I agree with tthe Goo.

Save the Anthro cows... eat the rest :)

Lol, I have meet quiet a few anthros who are into vore so I dont think just eating ferals would save them :P

WE must protect the big boobed anthro cows from the vore fans. Quick form a human sheield.... wait that may not work :p

I donno about you but anything bigger then a D cup I cant fit into my mouth so I think their safe... at least from me :P though I do have a feral form *ponders*

I didn't know you like vore, but I think you're both straying from the topic. I agree with the goo drawn by EC. If you're a pro lifer ya better damn well be a vegan other wise, to quote Oddball Matt, "I'm comin' for ya, and I'll smash ya computer into into a million pieces like WAH!! Huge explosions."

B-but...baby embryos are as tasty! D:
...
...
...
...or are they....

do you eat eggs?

Eggs aren't embriotic unless fertilized, and most eggs for consumption are not. The yolk is actually a nutrient sac (such as the placenta in mammals)

just ruin it why dont you :P

I DONE DID IT

*flicks tie over one shoulder*
And that's the end of that chapter!

Eggs are an animal product therefore meat...ANYONE who eats them IS a meat eater...

So only milk is left in a grey area...unless you're a "no opression" type...

The argument was that eggs are fetus' not that they are or aren't animal byproduct >.>

Milk actually contains cow's blood lol

Would that make it streaberry quick?

Being pink and all?

wut

no

that doesn't even make sense

I mean that it contains platelets from cow's blood, it doesn't contain like a pint of blood lol

Yeah I was just aimin' for the silly lulz of it all...

I'm a pugnatious ass...

(Man I can't believe I just used lulz...man I hate net speak...SIGH!)

lol LULZ IS AWESOME SHUT UP

it brings us all entertainment

Had the "eggs aren't meat" arguement from a "veggie"...she also ate fish "because they don't feal pain" WDF!?

Yes, vegetarians make me lol

There's actually been quite a bit of debate over whether fish experience paint the way we do because they supposedly lack that part of the brain, although I remember reading some research that suggested they do indeed feel pain (don't remember any specifics, this was some time ago).

"whether fish experience paint the way we do"

well i have not seen any of them go all Bob Ross yet but i know Danios and many other fish can see colours we cannot so i would imagine they would have a wonderful colour sense for things of that nature but i always figured it was that they lived in water that made most paints unsuitable for use as a medium for artistic expression for them that kept them from painting. :)


but on a serious note as someone who currently has 30 fish tanks. yes they do indeed feel pain. they react when bitten by another fish. they react when they encounter any kind of thing that would give pain and take appropriate response to minimize or escape the pain.

I've kept fish too, as well as caught fish and watched my dad kill them and clean them. As far as I know, most animals will react to 'pain' as negative stimulus because they know it's bad for them and can cause injury or death, even simple creatures will react to 'pain'. The debate was whether they experience it like we do.

Here's a better explanation on the subject than I could try to come up with: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/PainMa.....163&page=1

Looking into it again, the verdict seems to be that all vertebrates (including fish) do feel pain, but supposedly most or all invertebrates do not, despite reacting similarly, because they have such a simple nervous system. I'm not trying to debate whether fish feel pain, just pointing out that, even if it looks like something's in pain, it might just be reacting to noxious stimulus.

Fertilized eggs are pretty healthy for you ^..~

I've heard that, but I don't even eat veal. I am just not into eating baby animals

i would so eat babies all day long

Like a nice veal /lamb meatloaf which of course has to have eggs to bind the meats and topped with caviar and a nice abortion sauce. served with a salad of baby lettuce and young carrots and sprouts and fresh beans and of course tomatoes for that just opened womb taste

balut.

Y'ever heard of Balut? Uh, yeah, so terribly wrong

aaand I'm apparently ten days late, I suck. Sorry.

you're forgiven






for now

...Um.. thanks?

that's kindof unfair.

Not really, a baby is a baby, regardless of species, but until it's born it's quite literally a parasitic lump of goop.

Nope.

Life begins at conception.

The only difference?

Human or not...

O' man do I see drama comin'...

never said it wasn't alive, my point was it is not yet a solitary, self-sustaining organism, and I see NO difference between a fetal/baby animal or human in matters of importance. I may eat beef and mutton but I don't eat lamb or veal. However I do believe every woman has a right to choose whether or not to bring her child into the world, would you rather see the baby born but have a miserable childhood and subsequent life because mommy couldn't care for the child she birthed? Or would you like to see both of them die because of medical complications due to pregnancy? Or a woman have a tangible reminder of rape hanging around her for 30-40 or more years? Anyways, I don't even know why i let myself get dragged into these things, you all are gonna piss and moan and spout your christian/lifer/ignorant/holier-than-thou bs no matter what I say. Oh and EC, you're too good at stirring the pot lol. Kudos.

What the pro-lifers are going on about is when the living lump of human flesh acquires a soul, therefore when it's a human being, therefore when abortion is considered murder. Some say it's at conception. Others at birth. Still others say it's at various points in between. They're really missing the point, of course. When the lump of flesh has a soul can't be decided in a court of law, nor arbitrarily defined by legislation. What can be defined is when the lump of flesh has rights as a human being, keeping in mind that the mother still has rights as well. As far as I'm concerned, it's the mother's body, so if she doesn't want the baby, it's her right to get it out of her; let the doctors try to keep the lump of flesh alive once it's out of the mother, and if they can, kudos to them.

maybe the doctors could put the baby lumps into the cows, then they'd both be saved.

DUDE!

I've been rolling that story 'round my head for a while!

What to do with all the unwanted frozen fetuses(sp?) and the unwanted babies saved by the "wash" Process (See comment below...)...

I figured the gov't would have to hold them and then when technologies came about for extra-solar colonization we'd send out a small crew with the frozen "stock" of critters and humans and thaw the cows out first to use them as "alternitive birthing platforms"...

Interesting...

So you've been on since '07?

Sorry. I was only joking about that at first but you make an interesting point. If doctors can take organs from animals and put them into humans maybe they can put human zygotes into animals. Can't see it happening though. Mother's day would become very awkward, especially if mum's not house broken.
Also, wow, 07! Time really has flown. scarey.

*Smirk*

Here mom sit in this nice comfy cat box!

And to think I was gonna call the story "My Mother The Cow"

There's still the big debate over the frozen zygotes that were created for invitro for rich couples that go their kid but don't need the rest...

Do we just flush all those humans down the drain? If we have to euth'em why can't we harvest the stem cells?!

Eh, in this case it's more legal-eez than bible thumpers...sigh...

Sigh...time keeps on slippin' into the future...and I really need to do more stuff...just I need more time...SIGH!

Maybe there are some childless couples in developing countries that would like to adopt some unwanted embryos and give them a chance at life. Then the circle of life would be complete.
I'd love the irony.

Sounds like a bussiness!

Partners?

Sure. We could offer a multispecies survice, survice.

Yuh know...that puts a few ideas in my head...

Trying to figure out the future for sci-fi stories we've got to look at what has been and what we DO today.

I think furries/anthro WILL be just because we can (Shades of Jurassic Park).

And what will be the first ones? Why money makers of course. So just like any new tech the big money maker will be war or porn (Sad thought on both...) For instance, porn was the ONLY thing making money on the net for a LONG time.

Currently there is big money being thrown into robotic sex toys, virtual sex techs, artificially intelligent sex equipment (So what happens when the machines get smart enough to say "Not tonight, Dear, I have a CPU ache"?)...

SO a multi species mass birthing platform (The cow can hatch out ALOT of smaller critters...) has real world applications...

Then there's near future uses colonization of the moon and mars...just seperate the euterous from the cow, slap it in a "petri" jar w/life support and use it to carry/birth out the smaller critters for the colonists to use as food: rabbits, goats, other cows, etc...

Man the mind reals...

Ever see the beginning of the movie, Beastmaster?

Never heard of beastmaster before but I'll have to watch it now. I thought I was being original. Thanks for the tip.

Not in a long while...looks like it's time for a revisit!

Eeeeh! Wrong answer, Hans!

Such things are called crimes against Humanity...

Tho' with our current subhuman like paradigm there's not much choice...

The key to it all is to have respect for all life, with the understanding that in this world, taking life is sometimes unavoidable.

"Soul"..Ooo..thats a good one ! Define "Soul"..give me a valid, scientific proof of the existence of a "Soul" ? Pro-Lifers say abortion is a sin, against God, etc. Mmmmm ? Give them this question ? If a women has a spontaneous miscarriage - is that "God's Will" ? Doesn't that mean,by the Pro Lifer's reasoning, that God Himself is an abortionist ?

Very good point I'd missed that one...*Sad Smirk*

I'm an anti-religion nutcase m'self...but I do believe that there is an undefinable something that is comparable to a Soul and for lack of a better word (chi/mana/orgone don't kinda work...) I tend to call it a soul...

But I don't base any of my facts on such...I tend toward what we as humans say we are and what we can achieve...

Just like we all know torture is wrong we know that to deprive other humans of life...no matter how far developed is just as wrong...

I'll agree..that there is a *something* that makes us Human, gives us that *spark* that makes us more than just a sack of chemical compounds and fluids. And I also know that that same *spark* must have occured in all living beings. Nature never does things as a *one-off*. Science doesn't yet know just *what* that spark is - but possibly someday it will.
I guess one might as well call it "Soul"..but we needn't ascribe it to an unseen/unknown deity.

