Can you be pro-life and shoot a deer?

[minionofmidas]

What's the difference between eating a pig killed in a factory and shooting a deer? For your logic to become one, you would have to at least extend it to "can you be pro-life and not be a vegetarian?"

[minionofmidas]

What's the difference between eating a pig killed in a factory and shooting a deer?

It's probably more humane to shoot a deer...

I agree.
At least the deer has had a life.

[minionofmidas]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

Ah, but that's like believing a chicken egg is precious life while a human is meant for food purposes.

A distinction of a is food, b is holy, is utterly inconsistent no matter where you put it.
You'll just have to accept that you're devouring precious life in order to maintain your own life, and this is as god ordained it. It's all a cycle. (And no, that doesn't make abortions a good or okay thing)

[minionofmidas]

A distinction of a is food, b is holy, is utterly inconsistent no matter where you put it.
You'll just have to accept that you're devouring precious life in order to maintain your own life, and this is as god ordained it.

No, it is not inconsistent: if I believe that one type of life is more precious than another, and that the type that is less precious is available strictly for me and others who are in my same species to use, there is no inconsistency.  You assume that I think human life and animal life are equal: if I believed this, then yes, I would be inconsistent.

Ah well, but the assumption they aren't equal is a fairly stupid and utterly ungrounded one. . And the part about "available strictly for me and others in the same species to use"...I don't get that? You mean a bear has no right to eat venison, it belongs to humans? Or what?

[minionofmidas]

How is the assumption that human life and animal life are inequal stupid and unground?  I think it's safe to give that description to the opposite assumption.  If you don't see a difference in worth between a human and say, a bear, that is frightening.

From a global perspective, there is nothing special or unique about mankind, nothing that sets us apart from all other species.
Obviously human society will have to be primarily involved with making rules about humans, and will place a higher value on a human life, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But then sheep and bees care more about their fellow sheep or bee than about other species, too, you know.
But from a global point of view, all life is equal and equally sacred. And will get eaten, if you want to buried rather than cremated that is.

[minionofmidas]

Coming from a more biological perspective here...there is no one trait that totally sets us apart. Sure we got the most developed language by far, and the largest brain (except for whales but theirs are highly specialized to a couple of functions)...and these factors explain our civilization...but the point is, they're not unique, they're merely the top ends of a continuum.
And yeah, chimps have wars. So do ants, so I don't see what's so special about that.

[minionofmidas]

I would argue that animal emotions are based on extinct and previous experiences, while humans have all that plus a concionce, an idea of what's right and wrong, and the ability to love a fellow human.

While I would argue that animal emotions are based on instinct and previous experiences aka intelligence, and that a conscience is not very well defined, an idea of what's right and wrong is a part of intelligence, and love is an instinct. And that humans are animals. We tend automatically to exaggerate the reflected part of our actions, and the instinctive part of animal actions; or maybe we can't judge ourselves fairly and frankly aren't supposed to be able to do that.