Anti-abortion and eat meat = hypocritical?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lotus1922
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

lotus1922

Guest
I’m involved in an ongoing internet debate with some atheist/ agnostic pro-lifers. Some of them argue that eating meat conflicts with believing that life is sacred, or with believing that the more vulnerable should be protected by the stronger. They equate the killing of an innocent animal with the slaughter of an innocent fetus as both being destruction of innocent life for selfish purposes.

One person disagreed that the two positions are hypocritical but also said she couldn’t really articulate why. I am of the same opinion but am not sure how to justify it without appealing to religious arguments, especially the idea that killing animals to eat is OK because humans are a superior species being equivalent to anti-abortioners defending the killing of children in the womb because living, productive adults are more “valuable” than a “blob of tissue” that isn’t fully developed.

Any thoughts how to chime in on the basis of secular ethics and morality?

Thanks!
 
In the case of abortion we are talking about a mother killing her child, which is more horrible than any other form of murder.

You may also argue that killing a member of your own species is worse than killing a member of a different species - don’t know how convincing that would be.

All life being sacred can be countered with the fact that plants are also alive so something has to die in order for us to eat. Sadly, we do not have the ability to produce nutrients from the sun like plants.
 
The two things are not even close to related, but it would definitely be hard for an atheist to articulate why, even if they understand it innately.

When God created man, He created us differently. We are rational being, the only rational beings in all of physical creation, so far as we’re aware. That puts us in a category clearly separated from the rest of creation. While it is true that, genetically and categorically, humans are a kind of animal, we are distinct and above other animal species due to this God-given rationality.

Christians / Jews understand this, and there is no cognitive dissonance because we recognize that it is God, an external force, that has set us apart and given us dominion over the other life on Earth. Atheists / Agnostics, on the other hand, don’t have a way to explain this reality, even if they do know it to be true. As a result, when confronted with having to explain it, they can go one of three routes:
  1. Yes, we are above the other animals as a result of our intelligence.
  2. Yes, we are above the other animals, but I can’t really articulate why.
  3. No, we are not above the other animals, we are just an animal ourselves.
Your friend seems to be firmly in category 2, while the person claiming it’s wrong seems to be in category 3.

From either position 2 or 3, it is very hard to justify the congestive dissonance that arises from knowing that an innocent life should never be ended, while also condoning the slaughter of animals for food. They either don’t believe that humans are superior, or they don’t understand why humans are superior, and therefore cannot form a rational argument to support their innate understanding.

It is wrong to take an innocent human life not merely because of their potential, or because of their “person-hood,” or because they are more vulnerable. The main reason it is wrong to take that life is specifically because it is a human life. It is the mere reality of being human, made in the image and likeness of God, and granted a rational soul by God, that gives our lives a value that sets it apart from all the other animals on Earth.

The problem is that, no matter how true this is, an atheist / agnostic will not really accept that reality, and as such cannot find a way to justify a distinction between a human life and the life of a lesser animal. In their mind, these comparisons are valid because there is no difference, there is no inherent worth. While I applaud their desire to be pro-life and protect the child in the womb, they will sadly always be at a disadvantage because their world-view can never produce an irrefutable reason for this defense.
 
lotus1922 said:
Some of them argue that eating meat conflicts with believing that life is sacred, or with believing that the more vulnerable should be protected by the stronger
Click to expand...
The Church doesn’t teach all life is sacred. The Church teaches human life is sacred. Humans and animals are not the same.

Humans possess a spiritual soul in the image and likeness of God.

The Church teaches animals are given to us by God to use for food, clothing, and animal husbandry.
lotus1922 said:
am not sure how to justify it without appealing to religious argument
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why you would not say, “this is what I believe and why I believe it”. Our position on human life is very much because of our religious belief in the human soul and human person.
 
lotus1922 said:
Any thoughts how to chime in on the basis of secular ethics and morality?
Click to expand...
The people you’re debating with have cornered themselves into an ideological trap. The mistake that is made by doing this is that an ideology fails to take the fullness of human nature into consideration.