Hmmmn...

Why must it have happened in ALL living things?

I work with and have had to deal with so called 'humans' who have no soul and in most cases no functional sentient brain. I mean that literally not just a case of the standard republican/teabagger/biblethumper/ad nauseum creature etc...

So if some 'humans' don't have the *spark* why should EVERYTHING have that spark?

....i think i love you....

Not arguing (I actually agree with you), but there's a possibility of scientific evidence of a soul. That one study where a dying human was put into a sealed tube on a scale, they died, and somehow the body got lighter. No gases could have been released, the tube was sealed.
Some people take this as proof of a soul (though why a 'soul' would way something is beyond me).

Sorry for the butchered version, I can't remember the name of the study to google it, but it is actually some interesting stuff.

Man's life depends on God. Human life is not something that a person should trade as he wants. Make decisions about its destruction or life. The Book of Job says that God gives and God takes. But he does not give something for our property but for our use. If we kill life, we will destroy something that belongs to God. We destroy his property. And I don't use religious arguments against abortion. Abortion is bad because it takes the freedom of a being that hasn't been born yet. Someone wise said that human freedom is as long as it does not violate the freedom of another person. And the fetus is human.

Don't forget though, that there are those who aren't rightfully guilty of crimes that go jail. That means they'd be waxing a few innocents too.

Speaking of savings from liquidating prisons. Ever heard of that super-fancy jail over in the UK that looks like it belongs in a science-fiction setting and most certainly is costing way more than its occupants are worth? Heck, the place is so cool I bet some people are committing crimes there just to be treated to better living conditions, and at that, for free.

Abort away! There's too many of us anyhoo, and too many eating cattle to boot. Then again, I do sell off a certain number of head every year or so to Micky-Dees. Wouldn't want to lose that venue. Got no where else to put them, and we only eat like 1 a year as it is.

They more often than not get eaten though, so MWHAHAHAHAHAAR. No god-moding for them.

Nematocysts are reaching for you.

Immortal jelly fish? Do tell...

Actually I think they should do away with life sentences and just kill em, make the max prison time 10 yrs or something, and execute anyone who is sentenced to longer, would save SO much money, and it's not like those people were gonna contribute shit to society anyways.

Agreed. By definition of parasite, thats kind of what it is until its a baby. XD

No. It isn't. In any way.

Yes it is.

Try stating a reason for your argument instead of getting into a pointless "Yes" "No" "Yes" "No" etc. discussion. Those are a waste of time no matter the subject.

Im just giving them what they want.

No it isn't. I've explained why in a couple of other conversations further down the pagge. I've no desire to repeat myself here. You are welcome to join one or start one here, and actually explain your position, and why you think the sum total of sceintific evidence in this field of knowledge is wrong. Or you can just shut the hell up. Whichever you want.

Can't/Shan't/Won't answers are something only stupid people use.

Why are you so rude anyway? assuming first off that I'm stupid, and pretty much telling me to shut the hell up. it's just a stupid comic that was drawn to illicit drama in the first place. And yes, it is unfair. Pro lifers are sometimes meat eaters, but that does not mean that they are Hypocrites. I could argue about this till I'm blue in the face but I already know its not going to change anybody's mind. I just simply think that the comic is unfair, and that was a really harsh blow below the belt coming from ECmajor. this one comic actually pretty much took away any respect I had for this artist. And I have my reasons (other than the usual religious ones) for pretty much being seriously insulted by everything this comic has to say, and I can list them off too. they are deep emotional scars left to me that I have to live with for the rest of my life. But I am not going to prove anything to you. You are nothing to me.

I hope ECmajor has a nice successful art career, but I feel that I'm the kind of person who is not wanted here. and i don't want any trouble, so I take my leave.

*facepalms*

Wtf dude, really. You haven't even stated your side of an argument, just how much you dislike EC for poking fun at the way prolifers are hypocritical for preserving one life while taking another

Well said...

I've tried to live the examined life. I've got such a hard assed sense of self that I can withstand the hard light of truth...tho' I find that most folks don't/can't/won't from fear or culture or stupidity...

I do feal the pain when I hit a wall of hypocricy that contradicts the right thing to do...and then I take the time to tear it down. Sigh...

I do feal that we as humans can guide our mental evolution. We ARE the highest form of primate why can't we recognize that and use our supposedly 'superior' brains to reach that higher goal of civilization?

Pi offends biblethumpers?

How and why?

So's I can ENJOY using it against them...

Because it's scientific measurement system


and science r bad

*Giggle-Snort!*

Their dislike of it is completely irrational.

ARGH!

Yeah, this person was insulted by this but couldn't articulate why. That indicates to me that this person has serious doubts about their personal beliefs concerning eating other animals and prolife, but is too afraid to confront the obvious hypocrisy. I encounter people like this all the time that lash out instead of face their inner demons . It's a typical religious mindset.

I hope ECmajor has a nice successful art career, but I feel that I'm the kind of person who is not wanted here. and i don't want any trouble, so I take my leave.

and nothing of value was lost.

>Why are you so rude anyway?

Because based upon your testimony you support (knowingly or otherwise) one or possible several concepts that I view as evil in theory, and harmful in practice. Morality is not absolute, but the its relativity is based upon knowledge and technology, not personal preference.

I can respect people who disagree with me, as long as they have reasons. I will try to mercilessly dismantle their reasons if I think they are based upon false premises, but I allow them the same privilage, and if they can objectively prove that I am wrong, then I will change my mind.

What I don't respect are people who hold and defend a position without knowing why, and who are unwilling to acknowledge any possibility that they might be wrong. Such people have been responsable for countless horror stories throughout human history, right up to today. Which is another thing they refuse to acknowledge.

You show every sign of being in the latter group. That is why I am so rude to you.

So what seperates a baby animal which is born, and feeling and sentiant, from a clump of cells that isn't, in your mind? Why is one worthy of being saved at all costs and another is ok to kill just because its non human? And don't you dare give me some bullshit about humans having souls and animals not having souls, because I'd want some serious evidence to back that up PLEASE.

How in the world is it unfair?

Makes me laugh in a way when looking at this another way. Man kills a wild animal, it's fine usually.. kill a pet? murder.. man eats a animal, it's food.. animal kills n eats a man? thjat animals evil and must be killed.. hypocritical much?

Haha.. Yes very hypocritical much. XD Tis a strange world. :p

I'm a carnivore/hypocrite.

I'm sentience prejudiced.

My only test?

If it can talk to me in a coherent and logical way, then I pro'lly shouldn't be eating it.

Dolphins/chimps/apes have been have been taught sign language. I know sign language. So ceatations and primates aget a pass...for now...

tea baggers/rednex/thugs/republicans/biblethumpers and other scum of the earth can be eaten since they're NOT human/sentient.

That being said...I'm pro-life *SMIRK!* I beleive every sentient being should have the same chance to suffer that I have...*Sad Grin*...

And with that just to keep the flaming idiots at bay, I also believe in euthanasia...and an unwanted sentient would be better served (As a snack!) er, I mean off not being born...saves it the suffering...

So all the animals that use body language that doesn't involve their hands (sign language is a complex form of body language), then they're ok to eat? That is rather arbitrary. What about birds? Even smaller birds have complex languages that we don't understand, and there has been tool use observed by some avians. What about elephants that have been observed to follow rituals and have very complex emotional lives with their friends and families. Elephants even go to "war" with humans that have abused them and send a version of "war parties" out to destroy villages and kill people.

Elephants can paint too-youtube search painting elephant and you can find one who actually paints a remarkably good picture of an elephant holding a flower-it's not random lines, it's a defined image and you can tell exactly what it is. Animals are a hell of a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

I don't see how you get that elephants aren't sentient just because they don't have the same use of symbols that we do. They may not understand painting forms that are symbolic of other things, but we don't understand talking to each other using vibrations through our feet. Does that mean we can't communicate? Of course not, we just do things differently. It's the same for elephants and other animals.

And I guess you haven't observed chimps and parrots communication and are pretty much making things up if you honestly think their communication is so pavlonian and rudimentary. I recommend you read the book that just came out on Alex the parrot. It's pretty remarkable. And that is what you would probably call "just a bird".

Google Koko the gorilla. She had entire conversations with her keepers, including discussions of what she thought of concepts like death and motherhood. She named her kitten "smokey" because he was gray.

What lol. What exactly am I accusing you of?

So you replied in your comment to me, saying I was making accusations? I don't understand your logic.

I teach preschool, and let me promise you, "banana banana banana me eat banana banana" is better then a lot of four year olds manage on any given day. I'm not saying that the gorilla is writing her doctoral thesis or anything, but she has at least managed to convey basic concepts, like, "I know what death is," "I would like to be a mother someday," or "Oh hey, look, there's one of those flappy things." which is still communication. My four year old students are definitely sentient, and they can think, but language isn't a paticularly advanced skill with them yet. And for a gorilla, who does not communicate using ASL in the wild, adapting to human methods of communication is bound to be difficult.
Having trained dogs and horses before, I can tell you this- an animal that has been trained to do a certain behavior for a reward dosn't vary the behavior. If you train a dog to sit when you say sit, he won't perform other, varied, more complicated behaviors willy nilly. He'll just sit. I understand that the gorilla has had training by handlers initially, but the fact that she's describing words she dosn't know, (like the "water bird" example earlier,) does prove there's advanced thinking going on in there.

