This is something I've been contemplating...
Because if the cow (baby) isn't an animal (person) until it is born then the vegetarian shouldn't have a problem eating the fetus because it hasn't been born yet.

I'm referring specifically to vegetarians who don't eat animals for animal cruelity reasons.

Funny thing is most vegetarians would be pro choice too.

No they wouldn't. Most meat eaters wouldn't eat cow fetus either.. (not as our society is at the moment)

And not all vegiterians are vegiterians because they think eating meat is wrong, they often do it because it's 'unhealthy'.

They probably wouldn't eat it, but I wonder if they would have a moral dilemma. I also specified the type of vegetarians to which I refer also.

Well... i guess the fetus is always considered as an animal... if you don't consider it as an individual, then you'd have to consider it as part of his mother's body... so...

Anyways... cow fetus... i don't think anyone would eat one if they didn't have to... :p

The only vegitarian I know doesn't see anything wrong with eating meat.

His parents are vegitarians so he's just never eaten any.:-/

I can't imagine what possible reasoning could lead a person to conclude that it's wrong to kill a cow but OK to kill a human foetus. Surely the only possibly criterion by which abortion is acceptable is that the foetus is insufficiently developed to feel or think anything and therefore snuffing it out is not murder any more than contraception is. And by that logic, go ahead and eat a cow, because almost all scientists agree that animals are not sentient either.

It's like asking "would a person who thinks it's okay to kill people on a Thursday but not on a Friday think it was okay to kill on a Monday?".


Edit: And you can't have a moral dilemma against something. You can have a dilemma about something, or a moral objection to something. But a dilemma is something about which you are in two minds, and as such can't be exclusively for or against anything.

The question is, how do you get the bovine fetus out of the mother's uterus.
almost all scientists agree that animals are not sentient either
What the heck? :eek:

What the heck? :eek:
Well perhaps I used the wong word -- it's really not my area -- but I'm pretty sure that it's generally accepted that most animals' brains are so simple that they can't be said to "think" like we do.

I mean, plants aren't sentient. Amoebas aren't. So what about insects? Or small birds? Surely they can't actually be aware of anything much -- their brains are the size of peas. So where do you draw the line between what is and is not capable of thought? Generally it's done by brain size and/or complexity, and the brain of a cow, for example, is rather nearer in size to that of a radish than that of a human. It has exactly enough brain to chew grass and keep track of its myriad stomachs. It doesn't have any extra brain to cogitate verbs in. A cow cannot think for itself, or feel an emotion, or be self-aware. It is not, in any meaningful sense, something that can be "murdered". It can be killed, yes, but so can a walnut or a germ. I'm not saying that makes it OK to kill them. That's effectively a purely subjective notion until someone discovers exactly how the mind of a cow works. But I am saying that it makes it a damn sight more justifiable than an abortion. We know humans can think, and feel, and be self-aware. We know that they can value life and we know what pain is like for them. We don't know exactly when they develop these abilities, but we know that they (mostly) do, and I think if you side with the cow you have to stick up for a baby. I just can't find a self-consistent, reasonable outlook that would permit abortion but not meat-eating.

I think the solution here is to do like they did in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe and breed an animal that wants to be eaten and is capable of expressing so.

Edit: And that can do so in the foetus stage as well.

Well perhaps I used the wong word -- it's really not my area -- but I'm pretty sure that it's generally accepted that most animals' brains are so simple that they can't be said to "think" like we do.

