Eating babies

I personally think that 'killing a baby' is no worse than killing any animal capable of feeling pain, however the baby itself in society represents a symbol of innocence, the idea of it shocks people because they are expecting the baby to have the same rights as a fully grown adult when in reality the singular loss of one baby changes nothing in the world, much the same as a pig.

I personally think that 'killing a baby' is no worse than killing any animal capable of feeling pain, however the baby itself in society represents a symbol of innocence, the idea of it shocks people because they are expecting the baby to have the same rights as a fully grown adult when in reality the singular loss of one baby changes nothing in the world, much the same as a pig.

I like your bravado. Now choose what you would prefer to kill and eat. We are gradually becoming aware of the horrors of our natural and necessary needs. It does not mean we have to degrade our needs to the ancient past and consume human flesh. We take small and decisive steps towards civilisation but do not be so bold as to believe we can not resort to our animal instincts when circumstances demand. I think the man who can kill and gut his food is more honest and ethical than the new man who chooses free range over battery.

Realistically, eating a baby would not be considered barbaric if there was no-one to consider it. Cannibal tribesmen who are brought up on eating human flesh may very well believe eating cows and chickens barbaric, it is the narrow-minded view of society that creates the illusions of good and evil. I agree with your statement about the man killing his own food, at least he knows exactly how what he's eating died.

Realistically, eating a baby would not be considered barbaric if there was no-one to consider it. Cannibal tribesmen who are brought up on eating human flesh may very well believe eating cows and chickens barbaric, it is the narrow-minded view of society that creates the illusions of good and evil. I agree with your statement about the man killing his own food, at least he knows exactly how what he's eating died.

There are many things considered correct in barbaric and archaic societies. Such as slavery, hanging homosexuals or stoning adulterers. It does not concur that it's correct or ethical.

If everybody killed and ate all the babies there would soon be no people left alive.However if everyone killed and ate selected babies our species could be artifically conserved. The fault with this argument is that if we artificially farmed our own species we would not be the human species we know but a new breed that feels no disgust at cannibalism or horror at deprivation of individual freedoms.

Speciesism is a strange little argument. I think few of us would watch our children go hungry with a deer in the back yard. Yet we probably would if it was our neighbor int eh back yard. But how are lines drawn? Pulling up a carrot in it's youth when they bear seed in their second year is okay? Killing flies? Giving your child penicillin?

Of course we make these judgments. It's our nature to do so. In my philosophical persuasion it is almost criminal to not accept your suffering footprint. To make certain choices and not make the ultimate choice of taking your life and reducing your footprint to zero is to me obfuscated dishonesty about the nature of your existence.

The other issue that I really can't get over is what the impact would be if we all quickly equated eating cows to eating babies and we killed the meat industry. Change is inevitable but kidding yourself about YOU being the one to decide what that change should be bothers me deeply. I liken this to what any great dictator thought he was doing.

We have concentric circles that we are biologically compelled to draw and we almost always draw them the same way. Unless we are fat in our armchairs and have the luxury of making up new catchy things like speciesism.

If you actually needed food for your family the meatless effort to relieve imaginary suffering cattle would be the last thing on your mind.

This is a difficult topic (though I do have semantic problems with the topic, "Eating Babies"), so a few disconnected comments is the best I can do.

1. Abortion occurs in nature all the time and nobody makes a fuss about that.

2. The issue of sentinence is certainly a relevant one, but I don't know where to draw the line. Anyone who has looked into the eyes of a horse, a cow, a pig has to know there's intelligence there.

3. Brain studies indicate that the frontal lobes in the brain of an adolescent do not fully mature until around the twentieth year. This implies an evolving of sentience--an observation that may speak to abortion and to the issue of when life begins.

4. Because the issue of personal survival is so vital to each of us there is a natural tendency to attach sentimental (subjective) significance to it when speaking of babies. This is perhaps natural, but it may well behoove us all to be wary of a naturally instilled process that owes very little to rationality.

5. Scott writes about the possibility of scientific food production, a development that might alleviate the guilt we feel about eating the living; it will do little, however to address the problems of over-population and "the eating of babies."