So it's logical to reply to a comment someone else made, ranting about 'accusations'? This commenting system isn't really set up for a conversation between more then two people. Since you replied to the comment I left, I don't really see how I'm being the illogical one here.

I see these kids for one year, maybe two. I'm not an in-home teacher, or a speech therapist. I am not in charge of their linguistic skills, I'm there to sing a 'good morning' song, make some macaroni necklaces, and sing a 'good bye' song. We do what we can to develop language skills in children, but our resources and knowledge in the field of child speech development are limited. There are specialists for that. And on a good day, my students do speak in full sentences, but if they're tired, or cranky, or excited, sentence structure goes right out the window.

Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that even if all the gorilla is doing is pointing to the bird and making the sign for 'bird', it's still communication. All that communication is, really, at it's basest level, is getting an idea or feeling across to another person. (Think of the scene of Helen Keller and Annie Sullivan at the well, when Helen realized the sign for "water" meant the stuff that was flowing over her hand.) I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest that she at least has a basic understanding of what she's doing.

You're really not so much being unkind as you are getting upset and defensive and trying to be insulting. And that's okay, I realize that a lot of people don't have the capacity for civilized debate. Maybe you should take a break and come back when you've calmed down. C:

You really do need to calm down. I mean, it's hilarious and all, but really. I'm actually not at all offended- I'm pretty used to arguing with self righteous children who don't understand basic human social skills. Mildly amused and awfully bored is a better description then "offended." I'm also not at all sensitive, so I'm not quite sure where you're getting these ideas from.

Yes, "flipping the bird" is communication. It communicates the disdain you don't seem to have the vocabulary to express without resorting to cursing and feeble attempts at insults. It's body language for "fuck you." I mean, is it childish and silly and does it make you look bad? Yes. But is it communication? Absolutely!

See, we're communicating all the time. Think about it. If you wave another driver into your lane while you're driving, what are you saying to them? If you smile at someone as you pass them on the street, what are you saying to them? If you write a childish rant on the internet, calling someone a "holier-then-thou bitch," (without any reason, by the way, but that's another story,) what are you saying to them? When dogs play bow to you, or a tiger growls at you, what are they saying to you? Interspecies communication happens all the time, everywhere! It's really not so much of a stretch to think that an advanced primate like a gorilla could be taught to communicate in sign language on a rudimentary level. And maybe that's something you should have been paying attention to in school.

Yes, those big words of yours sure are mind blowing. Whoo.

As a person that has studied communication, I give you one free internet for being so right. Gestures and physical movement are a form of communication, I can vouch for that. :)

C:

Uhm.

No...

The ape and chimps I've see the evidence of/for were NOT pavlovian and they did hold complete conversations...Including the one ape taught picto-graph/lang/speak.

The one demonstration I saw on Dolphins may have bordered on the trained-responce pattern but there are pretty hard restrictions on handless critters and sign language.

Time to check your sources and try again.

That is because most humans still like to think that they're all high and mighty and in way related to anything else sentient. Anyone can thank religion and the Bible for that little mindset.

I hear that one. My parents are perfect examples of that, much to my shame for being related to them. If asked they would both say that animals are specifically created for human consumption and for people to do with whatever they see fit, so they don't understand my animal rights stances. Of course they also think homosexuality is evil and have told me that if I become gay (yes, they think it's a choice) that I'll be disowned immediately, which doesn't particularly bother me anymore.

I actually had this conversation with my mother once:

Me: Well you think homosexuality is a choice, right?
Mom: It is a choice-a horrible, disgusting one.
Me: Well, if it's a choice, it must be one anyone can make right?
Mom: ....I suppose, yes.
Me: Well then, let's try a little experiment-if anyone can make that choice, YOU do it! Just for one day, you go around and try to find the same sex sexually attractive.
Mom: No!
Me: Well if anyone can make that 'choice', obviously you can too, so why not give it a shot? It'd prove your point.
Mom: I don't want to.
Me: No, you mean you can't, because it's not a choice and it's not as simple as you try to make it out to be.
Mom: It is a choice, and I don't care what you say because this is what the bible says and the bible is right.
Me: Point out the specific line where it says homosexuality is a sin, then. And not something that can be translated twenty different ways either, one that says clearly that homosexuality is wrong.
Mom:.....
Me: That's what I thought.

I have a lot of examples of conversations like this we've had.

Yipes!

I'm glad my mom was always very open to us children, on occasion even saying "if anyone of my children is into homosexuality, that's fine with me." She was always what my friends considered the better mom when we were little though. That's prolly because she was never really religious and very supportive of childhood life experience and all that jazz. Everyone else had (and some still did up till they moved out) curfew and very restricted visiting hours, while I could go off and visit, have other people over and have fun. Usually though, if someone visited, their parents would sweep them off in a couple hours, or I would be going back home after a very short visit.

Admittedly, I've still not admitted my sexual preferences to my family. Even her, though this is because my brothers are ridiculously homophobic along with basically everyone in our community. If they found out, everyone would hear it and then tell everyone else and I would find myself without friendly sanctuary. Pathetic, isn't it?

Rednecks and biblethumpers are the mainstay of the population here and most are in the elderly category. Even worse.

Usually the only debates I get into with my mother and grandma are the political sort. She does like to keep the opinion that Communism does not work, though me and my grandma (who was bootin' about back in those cold days) think it works. Just that certain people can muck it up. Those debates always ended with us laughing and drinking tea and eating pickled beets.

Religion is sin.

Red necks in Canada? Heavens to Betsie!

Pickled beets?

Extra credit drama: give us the unvarnished look at the Canadian Medical care system.

I really wanna know...especially now that the well tanned "bush clone" has passed some abomination that will cost me MORE money than I have RIGHT NOW much less down the line...SIGH! No wonder the teabagger scum are so skerred...

Drop me a note if that'd be better/easier I'd really like to know, also with global warming, think there'll be some beach front property openin' up soon?...*Smirk*

I would be interested to find that out myself, really-the only problem I can forsee arising is that if the exact chemical imbalance or whatever it is that causes homosexuality is isolated and identified, someone might try to come up with a 'cure' for it, and religious types may even try to force it onto people who don't want it. Of course they would have to admit that homosexuality is not a choice, but by that point if they see a way to 'cure' it then they may very well try to force legislation that would label homosexuality as a mental illness and force the 'cure' on people who display it.

Could it possibly be a reaction to the planet's overpopulation? Maybe there's something in our brains that, when there are too many around consuming too many resources, changes whatever it is that causes homosexuality in order to try and cut back on reproduction? We humans cannot lose our instinct to mate, but perhaps this is a way we've started developing to at least get it under control maybe? I know it probably sounds really stupid...

One: Been done (The Psych manual DSM used to list homoexuality as a mental illness: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainb.....al_health.HTML) and they've been persecuted for a while...tho' the above article says that in the early years it was mostly ignored...A reaction to the powers of Rome and Greece at the time? *Shrug*

Two: No not stupid at all. The Earth IS a closed system. the rated norm of male to female births is 105m per 100f...(Which is being blown WAY out of balance by the chinese one child policy and the easy access to higher technologies and traditional value of males over females in third world nations see the article: http://www.economist.com/world/inte.....ry_id=15636231 Man is that scary.)

Since there is already an unknown power (Please don't let the bible thumpers see this one!) that is interacting with the rate of births (before our intervention), why wouldn't it take such an action? (I don't prescribe sentient powers to the system just that such a system seems to exist. Call it the Whole Gaian Ecosystem/mother nature...*Shrug*...)

Interesting thing, in the Joe Haldaman book "Forever War" man kind is at war with a extra solar race that has advanced so far as to become literal clones for the entire race. The book goes through the ages of changes of earth as the hero travels at relativistic speeds. At one point, socially enforced homosexuality is one form of population control...and eventuall we become a race of clones...*Shrug* well I didn't promise a HAPPY ending now did I?

*Smirk*

Not arbitrary. I did say coherent and logical (Which is where the afore mention sub humans fail) so if we/they can learn to comunicate I'll pr'olly have to quit eatin'em...

By the way, there's a Pohl novella called "Slave Ship" where people learn to comunicate with animals to use them in war (Always a great bugga boo on the moral front...) because the enemy can't effect their minds...not one of his best but not a long read either...

They do communicate, all the time. Through body language and vocalizations, just as we do. We can even understand some of the things they say (and vice versa), although much of their language is beyond us. Just as in foreign languages, there will be sounds that we cannot easily reproduce, or even distinguish. So it is, tenfold, for those not of our species. A bird might listen to a human and only hear a low droning, and have difficulty picking out the various nuanced syllables and sounds. What is a complex language to us, can be unintelligible to another animal that isn't always exposed to it. We feel the same way about animals. I mean, we can't even tell most of them apart physically within their species, while they would obviously all look very different to themselves.
My point is, you just have a familiarity bias for your own language and decide arbitrarily that just because cows can't speak English, that you can eat them.

Read H. Beam Piper's "Fuzzy Sapians" and others by him...

That animals comunicate isn't in question, it's the level of sentience/sapience that I make the judment on.

(And yes I HAVE already judged my self...just ask me the results.)

I did mention that I know sign language. Specifically ASL (None of that SEE I or II crap...) and that's grammaticlly closer to chinese. SO No I'm not using MY language as a factor, just a neutral and interestingly more intuitive language...