I mean, plants aren't sentient. Amoebas aren't. So what about insects? Or small birds? Surely they can't actually be aware of anything much -- their brains are the size of peas. So where do you draw the line between what is and is not capable of thought? Generally it's done by brain size and/or complexity, and the brain of a cow, for example, is rather nearer in size to that of a radish than that of a human. It has exactly enough brain to chew grass and keep track of its myriad stomachs. It doesn't have any extra brain to cogitate verbs in. A cow cannot think for itself, or feel an emotion, or be self-aware. It is not, in any meaningful sense, something that can be "murdered". It can be killed, yes, but so can a walnut or a germ. I'm not saying that makes it OK to kill them. That's effectively a purely subjective notion until someone discovers exactly how the mind of a cow works. But I am saying that it makes it a damn sight more justifiable than an abortion. We know humans can think, and feel, and be self-aware. We know that they can value life and we know what pain is like for them. We don't know exactly when they develop these abilities, but we know that they (mostly) do, and I think if you side with the cow you have to stick up for a baby. I just can't find a self-consistent, reasonable outlook that would permit abortion but not meat-eating.
A cow not being sentient?
Go to the next cow you see and punch it. See what it does. Definitely more than chewing grass and digesting it.

There are lots of animals that show human like behaviour.
Some of them are even self-concious, like primates, dolphins and even some birds.
True, plants and most invertebrates are not really masterminds. (Maybe with the exception of octopusses, which are quite clever.)

I don't think that it is "generally accepted" by scientists.

What people forget is that humans are omnivores and do eat meat.
Not eating meat would the actual abnormal behaviour.

Also I think that being a vegetarian out of pity for animal is useless, as eating meat isn't the only "cruel" thing that is done to them.
You would have to get an vegan. (Prefarably like the one from the Simpsons episode who doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow. ;))

I do think that it is absolutely wrong to kill & eat whales, game and other endangered species.
Why the heck did go through the thousands of years domesticating animals and developing a food industry like we have nowadays?
Cows, pigs, chicken, etc. are bred for consumption. We don't need to hunt anymore.

As for abortion, that should solely be the parent's decision.
It really enrages me if I hear about militant pro-life groups that threaten and attack women who want to enter an abortion clinic.

By the way... human babies aren't any more self-aware than any other baby animal...so ... by your line of thought... we can't murder babies, just kill them?

My piece of opinion: kill is in our nature... that's what being an animal is about. I mean, have you ever watched a pack of hienas eating a bufallo while he's still alive on Discovery Channel or something?

Go watch it and then talk to me about vegetarianism... :p

Just because something exhibits human-like behavious doesn't even prove that it's alive. Computers can act like people sometimes. A goldfish can learn to find food and can react to being hurt, and you've seen how big a goldfish's head is. You're telling me it's self-aware? It's just doing what it's programmed to do by evolution.
By the way... human babies aren't any more self-aware than any other baby animal...so ... by your line of thought... we can't murder babies, just kill them?
To be honest, I think the line between "abortion" and "murder" should be physiological -- distinctions like "28 weeks" and "birth" are pretty arbitrary. But I think anyone that would kill a baby is probably the sort of person who should be in prison regardless of whether that baby knows what's going on. There's something seriously wrong with that kind of person. I'm not going to start voicing opinions about where that line should be though, because I'm not qualified to hold any.

The difference in my mind is that a human baby simply hasn't learned that it's alive yet. A cow is not capable of knowing that.

Personaly I think its extreemley arogant to dismis an animal as 'not capable of thought' based soeley on their brain size. The common domesticated house cat has a brain smaller than your fist, but if you were to tell me they're not sentient I'd laugh in your face.

Cows obviously don't have very complex brains, to start with they're herbivores with no real preditors to worry about and with a few thosand years of having everything handed to them on a plate. This coupled with artificial selection towards higher milk/meat yeild means that they didn't evolve larger brains, if anything they probably evolved smaller ones.

but if you where to ask a dairy farmer about his cows he'd tell you that they have personalities.

Some may be more inquisative than others, some may tend to form their own little group in the herd and some may be more protective than others.

The word Andrewtaylor was referring to might have been sapient: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapience

One thing that I think is ridiculous about the pro choice argument is that they should be able to abort a baby simply because it is their choice... no other justification is necessary... to kill something.

BUT I go to Target and want to return a watch, merely saying that it is my choice to return it isn't enough... I need to give another reason to justify myself. Or I don't feel like going to the pub on a Friday night, tell my friends/co-workers, but saying I choose not to isn't enough, they will probe for further explanation or justification...

Seems to be a misappropriation of priority... You'd think that more explanation would be necessary to kill a person than return something or not go to the pub.

