Abortion and Specisim

[swisscakerolls]

Hello, all! I’m hoping that you can help me with an ongoing discussion I’m having with my roomate, who is influenced by Peter Singer.

We were talking about abortion, and I was arguing that you cannot kill a person regardless of size or development because it is a person regardless.

He argued (respectfully) that my argument was spiciest, because I was not opposed to killing animals just because they are not people. He likened my argument to the claims of racial superiority Westerners used to enslave and discriminate others.

He is not religious in any way, so I need a way to answer this in secular terms. As he is atheist, he will probably not accept the idea of 3 kinds of souls.

I’ve tried looking around myself, but haven’t found much. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[jfoges]

Hello, all! I’m hoping that you can help me with an ongoing discussion I’m having with my roomate, who is influenced by Peter Singer.

We were talking about abortion, and I was arguing that you cannot kill a person regardless of size or development because it is a person regardless.

He argued (respectfully) that my argument was spiciest, because I was not opposed to killing animals just because they are not people. He likened my argument to the claims of racial superiority Westerners used to enslave and discriminate others.

He is not religious in any way, so I need a way to answer this in secular terms. As he is atheist, he will probably not accept the idea of 3 kinds of souls.

I’ve tried looking around myself, but haven’t found much. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Why not just accept that you are speciest but make a distinction between being speciest and racist. Racism harms people, but specieism doesn’t. You are mainly concerned with people

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

For the abortion comment, it’s best to say that it’s sad to kill off an opportunity rather than saying it’s wrong to kill off a human.

As for the animals, you can always compromise… to an extent. For example, I’m against animal cruelty, but I’m not opposed to killing animals for food. We have to eat. And if they come back at with that “We need to protect our fellow man” ****, then just understand that we’re not cannibals (at least, I hope not ), we’re omnivores.

Obviously, these are pretty heated topics. Definitely tough to debate between an agnostic and a religious person.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[Newbie2]

I’m pretty familiar with this “speciest” argument, so here goes:

One easy to debunk it is to ask what he (or she) eats. The answer has gotta be either plants or meat or both; there’s really nothing else.

I assume he or she will say something like “Plants, I’m a vegan”. If he (I’ll stick with he for simplicity) eats meat, he’s a speciest as well, and the arguement falls apart.

If he says just plants, well, plants are just a different species; who’s to say we can impose our will on another species?

The counter-arguement is that the speciest argument applies only to sentient beings. But in so doing, the speciest has pulled the bottom card out of their house of cards; limiting “speciesm” to sentient beings only is being a speciest.. Placing such a limitation is artificially making man and animals superior to plants, which is being a speciest. In order to be a true “non-speciest”, we would have to eat only that which does not involve other species.

The argument then become, “We can eat seeds from plants, as it does not involve killing the living plant”. Then you’ve got him.

Eating a plant’s seeds is killing their living offspring, as seeds are alive, but dormant.

Anyone who eats is a speciest, and that includes pretty much all of us, and when we all are speciests, none of us are. (Got that from a similar quote in the movie “The Incredibles”. )

 

[swisscakerolls]

that seems to be a good argument. I’ll give it a try.

Any others with thoughts please feel welcome!

 

[swisscakerolls]

As an attempt to clarify, my friend is very sensitive on any sort of discrimination/prejudice. He associates any such thing with the white supremacist beliefs of the colonial age to recent years. Therefore, any attempt I make to defend my “specism” (spelling?) I will have to thoroughly back up logically. So, simply saying, “yes, I’m a specist who only cares about people” will render me a hypocrite in his perspective.

Thanks!

 

[MoBeck]

He argued (respectfully) that my argument was spiciest, because I was not opposed to killing animals just because they are not people. He likened my argument to the claims of racial superiority Westerners used to enslave and discriminate others.

He is not religious in any way, so I need a way to answer this in secular terms. As he is atheist, he will probably not accept the idea of 3 kinds of souls.

Thanks!

First, you might tel him to read a little history – considering outsiders inferior is hardly exclusive to Western culture. It was only after centuries of struggle and warfare that Western culture became dominant.