I'm a Communist. I'm also an asshole with an I.Q. of 156.

(We'll discuss later how no I.Q. measuring system works and is no real measure of intelligence any way...[Depending on the test/er/s and day/s time/s I'm 137+/- or pro-rated at 201+...] And STILL I'm here re-replying to side tracked semi-flame war/s...Sigh...Blame the old D&D discussion between intelligence and wisdom...*Smirk*...)

First your mis-representation of communism shows the flaws that I hate about republicans.

Communism has NO government. (And before any idiots get any stupid ideas: Anarchy is no gov't and every one shoots each other. Communism is no gov't and every one HELPS each other...)

Every so called "communist" government on the planet has just been some perverted form of totalitarianism/capitalism, not Communism.

The reason There's never been any Communism on the planet is because mankind is a greedy lazy disfunctional animal *Shrug* Mea-culpa...

Second...Drugs? Huh?

Third I do agree with you on any one 'addicted' to gov't becomes a drone...now tell all those republicans to give back all those pork barrel/welfare plans they have for them selves...

i.e. bailouts, presidential pardons, no contest contracts, subsidies (I mean do ADM and Monster-santo REALLY need to get paid to NOT grow anything?)

Etc. etc. etc. ...

Socialism works just look at europe and canada...all the lies told by the teabaggers about the "horrors" are just power lies...

As for US/us, well WE are teh government...now all we gotta do is throw the bums out and put in a good social capitalist gov't...

Sigh...yes I said a capitalist pig paradigm aided by a good humanistic Socialism will work.

Simple answer.

We the people provide a minimum level of support: 1200 cal per day diet garenteed (See current scince on the benifits of restricted cal diets...) housing (Seems there's lots ot that around now), electricity (assisted by personal physicl labor) water IS a human right, a REAL medical care system that rewards staying healthy and taxes laziness (Tho' with guarentees for those truely unhealthy by nature) GOOD education to include a manditory public service period (Military counts double time civil counts singular), and free euthanasia (I love my Soylant Green! *SMIRK!*)

Then have companies compete to provide better/more/higher end services and HOLD THEM to ethical and moral deeds!

This all would require a paradigm shift of miraculous preportions but hey...We can do it...

Sigh...

Reference paradigm shift.

obious troll

No he's no troll, he just in need of a lil' love to help him get his humanity...

Me...Eh...I tend to paint m'self as a counter troll...But I know I'm an ass...*Smirk*...

Tonight's the last night for this silliness...I've got work to do and can't keep up with the life less...

Braaaiiiiinzzzz!

*noms on a burger while reading*

very smart stuff

I got to the last panel, and you know what I saw? I saw a pro life mob and peta on either side of the street, burnt out cars lineing the road, chain link and machine gun nests and all out war as both sides fight for the "right" choice.

Meanwhile rest of america watched its new favorite reality tv show which was just long distance cameras recording all the action.

Of course people say I have a active imagination, regardless, kudos sir. kudos.

lmao, that is the coolest acronym name ever xD

Where do I sign!

She's actually said it's okay for her because she "has to stay alive to fight for animals." Ughh, selfish hypocritical bitch. >:[

I'm a pro-choice vegetarian who's against cosmetic testing but 100% for scientific and medical testing. As someone said further down in the thread, I'm pro-quality-of-life.

Aye, cosmetics research can go to hell.

I think I just might have to watch that one tho' I do despise the 'sureality' shows...

Any one taking side bets on which idiots win? I'm bettin' on the biblethumpers...much more viscious and blood thisty...

*Smirk*

So their evil is just more subtle...and much more wide spread.

Bible thumping nazi nutcases run the largest economy in the world and they're the ones running it into the ground. They keep their citizens in fear and poverty just to keep control. They extol torture as a good means to an evil end. Their finacial fiascos have the possibility of causing world wide disaster due to their capitalist pig paradigm.

They are currently in a race to make medical care for folks completely un-attainable. They continue to pour cash down the elite's and rich's pockets for no other reason than 'cause...

If you want to compare heinous crimes against humanity how'bout we start with the crusades?

The inquisition?

Witch burnings any one?

(But to be fair the pagans/romans started it with the first chrixians)

Maoism isn't a religion claiming goodness and virtue...doesn't excuse their 'sins' tho'...

As I've already stated there has been no communism on the planet so it was just Lenin and old Joe and cronies who offed folks...and the numbers are irrellevant. Killing just one person for dominance in an evil manner is still evil...and we know no xistians have/would do that...*DELIBERATE SNEER!*

As for the fascist...well that was a viscious war of aggression lead by leaders who lied to their people. (Stupid sheep fell for it...same as now adays...) No christian 'round here does that now do they?

Now remembering that numbers of killed don't matter, that it's the manner of the killing that makes the thing heinous...how many innocent civilians have been murdered by the uber christian gov't of amerikkka?

As for the one dude who flew his plane into a building...and became a hero (WDF!?) of the good xitian tea baggers...I'm not sure of his actual religion...but since y'all claimed him...*Shrug*...

fox news gotta love'em...

The term conservative does not apply to those idiots...in any of it's definitions.

Nor does the term liberal connect with anything even remotely liberal.

The terms have been hi-jacked and misused and twisted so badly they don't mean anything any more.

Nope. NOT rhetoric. Don't know the number. And it's not needed. Remember even ONE is enough to condem. It's NOT the numbers it's the fact that evil was done. It's not the way the deaths occured it's that they DID. Don't talk in circles bub...you were doin' O.K. with out resorting to tricks.

Nope. No tricks here. I use words to deliberately inflame. That weeds out the idiots fast. Those that can't be coherent or logical with their ideas don't need real answers any way.

You've been good so far, well reasoned for the most part. Keep your brain working so I can stimulate mine own. Constant brain work is the only way to stay young...

ALL religions are E/VIL/E. That includes hard core atheists and "we've already discovered everything" scientists. The fact that a brain is too weak to depend upon itself and requires some superstitious god is evidence that it needs to be saved. *Dirty Smirk*

As for trying to claim that one evil is better than another is silly. With the possible exception of true satanism (Anton LeVay was appearently a practical joker so his 'religion' is more in the veign of ayn rand and it's crowd) ALL religions at their heart say basically the same thing. "Try not to be a dick".

No. I didn't just read my own words. *Smirk*

O' and ronnie ray-gun was a traitor who should have been shot (Funny that treason is the only crime directly adressed in the constitution.) His clones the bushies were just robber barons who continue/d the raping of america.

Now for extra credit and drama:

Obama is just bush with a really dark tan...just look at his record...SIGH!

Every group has bad apples. To try and point out that other groups have MORE bad apples then your group is just mudd slinging. If you want to go there, be my guest. Really though, if you are trying to have an intelligent debate, leave your mudd slinging for something else. It was honestly uncalled for, and will only open a bad can of worms for you.

Thanks.

I didn't ask for a wall of text, and I didn't question your opinion.

I said don't push your mud slinging " Christianity isn't bad, ______ burns their babies at the stake for being cross eyed! "

I don't care. Just stop mudd slinging. It makes you sound dumb, right off the bat. Just saying.

The double standard is very convenient isn't it?

Pass the tofu.

Agree, agree and agree again!

Im a pro choice omnivore. I say kill all three and make room for me!

Always room for you >_>

I agree with the whole theme regarding abortion, but I am a pro meat kinda girl. Raised on a meat farm doncha know.

*nods* The point of this comic is just to say that you can't be both a meat-eater AND a pro-lifer. ...without being totally hypocritical :D I'm hoping people don't think it's just an animal rights thing, that'd be missing the point :-/

Yeah, I got ya. Pro-lifers piss me off anyway. World's overpopulated, people have bugger all money and can't give a kid the best childhood they can but they decide to keep it just because it's happened. It's like getting a leak in something and just letting everything get worse instead of fixing it.

Yeah, they piss me off too generally. I suppose it's not that bad if someone is pro-life just in regard to themselves (though it's sad for any children they might have by accident if they don't have the means to give them a decent life.)
What irks me are all the pro-lifers who want to make abortion illegal and stuff. A person's beliefs are their thing, but trying to force them on everyone is the mark of an arrogant, self-righteous piece of shit. It's the same thing with gay marriage (another topic that really makes me frustrated and angry.) ...If someone doesn't like the idea of gay marriage... well...
...Then they shouldn't marry someone of the same sex! DUH!
When they try to force everyone ELSE to fit into their ignorant and bigoted worldview by passing laws banning gay marriage and opposing laws that allow it, it's totally infuriating to me.

People should mind their own business. Goddamn >.<
Excuse the mini-rant

Exactly, same here.

Also; People using religion as an excuse to justify their actions. Is that not the most infuriating thing EVER?

YES. It's about as infuriating as when they use religion as a justification to not take responsibility for things, too. Guh

sorry to butt into your little conversation, but i so very much agree with all your saying.. ^^; i don't understand how there can be laws against things like abortion or gay marriage or anything that would prevent a person from leading a life that they need to to be happy. especially in a place like america where our original idea was to be free from oppression and senseless laws and other things. to have free thought, right to practice any religion you want, to say what you want, and lead a life that you would be happy and satisfied with. though.. it seems to have turned more into 'free if you have the money to make it your way'.. at the cost of he little man.. i mean correct me if I'm wrong in any of this but, anyway.. great strip ^^;;

It's the ethical and moral questions that seem to cause the problems.