Also, to Bonz... While I don't support their acts, pro life people who attack women at abortion clinics are just exercising their rights to choose. They have the right to choose to attack the women (just like parents have the right to choose to kill their unborn baby).

I'm not sure where I stand on the abortion debate, but I think people on both sides have illogical arguments. I also think the issue is sometimes too sensitive and unpopular to debate properly at risk of offending... Almost like people agree not to discuss it (aside from the fanatics).

Personaly I think its extreemley arogant to dismis an animal as 'not capable of thought' based soeley on their brain size. The common domesticated house cat has a brain smaller than your fist, but if you were to tell me they're not sentient I'd laugh in your face.


So are lettuce, amoebas, or starfish capable of thought?

So are lettuce, amoebas, or starfish capable of thought?
As far as I know they don't have brains.

So are lettuce, amoebas, or starfish capable of thought?

That's rhetorical, and you're using it to suggest that there is no line to be drawn. Which is stupid.

That's rhetorical, and you're using it to suggest that there is no line to be drawn. Which is stupid.

No, I'm using it to suggest that people are already delving into the slip slope argument. A cow doesn't have consciousness, based on the physiology of its brain, no more than a piece of lettuce does or an amoeba.

Oh and I suppose you know which section of the brain, which is purely responsible for consciousness, is missing from a cow?

No I don't, but I know that the brain is less complex than a human brain, even an infant one, of a fetus. An infant human brain has the capability to develop more than a cow's.

I can't claim to know for certain that a cow doesn't have consciousness or isn't self aware, but I will stand by my statement that it is illogical for a vegetarian to have problems with animal cruelity, but think it is perfectly okay for an unborn child to be crushed by forceps and vacuumed out and thrown in the trash.

A goldfish can learn to find food and can react to being hurt, and you've seen how big a goldfish's head is. You're telling me it's self-aware? It's just doing what it's programmed to do by evolution.
I never said that a goldfish is self-aware.
Some birds (i think Keas or some parrots) are. And primates (chimpanzees and orangutans).
A chimpanzee that has learned a few hundred signs and can communicate with humans through them isn't really a feat that comes from evolution.
Also, to Bonz... While I don't support their acts, pro life people who attack women at abortion clinics are just exercising their rights to choose. They have the right to choose to attack the women (just like parents have the right to choose to kill their unborn baby).
WHAT? :eek:
That's a really stupid eye-for-an-eye logic.
So I can go into the next jail and kill all murderers?

A woman in an abortion clinic doesn't do anything wrong (except morally, but she would have to live with it), but pro-life fanatics who attack (physically and verbally) attack people are going against some laws definitely.
Just because you don't like what others do, you can't go and force them your opinion.

BTW, I'm really really glad that Horigan has no OD access! :D

Bonz, I think jbjones was demonstrating the lunacy of defending abortion based on a "right to choose" argument rather than a "it's not really a person" argument. He wasn't being entirely literal.
but if you where to ask a dairy farmer about his cows he'd tell you that they have personalities.
Proving nothing. People will tell you their cars and computers have personalities. It's nothing more than anthropomorhpicising things so that we know how to deal with them. Just because there's some variation doesn't mean they'de doing it on purpose. It's not purely brain size; it's evolutionary. A brain big enough and complex enough for human-style thought comes with a massive energy cost, and for an animal that lives on grass and has humans to look after it, that's not a useful investment so it simply doesn't happen.
No I don't, but I know that the brain is less complex than a human brain, even an infant one, of a fetus. An infant human brain has the capability to develop more than a cow's.

I can't claim to know for certain that a cow doesn't have consciousness or isn't self aware, but I will stand by my statement that it is illogical for a vegetarian to have problems with animal cruelity, but think it is perfectly okay for an unborn child to be crushed by forceps and vacuumed out and thrown in the trash.
Thanks -- that's what I was trying to say. We don't know where onthe spectrum the line should be drawn, but we can at least draw the spectrum, and if plants are at one end and you're at the other, it's pretty clear that babies are nearer our end than cows are -- so there's just nowhere you can draw a line that allows abortion but not burgers.

