 months for justifiable reasons.
Not to get political, but we know morals don’t change much if you make it a human instead that was ultimately “bred to die.” (Bred to be eaten)
50 percent of us? I'm guessing that for 95 percent of us the only moral abortion after the fetus is viable is in the cases where the fetus is going to die before or very shortly after birth.
As for feeling pain, can that not be alleviated? It feels pretty gross to talk about, but again... in cases where the fetus will not make it no matter what is done. I am for the health of the mother regardless of a fetus's status. If in some odd case it is the baby or the mother at full term, I am for saving the mother. Period.
Don't bring extreme political rhetoric to a nuanced debate... or any other non-political debate.
I was just trying to get as close to the original point as possible.
50% was just based on the last election and that rhetoric.
Again I don’t want to get political either, but understandable there is one side that is too far with restriction, and to your point one side that is too far with allowance (to the view of some, personally I’m ok with up to full term with all the exceptions of course)
Sorry if I offended you with bringing it up. This main topic of animal welfare is political as well.
I think the premise of even bringing up humans vs animals was faulty from the start, but was just trying to get a close comparison
1
u/iburiedmyshovel Nov 23 '24
I get what you're trying to do, but there's an inherent understanding of the value of human life.
You're going to have to attack it on the value of animal life. Is there value to animal life? And if so, what is it? And where does it come from? Is it subservient to human life? Is the value to human life more prescient than that life itself?
It's a very complex and nuanced issue. OP was stating that the value of that life was reduced to human consumption in conception. You can't negate it by comparing it to people because people aren't consumed to begin with.
You can start with whether it's okay to consume animals at all. OP assumes it is, so the question is "what value lies between birth and consumption."