"When does (Human) life begin?"

Science answers: "At conception." Before the point of conception neither gamete is capable of reproducing (Human) life. Preconceptual birth control is completely ethical and moral.

Post conception the zygote is set on a course that; if all works as normal, results in only one end result, Human life.

As Humans shouldn't we protect that one thing that we say we most charish?

Saying that, we should also show mercy. Euthanasia of an unwanted life that will grow up in an abusive atmosphere?

Yes I know I've already lost most folks but there ARE other choises to abortion. (We'll leave Jonathan Swift and his Modest Proposal out of it for now...) There is a technique simular to a D&C that can "wash" the embreo out of a womb to be transplanted to another host.

Now we just need the folks who want kids who can't have them to step up to the plate and do that.

It'd be better than the system now and it would be moral and ethical.

i think people should have to pass a series of tests to be allowed to have a child.. ^^;; impractical i know, but in a perfect world, heh.

Yeah you have to take a class and a test just to cut hair but any two (Or more *Leer!*) idiots can hatch the penultimate life form on the planet...SIGH!

(My appologies to our masters the mice! Eep!)

It's not the MARAGE they are worried about. It's the same sex FORNICATION that they hate so much. The real funny thing is the solution is simple... Take notes on this. "Let them get married." Once they get married, the sex life goes down the tubes for 80% of couples. XD Everybody wins.

Hahaha; this is awesome

And this does not even get into eggs! Have an egg McMuffin - kill the cow and eat birdy embryos at the same time!!

I thought eggs you buy in the store are infertilized, they would never hatch into a chick

Yeah, they're not fertilized. If people used fertilized eggs to make things ... ... ... it would probably be pretty gross :S

lol yesh. Writing a looooong post for you here, don't hate me lol

I wouldn't be surprised :S

oh yea! i saw that on a travel channel thing. it sounded like a good idea until they cracked one open.. then i was sad. it was all cute an' fuzzeh.. ^^; heh

it is a baby ducky.. just dead.. they cracked open one that was pretty far developed, i could see the colored stripes from the feathers..

My phillipino friend says it's a delicacy where she's from. She doesn't eat it though, i think they only do it to troll tourists.

Plenty of Filipinos eat it regularly, it's available at a Filipino market near me, too.

Oh, it is. We have chickens and if the eggs break or anything after they're fertilized-it's a disgusting bloody mess. Also, chickens will go bat shit to eat their own eggs. They won't touch them if they're not broken, but you drop one on the ground and let it break and they will freaking fight each other for each bite of their own unborn young. I've seen it happen multiple times. -shudder-

I eat meat, partially because I am anemic and require the iron and I hate taking pills, but I also think that the world is agonizingly overpopulated and if a woman doesn't want to keep the child and knows it won't be raised in a good atmosphere, and it's in an early enough stage that it can't feel anything of course, then it is her right to do what she sees fit. What would be more merciful-nonexistance or a life of pain and suffering? Besides, the world can't take too many more people crowding up on it, there's just not enough space unless we start colonizing the ocean.

Do you smell somethin' fishy? Red Herring any one?

Yes we CAN make all the population of the world equally well off and with NO loss in real quality of life for any one.

The only real obsticle are the powers that be that want to stay in charge by convincing every one that we NEED wealth.

We don't need half the shit we have now and would live better with a lot less stuff...

It's that nagging paradigm change we so badly need...

AS for the supposed quotes...(I tend never to trust quotes from teabaggers) If they did say that that's just damned silly.

(As much as I hate the fascistic bastard) Heinlein had a nice quote...

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

-Robert A. Heinlein

i've never heard that before, tis a nice quote ^^

Lots of the eggs are fertilized. I used to raise chickens, you can take an egg that's been fertilized, and leave it in the fridge for about three weeks before it cant be hatched. They dont look any different when you crack em open unless you let the hen sit on it for a few days.


All in all, it isnt gross!

*cough*

Actually, we've found a way to make breeder laying hens fertilize their own eggs. It is quite a money saver when you're trying to breed laying hens and don't want to lose 1/2 of your flock because they're male. The hen will fertilize her own eggs and produce 2/3 female and 1/3 male.

The same condition can happen naturally in laying hens, though we're not quite sure what causes it. The breeders have the condition induced through surgery.

/random bird fact

*most* aren't fertilized.

There's a...I guess it's an urban legend that if you open up an egg and there's a little red dot in the yolk, then a rooster went fence-hopping and got busy with some chickens. But eggs are harvested rather quickly so it never got a chance to develop.

I don't know how true it is, but I could see it happening. Not every egg farm is going to have top-level security digs to keep the roosters out, if any are even on the farm. With the fact that your eggs could come from about anywhere, it certainly leaves open the possibility that you'll eventually get an egg from a farm that isn't as careful, and perhaps one day you'll be eating an honest-to-goodness chicken featous.

Oh I see. I guess you can't help that then. If you consider how people would be okay with abortion, the fetus would be dead relatively quick anyway

Nah, those red little specks are actually just blood clots formed by small blood vessels which ruptured during egg formation; and even the majority of eggs with those are weeded out through candling. Unless you're getting your eggs hand-picked and straight from the farm, I don't think you'd ever see one with a developing embryo in it. :)

Ah, okay. I stand corrected then :3

lol farm

Most eggs (I would venture to say all eggs in your grocery store) come from CAFOs (confined animal feeding operation) - about as far away from a farm as a diesel semi is from a horse and carriage. Those chickens never see the light of day, let alone a rooster, male chicks are separated from female in the hatchery and tossed into a giant meat grinder, literally, because the egg producers don't want to go to the effort of feeding a male when their business is egg layers (meat chickens are a different breed).

So yeah. Pretty safe to say they are unfertilized, unless you actually buy them from a farmer.

hens lay more eggs after having been fertilized.

t3h paradox, it hurtz!

You know, I doubt too many people really think about that.

Very well put sir.



Though sadly as an adult, it becomes all too easy to see that politics are never about the issues. It's about politicians trying to keep their jobs and attackers trying to take those jobs. So statements are made and sides are taken in hopes to rally the majority of voters who will hemm and haww about how good a person you are and then go reelect you. The most awful reality is that abortion is not babies, and neither is animal cruelty about beef. It's about money. And you get that money by lies and schemes and convincing everyone youre a person of good morals (pro life) and then giving them exactly what they want (greasy burgers). And anoth-

Oh my. *notices and steps off soapbox*

Sorry about that.



kirin vore? ^_^

Too true...

Now, can we change our paradigm?

That will have to be someone else as I'm going to be burned at the stake for revealing the nature of our current one. Truth can never be herasy, but nothing is persecuted against stronger.

Ouch!

Should we bring our own fire wood?

*Smirk*

xD

Everyone knows that God made animals for us to exploit and use as we see fit!

:P

Now to return to self loathing for not being able to break from my meat addiction. :(

ditto :(

Haha :D :p Me to. :p

Yuh know, I've thought about it...

I'll quit eatin' hamburger when the cow stands up an' says:

"M'let M'my M'people go!"

Of course the conversation will go somethin' like:

"Does that cow sound mad to you, Bubba?"

"Yup. Mad Cow...gotta be put down. Now pass me another steak."

*Evil Grin!*

Just as something to think about in regard to this - fruits and nectar are made to be eaten. Frugivores and nectarivores do not necessarily exist within the ultimate truth of your comment. :D
Unfortunately humans have a pretty tough time surviving on fruit and nectar, heh.

Don't stop eating meat, make friends with a farmer. Having lived on a farm, I think ethical meat is not only possible, but necessary.

This!

ahah I love your cartoons... you should draw more of them ^.^

I need to work harder on cutting down the amount of meat I eat :(
I don't really eat beef since I switched to quorn mince a year ago and I'm glad about that. Mostly now it's pork - bacon and sausages... they're so tasty D:

Food always seems /lacking/ without any meat in it. Beans and tofu and stuff just don't make a good substitute, it always feels like there's something missing.

(yes I know this wasn't the point of the cartoon, I'm just waffling at a tangent. The cartoon was nice and needling to those pro-lifers) ;)

I'm pro choice. This made me smile though, since i was thinking similarily a couple of days ago. Nice to know there's a couple of furs on here that have a brain in their skills.

The problem is, you gave voice *to* the embryo instead of a narrator or something, so regardless of what it says, it looks clever and it makes people favour it by default. That's a kind of bias you personally shouldn't even want here

Haha. :3 Good statement. :p

Yeah, i am aware of that - i did it that way on purpose.
I highly doubt people would sympathize with an emotionless (very objective) blob - if it was saying "Oh noooo, pleease! i don't want to die! Keep those coathangers to yourself!" that would be different.

Some people like me will sympathise with ones who can display intellect, it doesn't need to be whining or stating the obvious

>.> DUN KILL BABY COWS :(

**hugs the cows**

Because humans and animals are totally on the same level.

Humans are animals.


Anyway, this is comparing a bundle of cells that has no consciousness (embryo) to a living, breathing creature that is fully developed and quite capable of feeling pain and pleasure. Even if humans and other animals are not on the same level (that's an argument for elsewhere) ...this HUGE difference should more than close that gap, right?