6. From the advent of the first molecule, all life has been predicated upon "eating" another form to secure survival. It was designed into the system, and our problems originate from the fact of conscience--a prime factor in psychological survival.

7. Sentience, I suggest, begins with the concept of self as a separate, living organism--again, I don't know where to draw the line. Anything we "eat" before that is a potentiality, a metaphorical possibility.

Speed of Sound, I don't think you understand the concept of speciesism yet. It's about equal consideration of interests. The same interests should be treated the same way. Bacteria or carrots do not have an interest to live because they're not sentient, they have no interests at all. Flies might not be sentient either, and if they are, they definitely don't have future plans or anything, the only interests that might apply for flies is that they dislike suffering.

In the situation with a deer in the backyard, you have two beings with an interest not to suffer (baby and deer), and one being with an interest that the baby grows older (you), so obviously it would not be speciesist to kill the deer painlessly and eat it. But why are you coming up with such weird examples? We don't live in the stone age anymore. Get over the whole "it's luxury" thing, we both live in countries that are filled with luxury. We do have a choice, and that's what matters. It's not about us or our children starving. It's about preventing all the unnecessary suffering in the animal industry. And all of it is unnecessary in the light of the healthy vegan alternatives.

Speed of Sound, I don't think you understand the concept of speciesism yet. It's about equal consideration of interests. The same interests should be treated the same way. Bacteria or carrots do not have an interest to live because they're not sentient, they have no interests at all. Flies might not be sentient either, and if they are, they definitely don't have future plans or anything, the only interests that might apply for flies is that they dislike suffering.

In the situation with a deer in the backyard, you have two beings with an interest not to suffer (baby and deer), and one being with an interest that the baby grows older (you), so obviously it would not be speciesist to kill the deer painlessly and eat it. But why are you coming up with such weird examples? We don't live in the stone age anymore. Get over the whole "it's luxury" thing, we both live in countries that are filled with luxury. We do have a choice, and that's what matters. It's not about us or our children starving. It's about preventing all the unnecessary suffering in the animal industry. And all of it is unnecessary in the light of the healthy vegan alternatives.

I understand it quite well. Just checking to see if you were willing to admit that this is about your ideas on sentience, interests, and meaning. All tidy human concepts.

So you don't have any qualms about killing the deer and feeding it to baby. Painlessly. In truth that isn't always possible to pull off but we can leave that.

So you idea is that cows have interests and meaning and that they suffer needlessly. The first part is an anthropic projection. The second part is you doing a lot of deciding for some cows that were you to have your way would not even get a shot at existing.

An overall theme is an imagining and quantification of suffering. A belief in imaginary things. These are concepts you have constructed and I do not share that construction with you.

I like cows. From the bottle to the table. Oddly I also like suffering and tragedy. I think my background of farming and butchering has left me with a more organic feel for things than you may have. When I eat meat I have a sense of suffering and am quite conscious of all that my dinner entails. I guess I imagine cows as being like they were when I bottle fed them as a kid and later ate them. That may be my unrealistic imaginings about the current state of affairs.

Now if cows are suffering some painful existence, like the deer in my back yard, I want to know about that and would also like the names and addresses of the companies and distributors involved. I may well alter my buying habits to support that cause. But this idea of eating less meat to drive all meat companies out of business, and consequently all cows out of existence, is so distasteful to me that it is difficult for me to manage my emotions in these discussions.

I can not believe any farmer does not know the consequences of milk production in modern farming methods. The cows have been modified to produce more and more milk. It has resulted chronic pain due to deformed body shape and distortion of their legs. Their movement has become restricted and they suffer from physical exhaustion. We as consumers must bare the same guilt as the farmers but lets not pretend we do not have a certain responsibility for the animals we exploit for our benefit. Paying that little extra for animal products and creating a system that treats animals with respect is the very least we should be doing. As for eating babies it has no economic value unless we modify our body mass in relation to the quantity of food input. If surrogate mothers could do it for nothing then it might become a luxury food stuff for special occasions but I honestly don't think the marketing people would be capable of creating a demand.