Enough said that, at very least, every normal person has problems with killing things that express themselves contrary to their killing. It's more of an inner issue than a matter of classifing what can and cannot be murdered.

When we realize that the poor creature is suffering, we almost immediatly imagine what it/he/she would be feeling and we sympathize. That's why we feel compelled to kill animals in a very quick and painless way. That's why sacrifice our pets when they're irreversibly sick or wounded. That's also why we feel absolutely no remorse in killing a plant or eating oisters and etc.

Animals kill each other without remorse exactly cause they lack the ability of imagination, therefore, they can't put themselves in the place of the victim.

And, yea, if they ever create a robot or an a.i. that clearly oposes to his very own killing, i believe we will have problems to "kill" it. I would...

And, yea, if they ever create a robot or an a.i. that clearly oposes to his very own killing, i believe we will have problems to "kill" it. I would...
People would indeed. But it would be irrational -- at least, if it was created with today's very clearly non-living technology it would.

I know people who can't bring themselves to kill off a few Pikmin.

Well...that really depends on what is your conception about live...

At least to me, living isn't about cells... living is about being an individual (even as a part of a bigger collective group) that try to exists. I think the very principles of life are: feeding, breeding and try to maintain your very own existance.

So if we had an artificial inteligence that was capable of those by itself, i could very well consider the possibility of killing it as i would about any other animal. But it's all relative, really...depends on how "real" it would be; how much we would be able to identify with it.

I think the killing remorse and the objection to kill something is completely based on our identification with the other being about to be killed.

But... well... that can be just me... :p

If everybody was eating babies and agreeing it was okay, then it is okay. You can't go against public opinion on morality since that's all there is; no god is saying what's right and wrong, no higher truth.
You guys keep asking yourselfs what is right and what is wrong. THERE IS NO SUCH AWNSER, just opinions ;P

I personally see nothing wrong with eating animals. Especially animals breeded for being killed. If it where not for us meat eaters, then those breeded (to kill) animals wouldn't have been born in the first place..

Remember that animal rights thread not too long ago? Well, technically, how is breeding a animal and then hurting it wrong, (other than it innitially makes the hurter a more violent person). There is no karma or data that stores information of all the hurt that animal feels. But since I am human and have feelings, I get hurt from watching animals get hurt, so therefor I don't like it.

PRINT "Please don't kill me!"
INPUT "Are you going to kill me? (Y/N)"; A$
IF A$ = "Y" THEN PRINT "AAAAAARGH!": ELSE PRINT "Thank you, kind sir/madam!"
END

Sorry, it had to be done.

You guys keep asking yourselfs what is right and what is wrong. THERE IS NO SUCH AWNSER, just opinions ;P
Well, up to a point that's true, but you can start with some axioms that no reasonable person would disagree with and work out a lot from there, and they're pretty fundamental.

There's no God to dictate what mathematics ought to do, but that can be right and wrong.

One thing that I think is ridiculous about the pro choice argument is that they should be able to abort a baby simply because it is their choice... no other justification is necessary... to kill something.
Would being raped or having a condom fail (I think that there's a chance that they won't work sometimes) justify an abortion?
I think that it does. If someone doesn't want to go through childbearing (Which is far, far more life-impacting than returning a watch), they should have the right to not have it.
I don't think that it should be used as birth-protection, though. That's something I agree on with the pro-lifers. But if someone gets pregnant and it's not their fault, they should be able to choose.
Cows, pigs, chicken, etc. are bred for consumption. We don't need to hunt anymore.
I've actually never thought of that before, but it makes sense. It's more humane to breed something for consumption than to kill them in the wild.

Well, I suppose it's all a matter of morals and/or opinions. In the topic of killing babies, I think a mother has every right to kill an unwanted baby in her belly rather than go through the pain of giving birth to an unwated baby to have a crap life, even though many people wouldn't agree with me because a fetus is still a living being, but then again an animal is also a living being and we still eat it, but they're not rational, but... well, you get into all sorts of unexplicable but's with these kind of right/wrong topics.