It’s a well known fault of human nature to take an ideology and go overboard with it. It has happened continually throughout history, and nothing in human nature has changed to make it stop happening in the future.

When human life is not protected in all it’s stages, a door is opened in which human life can be taken advantage of. This door will only open further until it is soundly shut (think about the end of the Third Riech). When abortion was legalized, in the US, the door was opened. Now we are seeing the door open further. Euthanasia is being accepted in the US and Europe, and it’s become increasingly acceptable to abort people with down syndrome. Those things would have been considered unhuman and ghoulish 40 years ago. They are steadily becoming acceptable. What will become acceptable 40 years from now?

It is human nature to take advantage of things, for good and for bad. That is a secular way of understanding this.
 
Last edited:
Unless the person making this argument believes that eating a hamburger is morally equivalent to killing your next-door neighbor, the inconsistency of the argument seems pretty obvious. Even plant life is life, technically.

We don’t believe animal life and plant life are equal in value to human life.
 
No, but the very definition of Hypocrite would be a person
who is anti abortion with no exceptions but also
pro death penalty in some exceptions.

That’s the definition of Hypocrisy, as even Pope Francis has spoken out how the death penalty is wrong in all cases.
 
Jamie5 said:
No, but the very definition of Hypocrite would be a person
who is anti abortion with no exceptions but also
pro death penalty in some exceptions.

That’s the definition of Hypocrisy, as even Pope Francis has spoken out how the death penalty is wrong in all cases.
Click to expand...
Erm… that’s not hypocrisy, the two things are categorically different.

Abortion is the ending of an innocent human life.

Execution, when properly applied, is not. Capital Punishment is only permissible when public safety requires that a person no longer be alive to cause further harm. In any instance where capital punishment is being applied properly, it is happening to someone who has actively earned it.

The difference is that the child in the womb is innocent, and the person being executed isn’t. As I said, it’s a categorically different circumstance.
 
Last edited:
Speaking as both a pro-lifer and a vegetarian, I honestly don’t care if you eat meat. But also, ask them why it makes any sense whatsoever, to be pro-life. If there’s no God to judge us, on the basis of what we do, how do we even know what right and wrong is? For me, I know that there’s nothing morally wrong with eating meat and, I choose not to. But I know there’s a lot, morally wrong with killing children. These are two different arguments.
 
Last edited:
Yeah… no it’s not, for the reasons I gave above.

Killing in and of itself is not the moral evil. I can kill in self defense or in defense of another person, and that is perfectly fine morally speaking. (So long as there is no other option, or no other option readily apparent / available). I can kill an intruder in my house to protect my family, or kill a gunman who is attacking other people.

What is wrong is murder; specifically, the taking of an innocent human life. The Hebrew word is “רָצַח”, or Ratsach, which means to murder, not merely to kill. It relates specifically to taking of innocent life, not merely to the act of ending a life.

The child in the womb is innocent, period. It has done nothing to warrant a death sentence. The person being executed, when capital punishment is being properly applied, has.

You’re free to ignore this categorical difference all you like, but it doesn’t actually make you right, and it doesn’t actually make us hypocrites.

Also, using a CNN article to validate a theological position is sort of like using a flat-Earther website to justify your claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted… an opinion piece no less…
 
Last edited:
When is capital punishment “properly applied” exactly? Answer: NEVER. Which is why Pope Francis and all Catholics should be against the death penalty in all cases.
 
The argument of them saying killing an animal is like killing an unborn human child is totally equivocating. Humans have souls and animals dont, we are superior to them. If it’s an atheist is saying it, then why would they care anyway? They should kind of know we are superior because we can all talk and reason, we have built buildings upon buildings, and we have dominated the world. If the atheists can’t see that then they need to get their eyes checked.
 