Supporting the killing a thinking, feeling being but then vehemently opposing the abortion of a non-entity that is just a little mindless ball of slime - that is pretty damn hypocritical.

depends on the point of view. What ever if animals or humans are on the same level is a debatable and critical point which I cant answer and thus leave out (my view though is that there is a lot room for research and that I believe to many base their assumption about animals on the fact that they are simply looking stupid to them even though when all one can do is just guess and not know we probably just dont understand animals as well as they understand us since most of them see humans as a threat which isnt usualy that far away from reality ... ).

We treat animals probably most of the time wrong which I agree. Regardles if we see them as food, pets or what ever else the way how they are mass produced and cultured. Thats something I completely agree with and where a lot of hypocritical views are present. But I also think that comparing abortion with animal killing for food consumtion is a bit over-simplyfing the situation. Every living beeing would usualy decide in favour for its own species over another one if we arent talking about canibalism here but usualy most mammals with a very advanced central nervous system care about their offspring and would prefer their own species over another when they have to decide.

I am not a fan of exagerated pro-life views but I think to be against abortions with your own species and eating meat is not hypocritical in my eyes as long you are not a canibal that is. I do think there are differences in Humans and Animals if not, why do humans tend to destroy their habitat and animals not ?

The right to choose whats a worthy live and what isnt in my eyes is not up to the parents though. It sounds to me very similar to eugenics and a different form of "mercy killing". Even poor parents can give their children a happy time and life worth to be liven. It depends more on the parents then anything else in my eyes. To choose here for the children is taking away a principle right and potential. Many might argue that the mother has always the right to decide about heir own body, but who owns a child really in the end ? Its a important question cause if you own something similar to a object it means that you can treat it like any object which also includes abuse eventualy by the parents. Its a complex topic. But of course thats my personal oppinion. It doesnt mean that I am right with what I say :)
There have been a lot of abortions happening in my family. Cant say that I really agreed to the decisions.

Every living beeing would usualy decide in favour for its own species over another one

Problem here is that it's part of a sliding scale of genetic commonality:
*Parents put their own children ahead of other people's children.
*White people put their own race ahead of others.
*Humans put their own species ahead of others.

See how the middle one just slots in there very easily? If case A and case C are arguably moral, then case B must also be moral! Except it isn't. Which means the other two are also highly questionable. And indeed, you can find parents that are willing to save a million children at some cost to their own. Or parents willing to help police hunt down their serial killing offspring. In theoretical examples, using Vulcans and Klingons or Anthros, you can easily show that case C is as biggoted and 'racist' as case B. (And yes, theoretical arguements about things that don't exist DO count in ethical arguements. See the 'train track' thought experiments. And Einstein riding on a photon for that matter.)

eating meat is not hypocritical in my eyes as long you are not a canibal

Would you kill and eat a fully-sapient non-human, if one existed? Simple theoretical scenario: Yes or no?
If yes, then you're that kind of person, but at least you're honest.
If no, then ask yourself why, because it's still not canibalism. If because of their mind then you are not only hypocritical, but also self-decieving - since you're just said, "Oh but the mind doesn't matter. The species does."

The right to choose whats a worthy live and what isnt in my eyes is not up to the parents though.

True, to a point. In the same way that guiltt and innocence is not something to be decided by the mob. But that's not the same thing as saying that such a determination is impossible. In fact science and evidence can help in both cases. The fact is that during the times when abortion is legal (and part of the time when it isn't) the embryo in no way deserves the label 'child'. A little more of your self-deception leaking though there methinks.

You've really taken much of what he said out of context. Not to mention a bit of manipulating the details to suit your own needs.

He says,
Given the choice, a species will support its own species. In other words, stick a human in a room with a cow and another human and tell him to "eat one", it's cow BBQ time.
He isn't talking about the morality of genetic commonality favoritism.

You've asked him two separate questions, one about killing, and the other eating... but it seems you've only used this question as a pretense to berate him. You answer both yes and no for him, labeling him either "that" kind of person but honest, or hypocrite and self deceiving.

since you're just said, "Oh but the mind doesn't matter. The species does."

You have him quoted as saying this but, a quick read shows he never said the mind doesn't matter.

You've really taken much of what he said out of context. True, but then again I could have picked on the really flawed statements he makes. Like the one about (other) animals not destroying their habitat. If you believe I have constructed a strawman, please point out examplesand supply the currect meaning. Ditto for data manipulation. It is an easy accusation to make. but you provide no examples, no evidence, no corrected interpretation.

He says, Given the choice, a species will support its own species. <snip> He isn't talking about the morality of genetic commonality favoritism. This is like saying "Apples fall down when you let them go, but that's not gravity!" You're confusing behaviour and motivation. Genetic and memetic commonality is THE big reason why living beings chose genetic relations over members of their community (if they have one) over other members of their species, and over everything else. Selfish Gene theory is not a crazy left field idea, and easily explains selfish and altruism in the vast majority of life forms (including humans) in the vast majority of the time.

You have him quoted as saying this but, a quick read shows he never said the mind doesn't matter. true. I paraphrased. Correctly I belive, and obviously correctly if you look at the full conversattion.

Prior to his statements EC Major said (in his comic) that killing a mindless embryo is a lesser act of immoralitty than killing a cow which has a mind. Osamljen-wuk disagreed with this. he gave no qualifacationn to this disaggreements. It is perfectly reasonable to look at his statements and conclude that he believes killing a mindless embryo is a worse act than killing a adult cow. I concluded from this that he placed absolutely no value on the presence of a mind, that it the mind in question did not matter to him. Given his double assertion of the correctness (pragmatic or otherwise) of genetic commonality as a guide for moralitty, I believe my second sentence is also throughly justified.

Prior to his statements EC Major said (in his comic) that killing a mindless embryo is a lesser act of immoralitty than killing a cow which has a mind. Osamljen-wuk disagreed with this. he gave no qualifacationn to this disaggreements. It is perfectly reasonable to look at his statements and conclude that he believes killing a mindless embryo is a worse act than killing a adult cow.

What I want actualy to say is that killing a mindless embryo is worse then killing a cow for consumption which is a natural act. Generaly speaking.

Sorry. Typo. That should have read 'he believes killing the embryo is worse then the cow'. That aside...

Naturalistic fallicy. Epic fail.

thats of course your oppinion. But I dont see why its a fallacy. Except youre a Buddhist which is explained by religion and something I can respect. But as I said already some populations are dependent on meat as source for nutrients. They need it for their basic needs. Killing a embryo for just cause (regardles what kind of embryo) is a entirely different case.

You've really taken much of what he said out of context. Not to mention a bit of manipulating the details to suit your own needs.

He says,
Given the choice, a species will support its own species. In other words, stick a human in a room with a cow and another human and tell him to "eat one", it's cow BBQ time.
He isn't talking about the morality of genetic commonality favoritism.

You've asked him two separate questions, one about killing, and the other eating... but it seems you've only used this question as a pretense to berate him. You answer both yes and no for him, labeling him either "that" kind of person but honest, or hypocrite and self deceiving.

since you're just said, "Oh but the mind doesn't matter. The species does."

You have him quoted as saying it, a quick read shows he never said the mind doesn't matter.

as I said already. Much depends on the point of view. The Human as species is a carnivore or at least a form omnivore and predator (there have been changes in the last 100 000 years). This is clearly shown as most of our anatomy is designed around that, like forward eyes and teeth that are well suited for plants and meat. Though to get in a metaphysical discussion about it if it is moraly right as human to eat animals now or not is in my eyes just as reasonable like to dsicussion if a Lion has the right to hunt and eat some Gazelle point is that in some cases there are no other options. Has it any serious issue on the health of humans if we would completely turn down the consumption of meat ? Definetly not it might mean for many even a much healtier life if they would at least drasticaly decrease the consumption of meat since we eat to much today as the usual ancient human maybe had meat on its table once in a week when he was lucky. But its a fact that not every part of this world can live only on plants alone as some populations are dependent on geting nutrients in the form of meat either by hunting and consuming fish or other kind of living creaturs they have around and there would also be still the question ... are plants eventualy sensitive beeings as well ? You might be surprised that there are some buddhistic/hindu sects that actualy belive that ... Though this issue from where to get enough nutrients counts for many people located in areas where a substantial grow of plant live is not possible or efficient since not every plant even if it can be eaten is suited for every day consumption some have biger or higher values as food. And this counts not only for nations with a small or literaly non existant economy like a Russian steppe, the populated areas around the arctic like Greenland (Inuits etc.) but as well for a few very advanced industrial nations like Japan which simply has not enough soil present to grow nutrients in the form of plants for all of their citizens. Well not yet. There are many plans and scenarios for the future which involve mushrooms and tofu or other products not directly from animals. But this all is yet in the far future. I would never argue that the way we treat most animals in general is wrong and I agree that we should take much more care about it and eat less meat in general. But to deny the consumption of meat in general or questoin it is taking away for many people the only way to actualy survive. Particiularly surviving in a way that works for literaly as long as there are carnivores, herbivores and omnivores around. I will say it again, this are complex topics and I would guess that most here are NOT professionals in either of those fields be it biology and philosophy but neither am I and thus I think to simplify it isnt really going in a good direction.

When you want a serious discusion also sometimes present with different oppinions I doubt that simplyfing the topic is a good way. Also who is actualy deciding anyway that a elephant, cow or dolphin is less inteligent compared to a human, probably we do and that means that we actualy dont know how inteligent really animals are. We just guess it with our own mind,with tools and tests we invented and thus could be flawed. One day we might realise that most of it we know now is or was actualy wrong.