Would being raped or having a condom fail (I think that there's a chance that they won't work sometimes) justify an abortion?
As far as I'm concerned, in those situations you'd know you wanted an abortion right away, when the embryo -- not foetus -- was little more than a moist flake of living dandruff. Killing something like that is hard to condemn because it happens all the time -- most fertilised eggs never survive long enough for the mother to know they exist -- and because it has no brain to speak of. Whether or not the circumstances justify it isn't even an issue for me.

I've actually never thought of that before, but it makes sense. It's more humane to breed something for consumption than to kill them in the wild.
Do you think so? For the record I think it's better to farm than hunt -- it's better for the ecosystem for one thing -- but there are doubtless many others who would consider farming a little bit too cold and calculated a way of killing for their tastes.

There's no God to dictate what mathematics ought to do, but that can be right and wrong.

I don't see how you can compare morality with mathematics..

Do you think so? For the record I think it's better to farm than hunt -- it's better for the ecosystem for one thing -- but there are doubtless many others who would consider farming a little bit too cold and calculated a way of killing for their tastes.
On one side, you have an animal breed in a farm, on the other side you have one living happily in his natural habitat. In theory, the free one would suffer more from being killed, and has more to loose than the one in the farm.

Bonz, I think jbjones was demonstrating the lunacy of defending abortion based on a "right to choose" argument rather than a "it's not really a person" argument. He wasn't being entirely literal.

Exactly, everyone has the right to choose, I have the right to choose to shoot my neighbor in the head. It doesn't mean that I should, or if I do exercise this choice, it should not be illegal.

The choice argument is weak.

As far as I'm concerned, in those situations you'd know you wanted an abortion right away, when the embryo -- not foetus -- was little more than a moist flake of living dandruff. Killing something like that is hard to condemn because it happens all the time -- most fertilised eggs never survive long enough for the mother to know they exist -- and because it has no brain to speak of. Whether or not the circumstances justify it isn't even an issue for me.

Exactly it would be time for a bit of RU486.

I don't entirely know where I stand on abortion. But I do believe this:

-Killing the fetus is murder, anyone trying to justify or rationalise it is in denial. However, is it a necessary evil in in our society? I'm not sure.
-The mere possession of having the ability to make a choice, doesn't justify the choice or make it acceptible.
-Lefties who are vegetarians often are pro choice, I see this as illogical, just as illogical are people who oppose the death penalty but support abortion (and vice versa).

Exactly, everyone has the right to choose, I have the right to choose to shoot my neighbor in the head. It doesn't mean that I should, or if I do exercise this choice, it should not be illegal.

The choice argument is weak.
A very weak argument indeed.
If everyone has the right to choose, and to attack people with a different opinion, we would all bash our heads all day long.

My opinions:
--Homo sapiens is an omnivore by default, thus I eat meat. Besides, I like it. Although I don't eat much meat. I like cheese better.

--I think say abortion is ok if a woman gets raped and then pregnant or if it is highly likely that the child will have severe retardations. For all other causes there's really no reason not to have a child. Either take contraception measures before sex or let nature go its way.

--Either take contraception measures before sex
If it were that simple there'd be no arguments. Contraception is somewhat ht and miss. What if it fails?

If it were that simple there'd be no arguments. Contraception is somewhat ht and miss. What if it fails?
A combination of condoms (85%), oral contraception (92%) and/or vaginal spermicides gives you a near-total success rate.

Also, vasectomy and tubal ligation are quite safe. :)

Yes, but there are six billion people already, and most of them quite enjoy sex. A near-total success rate will still result in a lot of unwanted pregnancies.

This is something I've been contemplating...
Because if the cow (baby) isn't an animal (person) until it is born then the vegetarian shouldn't have a problem eating the fetus because it hasn't been born yet.

The cow foetus may not be considered an animal yet, but it is still made of meat isn't it? Vegetarians usually say they do not eat meat, rather than saying they do not eat animals.