Jamie5 said:
When is capital punishment “properly applied” exactly? Answer: NEVER. Which is why Pope Francis and all Catholics should be against the death penalty in all cases.
Click to expand...
Umm… no… I gave the requirements in my first post… are you sure you actually read it?

The person must present a continued threat to the public at large, and there must be no other way of preventing them from harming others. In modern day America, i tend to agree. There are very few instances in which the death penalty can be applied appropriately. Our prison system, while far from great, can still contain these people and limit their ability to harm others. Now… if they continue to harm others in prison, even if those people are just other inmates, then it may become necessary if it is evident that they will continue killing no matter what.

In other parts of the world, however, it most certainly can be applied properly. Places where a prison system simply doesn’t exist, or is so ineffective as to be laughable. Places where extreme corruption ensures that the most violent offenders are back out on the street the next day, regardless of evidence. Places where constant war and strife creates a society completely devoid of any real rule of law. Unfortunately, in those places, sometimes the only way to protect society as a whole is to remove some people from it.

Sadly, when most people speak on this subject, they are only thinking about it in terms of modern western society, where we have jails and means of rehabilitation, where someone escaping prison is almost guaranteed to be caught again soon. This is not true in much of the world, especially in less developed countries.

I know Pope Francis means well, and the more developed areas of the world I believe he’s right that the death penalty is unjustifiable; but there are some places where a person cannot be contained any other way except through killing them. It’s a sad reality of the world we live in, but it is the reality.
 
Last edited:
Jamie5 said:
When is capital punishment “properly applied” exactly? Answer: NEVER. Which is why Pope Francis and all Catholics should be against the death penalty in all cases.
Click to expand...
this is opinion and not civil or church law. the church allows the death penalty. it should be sparsely used but still a viable option.

are you saying that the pope changed the church’s teaching on it.
 
lotus1922 said:
I’m involved in an ongoing internet debate with some atheist/ agnostic pro-lifers. Some of them argue that eating meat conflicts with believing that life is sacred, or with believing that the more vulnerable should be protected by the stronger. They equate the killing of an innocent animal with the slaughter of an innocent fetus as both being destruction of innocent life for selfish purposes.
Click to expand...
define yourself as anti-abortion and not pro-life as they mean it. it removes their argument.
 
I can’t point to what framework your freind is working from but my $0.02 cents?

I’m a vegan because I consider the use of most animal products (meat, leather, milk etc) to be decadent, extravagant and destructive. I say most rather than all because there are some very niche products (not ones I use), such as wild honey, of which their obtainment do not impact noticeably upon the creatures from which they originate. This wouldn’t count for products like cow milk because while it doesn’t “hurt” the cow to milk it the only reason it is doing so is because you’ve calved it to use it and its offspring for meat; ergo we’re back to the unnecessary killing again.

Yes, I’m sure that steak was delicious but did you really need to execute that cow because you fancied a steak rather than any number of very convincing meat-substitutes? It’s not the 80’s anymore, there are many available that have been tried, tested and cannot be distinguished from actual meat. Moreover, the resources used to feed two cows for a year could instead be used to feed a far greater number of humans, it’s an extravagance and not even an especially good way of ganing protein (plant/algae sources such as Spirulina are proven to be cheaper and provide more of it).

I could hold this position as a Christian, not especially convincingly admittedly considering Jesus commands Peter to eat flesh including Jesus’ own, but it would be possible. For an Atheist with a passion for eco/green living however there is another dimension to this. While the Catholic Church teaches that Humans are Gods chosen race and only they have immortal souls…You freind probably does not buy that. Humans are not superior to other animals, none of us have souls and while we are very successful predators we’ve reached a point where our existence and gluttony is destroying the rest of the eco-system we need to survive ourselves.

Killing a puppy is not equivalent to killing a baby in Catholicism, but as soon as you scrap the idea of humans being imago dei it opens up the road of “actually, why is killing that baby any worse than the puppy?”. Not a road all Atheists buy into, in fact I don’t know any other Atheists in RL who are also vegans and enjoy their steak very much, but it is one line of thought.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top