The real question is not if I would eat something that is on the same intelectual level like me ... thats a trick question and really almost a straw man argument. Question is how far would anyone go to "survive" ? And thats something you cant answer if you never experienced such a situation where you have been FORCED to decide. Who knows what anyone would do or how far they would go to survive ... how could I know that or even answer that question now from my curent position sitting in a chair with clear alternatives present and a more or less save situation? All I know and can say is that in my current situation I definetly would not eat something I can talk with and have conversations. And in a emergency situation with the certain death to consider eating a liveform that has the same cognition like I do it would definetly feel at least as uncomfortable if not even more like starting with canibalism but at least I would wait till one of us dies from starving and then eat eventualy the dead corpse if it happens that I die first well. But that are just hypothetical questions. Not real cases except one counts the squeal of a pig or the sounds of a duck as real conversation eventualy. But to discuss it if its right to eat animals and place that topic on the same level with abortions of human embryos are touching real cases.

False. It's an apples and orenges comparison.

A is true for the most part.
B is a non sequitor/subject because:

C humans do put their SPECIES ahead of others.

Once you step up to the species level the "race" card comes out of play. Period.

Now let's make species obsolete.

Let's talk Sentience/sapience.

(And NO you cannot use Einstein on a photon. Different example/debate entirely.)

A true sentient would not eat another regardless of species. Animals ARE NOT sentient/sapient.

How do we determine sentience? Well we've already established that rednex/republicans/biblethumpers/thugs etc. Are NOT sentient (See Above). I know the fact. I work with some. I would much rather work with a chimp. They have higher intelligences. So now we have to devise a test for sentience.

(Embarassingly I have to recall my own test of coherent/logical communication and reconsider it. I may have to raise my requirements. That way I can keep eating dogs and cats. They do tend to comunicate coherently and logically. Interesting tho'. I just realized that MOST wemen CAN'T comunicate logically [Coherence is debateable.] But we have to give them a pass for obvious reasons. [O' man Am I gonne get it now...sigh...]...).

And the right to choose who lives and who dies IS eugenics...but we've been playing that for a while...

What else can the child be termed if it's not a child? It will NOT be anything else. It really is that simple. It will be a human.

Oh where to begin...

If you want to claim apples/oranges, you must demonstrate why the comparison is unfair, not simply claim it is so.

Animals ARE NOT sentient/sapient.http://www.askoxford.com/
Sentient: able to perceive or feel things. Adult mammals are demonstratably sentient.
Sapient: wise, or attempting to appear wise Recursive definition
Wise: having or showing experience, knowledge, and good judgement This is a rarer trait, but can be found in the mammal kingdom. Cows can learn and (within narrow limits) show good judgement. Unfortunately, it can also be demonstratably absent in apparently healthy humans.

Oh, and humans are animals.

The rest of your post isn't particularly choherant.

Re read it. It rambles but it IS coherent.

Check YOUR soft ware and try again.

I checked the defs at your site (It's interface sux by the way...) AND other sites:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentient (Interesting snippit in it's theo-saurus [god dinosaur?]...)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&.....p;ved=0CAkQkAE

et.al. ...those defs are fairly ambiguous So lets look at the heart of the matter...

What do we really look for when we say sentient and sapient?

What makes us US? And, what would make animals acceptable as equales?

Many dif things involved: cognition, self awareness (I've seen dophins and ape/chimps pass the standard self awareness test of mirrors...), reasoning, etc. etc. ...

So let's cheat and take the easy way out and start with wiki *Sad Grin*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

Study these these then get back to me when you've enlightened your self (Sorry...bad joke but it works...only if you read the articles and don't troll...

*Smirk*

Ah, So we're gonn amake it about consciousness are we?

Fine.

In just a few short weks the human fetus begins to exibit signs of HUMAN consciousness.

How long till my big brown eyed hamburger starts to exibit small talk?

Yes there IS a big gap between human and non-human. Untill that gap closes (By what ever means...) Humans are going to get preference over food.

Now see, this post is a little clearer.
Ah, So we're gonn amake it about consciousness are we? Fine. In just a few short weks the human fetus begins to exibit signs of HUMAN consciousness. And the truth is:
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/phil/allStages.gif
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/kin.....s/jerison1.gif
By five weeks (picture 16) the embryo's head is about 0.125cm^3. If this is all brain it amounts to 1/8th of a gramm, which is only slightly larger than a goldfish. Now the human mind is a marvalously flexible and adaptable piece of 'software' but is does have MINIMUM 'hardware' requirements. The most extreme caseof brain tissue failure was somsone operating on about 65% of their 'normal' brain mass; and this was a *very* special case. I might grant you brain activity, but there's nothing human about the brain that is sitting somewhere below goldfish and above housefly.

How long till my big brown eyed hamburger starts to exibit small talk? Now see, you can't say you're going to make it about an impartial measurement and then start to introduce prejudicial standards. You especially can't reasonably demand that one of the subjects has to already be dead when you make your measurements.

Compairing brain activity between a living and dead creature? That is a case of apples and oranges.

MY orenges...

YOUR apples...

The human embreo will only become a human (More or less depending on the parents and conditions experienced...O' and just a lil' bit of HUMAN DNA...

The big brown eyed hamburger (Described as a joke! I wasn't comapring dead vrsus alive! SHEESH! MAN! Some people's chil'drin'!) will ONLY become a hamburger...among other tastey treats...

YES that little bit of DIFFERENT DNA makes ALL the difference...

I don't know how much diff between me and my hamburger but the closest so far to us is the Bonobo (Man what a life!) at 2% or less difference...And I already give them a pass...

"Humans are animals."

FUCK YES. Why don't people get this? There's plenty of proof for some level of sentience in many other kinds of animals, and humanity doesn't seem to care. I know this is about abortion, but I find it leaks into so many other issues as well. It often seems to me that humans forget that they are animals. We pretend like the laws of nature don't apply to us, but every time we break them, we take another step towards the destruction of our species. FFff....I'm going to shut up now because I'd never stop writing otherwise.

We are, we're animals too don'tcha know.

They are.

Any scientist born in the last hundred years will tell you that animals are just on equal footing as humans. Humans just evolved differently. We got a big brain. Other animals got amazing regenerative abilities, keen senses, athletic prowess, the ability to survive harsh conditions without the need of a leather jacket from "The Burlington Coat Factory", etc.

People need to learn that humans aren't above anything else on this planet. The sooner we dispel that ego, the better.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the point being made here is something like "life is life, none should be worth more or less than others"

Thank you.

Yay! Don't eat the mosquitos! 'Cause they're an indagered species!

I don't see a separate kingdom for humans... we're still in the animal kingdom right next to the other monkeys/apes. X3

I didn't mean to make my comment sound as if I thought differently than that.

I said *other* monkeys/apes to indicate I don't think we're not monkeys. c:

No.

Far too many variable there to bother with in this short (HAH!) forum. Just face facts:

Sentience rules critters drool.

Why are they not, with regards to this conversation?

Good comic =)
Though I can't really understand those pro-life-persons. It's up to the woman what to do with her unborn child - and if she knows she don't want to have a child or the child is the result of a rape ... it' her decision and no one else has to call murderer (then thinking of that those people eating meat so it's okay to kill an animal which is grown up and all that but it's a shame to 'kill' something that's just a bunch of cells ^^")

Yeah, it is a mother's business what to do with her pregnancy. If she feels morally obligated to keep it, then that's her choice. But no one else should be able to make a LAW that says she HAS to keep it, that is totally unfair and in some cases harmful to both that mother and her unborn child.

Kudos to you.

As I understand it, the majority of pro-lifers are middle-to-upper class white people with plenty of spare cash. They're also radical lefty liberals on the whole with all sorts of crazy hypocrisy to share with the world. I'm on your side with this one, obviously. I think there should be a child tax or something, reduced if you adopt children into your own family, of course, since there's far too many peoples!

...I think pro-lifers are generally conservatives :C Hence the ick ...and they're often religious - Human Goo is sacred, and all that.

Yeah, there should definitely be some sort of incentive to adopt instead of breeding... There are so many unwanted children in the world :-/ People who knowingly create their own instead are pretty selfish.

Still than, sometimes it's much more complicated to adopt a child. As far as I know it's much better if you're married and if you are both working and than it has to be granted, if one stays with the child that the other parent-part earns enough money and all that.
If you're a single person or a gay/lesbian it's very hard. Or even not allowed - I'm from Austria and I'm afraid that the church has still too much power here.
At the beginning of 2010 it was legalized that there is a gay-partnership - official...kind of but it's not called marriage =/ and those people are not allowed to adopt a child. That's soemthing I can't understand, too ... if they're two men or two women who want to have a child and rise it - where's the problem? The child wouldn't care, it's just our damn f*cking society that thinks, that homosexuality is still some desease and that those people doesn't have the right to have the same rights ...

The main reason for gay couples not being allowed to adopt, as I understand it, is quite simply that it is believed to be better for a child to have a male and a female role model in their life.

Believed - but not proven.

...Generally by the same people that also look down on single parents.

And yet no one takes kids away from single parents just because they're single. Or from a lesbian couple who managed to get some sperm somewhere. It's just the adoption that goes "no u" when it comes to such...