Similarly, even if a human foetus is not considered to be a person, I'd say eating it is still cannibalism because it is still made of human flesh.

The cow foetus may not be considered an animal yet, but it is still made of meat isn't it? Vegetarians usually say they do not eat meat, rather than saying they do not eat animals.

Similarly, even if a human foetus is not considered to be a person, I'd say eating it is still cannibalism because it is still made of human flesh.

I'm referring to vegetarians who don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues, not because it is merely made of meat. Although this would pose the question of how you get the fetus out without hurting the mother cow.

I'm referring to vegetarians who don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues

Yeah, I know.

I don't think a pro choice vegetarian would think eating foetus right because it wasn't the cow's choice and actually the foetus was rather forcibly removed without the consent of the mother.

I don't think a pro choice vegetarian would think eating foetus right because it wasn't the cow's choice and actually the foetus was rather forcibly removed without the consent of the mother.
How many times? Cows are not capable of giving consent! They don't understand the concept of consent. Nor do they know what foetuses are.

What about a steak grown from bovine stem cells?

What about a steak grown from bovine stem cells?
Mmmmmmmmmm.

What about a steak grown from bovine stem cells?
Actually, all steaks are grown from bovine stem cells. ;)
(Unless you get the steak from a different animal, of course.)

Yeah, I know.

Once again I will say: "I'm referring to vegetarians who don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues"

If a fetus isn't a person, then a fetus isn't an animal.

I am aware that the mother animal would be hurt though.

Would they be hurt any less than they would be giving birth normally?

Depends on the quality of the abortion.

I made a long post on this going off on a few tangents but I didn't select this computer to remember me and as such it automatically logged me off because I'd been typing for so long.

When we refer to what is living or not we look at the adult of a species. Something that is living does the 7 life processes (viruses aren't classed as living because they cannot reproduce on their own, they need a host cell).

A child cannot reproduce. Does that mean it isn't living? Well, no. Would it be wrong to eat a child? Yes.

I think once the cells of the foetus have become specialised and starts to develop into a baby, it should effectively be living.

As far as I can see, what we define as living is really more of a grey area than it is made out to be. I've already mentioned that viruses are not classed as living but I expect soon they will be added to the tree of life.

However I also feel there are several levels of livingness (yay new word). All we are really is a brain. We think, perform actions. We do these deliberately and actively. A plant just lives. It doesn't actively decide it will grow roots to where the water is or move towards the light, hormones make it do that. They don't do things deliberately. They don't feel pain. We have that side in ourselves - we don't deliberately digest food, we just do. It's passive. Anything that does something entirely passively I have no compassion for if it is killed. As such, I hate insects. They just fly around pretty aimlessly, repeatedly bashing themselves against windows. If they won't go out the window then I just kill them. On a side note, I now have a second thunderbug stuck in my LCD screen. The other I had from last year.

On a side note, I now have a second thunderbug stuck in my LCD screen. The other I had from last year.
That really sucks.

What's a thunderbug?

A very small bug. They're long and thin. I can't find a picture on google image search, possibly because they're too small.

A very small bug. They're long and thin. I can't find a picture on google image search, possibly because they're too small.
It doesn't help that the Thunderbug is the official mascot of the Tampa Bay Lightning hockey team.

I feel we've gone off topic somewhat:-/

I feel we've gone off topic somewhat:-/Given the original topic, that's a good thing.

A very small bug. They're long and thin. I can't find a picture on google image search, possibly because they're too small.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbug
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:LausIMG_0888b.jpg
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Thrips.jpg

Are they actually moving in your TFT? :D

I'm a pro-choice vegetarian.

I'd have a problem with eating a cow foetus (I'm not sure what a 'fetus' is, but I'm sure that's what you mean ;)), because I have a problem with putting meat of whatever kind in my mouth (or anywhere on/near my body, in fact). Sure, I'm in favour of human abortion, because that's choice...

...but, as has been said here, cows don't have a choice.