So you don't have any qualms about killing the deer and feeding it to baby. Painlessly. In truth that isn't always possible to pull off but we can leave that.

Yes, even if there's a little pain it should be done. If the baby starves, it suffers too. And then the parent(s) is sad, too. I understand it if there's nothing else around to feed, but that's never the case. Why on earth would one want to feed babies meat? It's unhealthy, and it makes the develop an unethical liking.

So you idea is that cows have interests and meaning and that they suffer needlessly. The first part is an anthropic projection. The second part is you doing a lot of deciding for some cows that were you to have your way would not even get a shot at existing.

It's not a projection of any kind if I say that a cow doesn't want to suffer. Suffering is bad, and even if that's the only interest a cow has, it's enough.

Could you please read this thread carefully? I repeatedly made the point that one cannot hurt a non-existing being! Yes, the cow doesn't get a shot at existing if we don't breed it and hold them captive in masses. So what? If you really think there are non-existing entities being harmed by such decision, you would have to condemn every couple that decides to stop having children, or that doesn't have children to begin with. Is that really your view?

Paying that little extra for animal products and creating a system that treats animals with respect is the very least we should be doing.

This may help the animals in the short term, but not in the long term. It will lead to consumers having a better conscience, even though the situation would still be intolerable. Where there's competition and profit, it's virtually impossible to raise animals without suffering. IMO the least one ought to do is to admit that the arguments for veganism are sound and then eat much less animal products. Or provide a better argument.

If you think changing the general public's ethical relationship with animals can be done in one easy step then your fooling yourself. We are by nature meat eaters,without that basic necessity we would not capable of even having the time or the ability to contemplate this subject. We would still be grazing on nuts and chewing grass for 12 hours a day. Yes it would be nice to live without our desire for meat but that will only come in stages. You want them to suffer because it makes your argument more convincing. How is that ethically correct for anyone who fights for animal welfare?

I don't want anyone to suffer. But if the choice is between A LOT of suffering and a tiny bit of suffering, I will choose the latter.

It seems like you have a wrong impression about vegetarian or vegan food. It's not like one can't eat anything good anymore. There are vegan alternatives to all animal products, they taste almost the same. There's hardly any suffering, and even if there is, that will be compensated by feeling good about doing something good.

Also, the more vegans there are, the more society will adapt. More vegan food will be offered, and resources will be spent improving its taste, consistency and whatever. It's true that change won't happen overnight. But it's time to make first steps.

I don't want anyone to suffer. But if the choice is between A LOT of suffering and a tiny bit of suffering, I will choose the latter.

It seems like you have a wrong impression about vegetarian or vegan food. It's not like one can't eat anything good anymore. There are vegan alternatives to all animal products, they taste almost the same. There's hardly any suffering, and even if there is, that will be compensated by feeling good about doing something good.

Also, the more vegans there are, the more society will adapt. More vegan food will be offered, and resources will be spent improving its taste, consistency and whatever. It's true that change won't happen overnight. But it's time to make first steps.

No one can even contemplate living a vegan life style. The industrialized world uses animal products in almost everything. The individual who believes by his sacrifice is advancing the animal cause is naive and self interested. Suffering is subjective and you do not appear to understand the difference between contemplative fear and animal abuse.

No one can even contemplate living a vegan life style. The industrialized world uses animal products in almost everything. The individual who believes by his sacrifice is advancing the animal cause is naive and self interested. Suffering is subjective and you do not appear to understand the difference between contemplative fear and animal abuse.

Suffering is subjective? Put your finger on a table and whack it with a hammer, hard. Then say that again.

If veganism is so hard, people can at least make steps in the right direction. Vegetarianism for instance is socially accepted and it can't be that hard if 5% of the people already do it. I understand that one doesn't consider veganism practicable if one is uninformed. I didn't think I could ever do it either. That's why one shouldn't make blanket judgements without trying it out first.

Whether veganism is hard or not heavily depends on where you live, and what your social environment is.