It's also silly because most are going to know both males and females regardless of who they're raised by.

Stupid beliefs sometimes, mm, but so hard to change... :<

According to history your part of the world never really much liked anyone who wasn't a blond haired blue eyed some sort of catholic.

But hey, marriage rights are bullshit pretty much every where you go, adoption laws more so messed up than the people who wrote them. Hell, most laws are written so ass backwards in any legal system that you can't understand what the hell it's saying.

The fact of the matter is that the world not only needs more abortions, but more orphanage burnings and another black death or something.

GO SWINE FLU!

I think the funny thing about pro-lifers is that they are usually financially conservative too- they hate paying taxes.

So-

Wouldn't it be cheaper to abort unwanted children instead of encouraging bloated welfare families(since so many of them are against contraception, and contraception education too?) It makes no fucking sense!

They'd give the world for a fetus, but instead of donating time and money to resources that help children already born, or adopting children, they stand outside of clinics protesting day and night. They waste energy fighting every tax proposed to HELP these children once they are born too. Healthcare and Schooling for these families who can't afford the children you pushed them into having? "No way, they're in God's hands, my family's fine, so screw them!!"

Its crap like that that really shows that these "people" are all about oppressing women and sexuality, there's no real concern for the fetus. That's just an angle to scare women and make them feel bad about taking control of their lives.

They're not thinking, they're "following their 'gut.' " If they were thinking, they would have made the same connections you just did.

Well... your conservatives are a bit more crazy than ours... but I'm certainly on the right wing and with conservative leanings so... yah.

My favorite part is how pro lifers vote against abortion, yet almost universally vote to cut social programs and raise millitary spending.

It sure is easy to shriek and scream about the sanctity of life BEFORE taxpayers have to pay the "little angel's" child support.

They only care about children from the moment of conception to the moment of birth.

Unless it's to tout some sort of censorship in their name.

There are several religions in which males aren't allowed to masturbate because each sperm is a 'potential human being' and therefore to spoodge without the express intent of creating a child-i.e., any form of sex other than traditional-is immoral and punishable.

I hate organized religion. I was raised catholic, so I can say from experience within the cult that it's utter bullshit in which you are threatened constantly and live a life of fear. I used to go to psychiatrists and have depression problems and even get suicidal every once in a while when I was ten fucking years old because of religion-as soon as I stood up and said 'You know what? This fucking sucks.' and left religion altogether, all that evaporated. I've been a hell of a lot happier, even if my family has summarily rejected me, and I've found life to be altogether more enjoyable.

And the worst excuse I've ever heard for wanting to have your own child rather than adopt-"It's just not the same when it's not your own, it's not actually part of you so you don't feel as much for it as you would if it were truly yours."

Fucking seriously? Seriously?!! People are bastards.

Wow. I feel for you. My own experience with being raised Catholic wasn't half as bad... Anyway congrats on escaping The Cult!

Thanks, and I love your icon by the way. ^_^

Thanks. It's a scan of my badge. Rukis made it. (Yes you can find her on FA, but I forgot how to do those page-link things.)

Love your comics. Did I mention that meat is delicious? Some people and animals can stay alive for my entertainment. The rest can be slaughtered, cooked, served with garlic salt, and served with side item and a drink of your choice. Did I mention that meat is delicious?

You know...
In my mind I keep comparing the anti abortion movement with the animal rights movement
but everyone says I'm wrong and nuts for doing so

They are pretty similar. Though in my opinion one of those movements has good justification to exist ...and the other one doesn't.

A thinking, feeling creature... or a little mindless glob in someone's uterus ...HMMM.

XD they both seem to use similar argumentative tactics and are debating the "personhood" of things...
I have a hard time seeing why people get in a tizzy over a cluster of cells. But I also have a hard time seeing why people get in a tizzy over something that's a basic tenant to life almost since it began (predation). I just hate production methods that force the animal to live unnaturally and torture them.
I can understand that someone just doesn't like meat much though! Or why someone wouldn't personally choose to have an elective abortion.

They both have their share of wackos too, that's for sure >.<

I applaud your point of view.

I love you SO FUCKING MUCH for this.

i love all kinds of animals
but i dont eat them
i stopped eating them b/c its wrong
cows, pigs, chickens, lamb and other animals have a purpose on this earth
its just us careless humans that dont care what animals feel when theyre being slaughtered

thats what i mean
if its not real meat then i guess it wouldnt be wrong to eat

There is also a significant question of cost of meat in terms of environment, not simply the ethics of the life of the animal in question. If a vat grown industry is still a significant contributor of greenhouse gasses or still relies on antibiotics to be viable, then it's long term benefit to us and our world are questionable.

I enjoy meat, and would prefer a meat without animal, but these concerns are still valid for some of those so called elitists. But I'm going to guess you are simply talking about very specific people. ;)

Just because it is grown in a lab doesn't mean it is sterile. Just because it involved less animals does not mean it involves less transport or body waste. For every pound of beef produced, at least one pound of nutrient has to be consumed, very likely with much higher numbers involved.

Cursory glance at wikipedia, in case you don't trust my word for it:

1. "In vitro meat requires artificial growth hormones to be added to the culture for meat production,[15] which is not necessary in conventional meat production. No procedure has been presented to produce in vitro meat without the use of antibiotics to prevent bacterial infections."

2. "For the growth of real muscle, however, the cells should grow "on the spot," which requires a perfusion system akin to a blood supply to deliver nutrients and oxygen close to the growing cells, as well as to remove the waste products."

3. "The patent holder for in-vitro meat says that it will produce fewer greenhouse gasses than conventional meat production,[8] and journalist Brendan I. Koerner has argued that in-vitro meat production might require fewer resources and produce less waste.[18] Margaret Mellon of the Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees with these conjectures, and thinks that the energy and fossil fuel requirements of large scale in-vitro meat production in a factory make it more environmentally destructive than producing food off the land.[2]"

Simply put, the systemic cost of this fledgling science is not within our understanding, as the process has not been refined enough to even see the construction of a framework for mass production.

We live in a golden age and see miracles every day. :)

My first and most persistant thought about that is "Ewwwwwwwww!" O_o
But then again, I'm a vegetarian because I find the thought of eating flesh very unappealing, and not so much because of "it's wrong", "poor animals" or similar reasons... Humans may be evolved to be omnivorous, but not everyone eat everything it's possible to digest, after all.

Interesting article, though, thanks for sharing the link.

To live, we must eat. When we eat, another living thing must die.

As to the morality of abortion, it all depends on the answer to a simple question. When does Human life begin? Does it begin at the first cell division, when the heart first starts beating, when bodily systems have matured enough to allow viability outside the womb, or when the newborn takes his or her first breath?

could you explain what you mean by the first part? or why the second part is relevant?

The first part explains that animals have to eat, and when we eat, another living thing must die. It's a simple fact of life, and is why I think vegans practice doublethink.

The second part is relevant because it is where we draw the line between abortion and murder.

isn't that only true if you consider plant life or the collateral damage to grain-threshed rodents?

and besides that, the cartoon is accurate in portraying the relative cognitive ability of cow v. fetus. what's at issue is the "higher" form of life at the time of measurement (the cow), not the fetus

Food is food. To eat, we kill. It matters not if it is plant or animal.

The only way to answer the conundrum posed in the comic is to draw the line. When during fetal development does the child-to-be become "Human"? Before that point in time, aborting the pregnancy is just "mehh", afterwards, it becomes murder.

What measure is Human?

Plenty of plant material can be consumed without killing the source. Leaves and fruit, most notably.

The difference is that vegans kill plants, not thinking, feeling beings. How is it doublethink at all?
Even if you're one of those people that think plants have as much a right to life as animals (and I've never met anyone that actually believed that except when they were using it as an argument against vegans), then we STILL eat fewer plants than you to because it takes far more plants to create a single pound of beef than it would take to just skip the middleman and eat only the plants. You are still killing far more than we are.
And yeah, perhaps a mouse might get caught in a thresher (although there have been studies on this and it's far fewer than you'd think, also, again, meat eaters would kill all these mice an more), but sometimes beings will die. Sometimes I accidentally step on a bug. That's life, but we can reduce our killing as much as possible.

The Pro-Lifers lost pretty well all credibility, as far as I'm concerned, when they started bombing abortion clinics and shooting doctors.

Extremists in any situation and for any cause look bad, i think.

But yeah... man, when the pro-life protesters showed up at that murdered doctor's funeral a few months ago with all sorts of signs saying "He got what he deserved!" and all that shit... that's just fucking sick.

Yeah, that's just disgusting. I wish some of these pro-lifers would get what *they* deserve. I like to see people get their come-uppance.

Personally, my take on unborn children is that when it has measurable brain activity, then it becomes a person. Until then it's just a blob of flesh, and is in no way more interesting or important than a tumor.

That's also just my opinion. I'm happy to state it, but I won't force it on anyone else. If anyone reading this wants to believe something else, go hard! I'll not stop you.

Every cause will eventually have mad men following it, try looking past that every now and then

Absolutely not so. The Gays and Lesbians of North America have been pushing their cause for decades without having any involvement with violence beyond being the victims of it. Ghandi and his followers managed to evict the British from India without firing a shot. However the fact that "Pro-Lifers" (and I use the term extremely loosely in this case) continue to engage in acts of violence and brutal murder isn't exactly inspiring me with confidence about their cause.

THIS