Second, one assumes that he believes in evolution. In Darwinian terms all species are speciesist – all individual compete for to pass on their genes and the entire species competes against other species.

Last, humans alone are sentient – he may reject this argument, claiming that other species can used tools & language. But there are quanta – chimps are more intelligent than dogs & cats who are more intelligent than, say, mice, who are geniuses compared to jellyfish.
Btw, his own argument assumes that H. sap. alone is sentient and this imposes a duty to care for and protect other species. I don’t know how he can have it both ways.

 

[Newbie2]

Last, humans alone are sentient – he may reject this argument, claiming that other species can used tools & language. But there are quanta – chimps are more intelligent than dogs & cats who are more intelligent than, say, mice, who are geniuses compared to jellyfish.
Btw, his own argument assumes that H. sap. alone is sentient and this imposes a duty to care for and protect other species. I don’t know how he can have it both ways.

He probably will. Sanger’s definition of sentient is something like any creature that has the ability to feel pain or discomfort; which pretty much includes all animals, insects, worms, etc., but not plants.

 

[Ruthie]

Swisscakerolls,

I’ve been fighting this fight for a while. Peter Singer’s ideology is evil. (Don’t tell your roomie that!) I frequently call myself a real animal lover, because Singer and his ilk are not.

We are the *only *animal that has the ability to make ethical choices. That is what separates us from the other species. Because of that, it is up to us to be responsible towards other species *and *plant life.

Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PeTA, believes that humans should separate themselves from all other animal life. I’m not sure that Singer believes this, too, but it is a very wrong idea. We are not some kind of alien cancer upon this earth; we are part of the food chain, and have been from the beginning.

Because we have free will to choose between good and evil (and all the shades of gray in between), it is up to us to act in a way that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of animals, including ourselves.

For instance, regarding hunting:
Mother Nature does not provide a balance. Without human intervention, there is a constant see-sawing (if you will) between predators, herbivores, and habitat. For example, less predation on deer and rich habitat will lead to an overpopulation of deer. This leads to overbrowsing on habitat, and an increase in predator population. The loss of habitat, and over-population of predators means deer numbers drop off (from starvation as well as predation) to the point where predators starve, and habitat enriches.

Well-managed hunting keeps the numbers of deer stable, so there is no loss of habitat, and no over-population of predators. That’s balance. And humans get to eat venison, yum!

I could go on. One of Singer’s evil ideas is that, if your boat is sinking, and your two passengers are a retarded human and a Seeing Eye Dog, you should save the dog because he will contribute more to the world. That’s what he means by speciesist.

Yuck.

I hope I’ve been of some help. Feel free to PM me for more counter-arguments.

God bless you,

Ruthie

 

[Transformer]

Yeah, it is speciesism. There are no people on earth who aren’t speciesist in favor of humans–outside of insane asylums and graduate school campuses, that is.

 

[Wirraway]

…
He argued (respectfully) that my argument was spiciest, because I was not opposed to killing animals just because they are not people. He likened my argument to the claims of racial superiority Westerners used to enslave and discriminate others…!

learn how to control a debate by controlling the parameters.

tell him his analogy is beyond stupid and ask him why he’s comparing slaves to animals. don’t take him seriously. graciously concede that he is no more important than any moo cow or barky dog.

 

[swisscakerolls]

Newbie 2, I used your argument with my roomate last night, and it went well. Thanks!

 

[VARC]

Hello, all! I’m hoping that you can help me with an ongoing discussion I’m having with my roomate, who is influenced by Peter Singer.

We were talking about abortion, and I was arguing that you cannot kill a person regardless of size or development because it is a person regardless.

He argued (respectfully) that my argument was spiciest, because I was not opposed to killing animals just because they are not people. He likened my argument to the claims of racial superiority Westerners used to enslave and discriminate others.

He is not religious in any way, so I need a way to answer this in secular terms. As he is atheist, he will probably not accept the idea of 3 kinds of souls.

I’ve tried looking around myself, but haven’t found much. Any help you can provide would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Don’t bother. He’s a lunatic.