Anti-abortion and eat meat = hypocritical?

[jcrichton]

Hi!

So these atheists are feed intravenously with saline and other chemical nourishments?

Perhaps, I’m wrong, but unless they eat roadkill, other carcasses and rooting fruit and plant life, are they not as guilty of killing as they claim others are?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Yet, the state has a right to terminate the life that presents a threat or all wars must cease even if only the offenders (say, N. Korea) remain the last evil dictator standing.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, Adam!

But it takes a rational mind to make the distinction; zealots, however, are not limited by reason.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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…

Hi!

…so, Fred did not have a pet dinosaur?

That’s the problem with some thinkers… they mesh reality with their view of reality and dismiss anything that does not support their understanding.

‘If a person eats he/she cannot be pro-life!’

Wow, talk about narrow-minded!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Jamie, who makes such determination?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Hi, J!

…well, since they deny God, it goes that they deny human dignity and the human soul/spirit.

It seems that a human being is just another sack of chemicals of no greater value than a cow or an earthworm.

When you strip human life to such level… cows are better than humans since they chew the cod and mosey about not even hurting a single fly! :

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Catholicos]

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.

The atheist usually takes the position where they equate a human life to that of the animal. That’s where yo cant base your argument. Yes killing innocent life without a purpose is wrong, but humans who kill to consume and eat their kill/harvest is a far different matter.

Ask the atheist whether their mother would cannibalize them, because if they want to equate a human to an animal, many animals eat their own young, rodents bears, fish, wild dogs, and even intelligent animals like primates

Anyways, the atheist is the last person who should be a social justice warrior preaching morals. Life without God is life without true God given morals.

 

[jcrichton]

Anyways, the atheist is the last person who should be a social justice warrior preaching morals. Life without God is life without true God given morals

Catholicos, that’s their pretense for not believing.

It’s like the abuser claiming ‘see what you made me do?’

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[Jamie5]

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.

https://www.catholicnews.com/gossip-is-tool-of-the-devil-to-divide-the-church-pope-says/

 

[Crusaderbear]

Go with the Human Life is sacred argument…

 

[Melodeonist]

Animals =/= Humans. God gave us dominion over the animals. He didn’t give us the freedom of killing people.

How are these two things even comparable? Humans are made in the image of God: we have immortal souls. Animals do not. Heck, animals aren’t even rational creatures. Just because animals are “cute” doesn’t mean anything. People are infinitely more important than animals.

 

[Jamie5]

Animals do not. Heck, animals aren’t even rational creatures. Just because animals are “cute” doesn’t mean anything. People are infinitely more important than animals.

Wrong. Koko knows sign language and communicates with humans. She’s a gorilla. Fact.

http://www.koko.org/sign-language

 

[Melodeonist]

Doesn’t change a thing. Koko may know sign language, but she still has a mortal soul and isn’t made in the image of God.

 

[Jamie5]

It changes everything. Koko isn’t just an ape, she has feeling and communicates. Also it’s rather brash and presumptuous to say “people are infinitely more important than animals.” I strongly disagree. We all share this planet with the animals and they are the more peaceful of the creatures.

 

[upant]

upant:

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.

http://www.catholicnews.com/service...nalty-is-contrary-to-the-gospel-pope-says.cfm

from the vatican website

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

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.

Generally people that say “All life is sacred” are only considering human lives. I think what you are encountering is simply a case where a statement can be better qualified. The statement used to label one’s position here is different than their actual position.

Now if a person says all human life is sacred and is in support of the death penalty then there’s some inconsistency going on.

 

[upant]

Koko isn’t just an ape,

yes, she is just an ape. does she really communicate or is it an observer-expectancy effect?

why is it ok for an animal to kill another animal for food but not man? animals are not peaceful, just back one into a corner.

it’s rather brash and presumptuous to say “people are infinitely more important than animals.”

do animals have souls? evolution doesn’t even give them equal importance with humans. they are subject to us even if you only believe in survival of the fittest.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Moreover, the resources used to feed two cows for a year could instead be used to feed a far greater number of humans,

I’m sorry, but this isn’t true. One could make an argument in its favor when it comes to milk cows because they get a very rich diet of at least some things (alfalfa for example) for which the land could be used to grow food crops for humans.

But when it comes to beef cattle, it’s entirely incorrect. Almost all breeding stock eat grass all their lives and, for the most part, that’s it. Hay is nothing but grass cut during the warm months. Fully 1/3 of the liveable land surface of the earth is grassland that can’t grow anything else. Humans can’t digest grass because the nutrients are locked up in indigestible cellulose. You could eat grass all day long, keep your stomach full, and still die of starvation.

Fortunately, God gave us ruminants, animals that can convert useless grass into high-quality, digestible protein. Now, I’ll grant that the superior beef producers are fed grain for 80 to 120 days in feed lots. But that’s unnecessary. Aussies don’t do that, for example. They eat fully grass-fed beef. But even then, most of the feed that’s given during that 80 to 120 days is “reject grain” that people either won’t eat or shouldn’t eat. Anymore, most of it is actually “distillers’ grain”; what’s left over after alcohol production.

So, from a purely secular standpoint, the human race would suffer serious food shortages if it were not for ruminant animals; cattle, sheep, and goats.

But it isn’t as if there is no loss of life involved in vegetarian food production. A corn field, for example, is a monoculture. All kinds of plants have to die for corn to produce abundantly. A lot of insects die too, both by way of spraying insecticides and because we end up inadvertently eating a lot of living creatures we don’t realize are there. All plant products are like that. Sometime one should look up the insect and animal content the USDA will accept for human consumption in vegetable food and grain. It’s a lot more than most would think.

So, for the atheist, it isn’t a matter of no creatures dying. All food involves death of living creatures. It’s just a matter of which ones.

 

[Verdanty]

yes, she is just an ape. does she really communicate or is it an observer-expectancy effect?

why is it ok for an animal to kill another animal for food but not man? animals are not peaceful, just back one into a corner.

Neither are humans, in fact I don’t seem to recall any cases of wolves or lemurs tossing acid into other animals faces or organizing a school shooting because they didn’t like someone.

Animals kill for hunger, breeding rights or fear. Humans kill for much less.

Animals likewise do not necessarily (there are a few exceptions) have the capacity to cultivate alternative foodsources. As soon as Polar Bears prove themselves capable of producing tofu I will critique them for eating flesh. Until then, they unlike us do not have an alternative.

do animals have souls? evolution doesn’t even give them equal importance with humans. they are subject to us even if you only believe in survival of the fittest.

Might makes right then? I missed the part where Jesus said after turning the other cheek one should beat your adversary up.

 

[Rau]

I am of the same opinion but am not sure how to justify it without appealing to religious arguments,

A whole lot of positions become tenable if you hold there is no God.