And as for the other suggestion, I wouldn't eat meat even if it was grown from stem cell research. It's meat, it doesn't belong in my body. End of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbug
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:LausIMG_0888b.jpg
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Thrips.jpg

Are they actually moving in your TFT? :D
They're both dead now. The second one didn't last as long as the first. They've also invaded my calculator screen too.

Edit: Great, I now have a third :mad:

I'm a pro-choice vegetarian.

I'd have a problem with eating a cow foetus (I'm not sure what a 'fetus' is, but I'm sure that's what you mean ;))

From Wiki:
"The word fetus originates from the Latin fetus meaning "offspring," "act of bearing young," or "is or was filled with young". Foetus is an English variation on this rather than a Latin or Greek word, but has been in use since at least 1594 according to the OED, which describes fetus as etymologically preferable but almost unknown in actual use. In general, the medical community only permits the spelling fetus (preferred by the British Medical Journal, for example), but the spelling foetus persists in general use, especially in Britain."

I wouldn't eat meat even if it was grown from stem cell research. It's meat, it doesn't belong in my body. End of.
So, is it an ethical objection you have, or just a gut feeling that meat isn't something you ought to be eating?

Once again I will say: "I'm referring to vegetarians who don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues"

If a fetus isn't a person, then a fetus isn't an animal.

I thought I was being clear. :-/ If there is a flaw in my logic, please don't hesitate to point it out:

They don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues.
A foetus is made of meat.
Therefore they don't eat foeti.


I guess you are using the wrong words, and what you really want to say is a vegetarian who doesn't eat animals.

Anyway, being pro-choice does not mean that you think the foetus is not a human/animal. Pro-choice simply means that the mother should be able to choose to have the foetus aborted, no matter whether they think it is a human/animal or not.

I'd have a problem with eating a cow foetus
Does that problem happen to be a moral dilemma?

They don't eat meat due to animal cruelty issues.
A foetus is made of meat.
Therefore they don't eat foeti.
That's oversimplifying the issue. I mean, what about placenta? That's meat, but there's no cruelty involved in extracting it -- it's done naturally during birth. It's not "alive" any more than a plant is and it can never develop into a sentient being. Nobody can have any moral objection to eating placenta, and yet it is made entirely from meat, from an animal. You can't say "they don't eat meat because of animal cruelty issues" and then implicitly generalise that to cover all meat because those same issues do not affect all meat.

Anybody who thinks a human fetus can be legitimately killed and an animal fetus cannot has not thought it through properly, and anyone who thinks that eating placenta is morally wrong hasn't thought that through either.

I always feel sorry for the plants in these issues.

eating placenta
Hmmm, tasty!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Human_placenta_baby_side.jpg

That's oversimplifying the issue.
I have to disagree. Because of the animal cruelty issues, they have chosen to make a conscious decision not to eat meat. Why would they ever overcomplicate their decision by making special exceptions for foeti or placentas?

Nobody can have any moral objection to eating placenta
Why not? Let's say eating placentas becomes very popular. Now you need to bring in some kind of placenta farming. For many vegetarians and vegans, it is the way the farming is conducted which gives rise to the moral issue. The moral objections to eating placenta would be very similar to those vegans have about eating eggs.

Anybody who thinks a human fetus can be legitimately killed and an animal fetus cannot has not thought it through properly
Indeed, but that's somewhat different to the question in the topic of this thread. Eating a foetus is rather different to simply killing it. Eating a foetus means potentially encouraging a farming industry which is cruel to animals, even when the actual process of removing the foetus may not be cruel in itself.

I have to disagree. Because of the animal cruelty issues, they have chosen to make a conscious decision not to eat meat. Why would they ever overcomplicate their decision by making special exceptions for foeti or placentas?
There is a difference between overcomplicating something and merely not oversimplifying it. The issues are intrinsically complicated -- clearly there is a difference between a slab of meat cut out of an animal you killed for the purpose and an organ which is naturally expunged and would otherwise be left to rot somewhere or fed to a naturally herbivorous animal. Applying the same rule to both without seperate justifications is oversimplifying.

Why not? Lets say eating placentas becomes very popular. Now you need to bring in some kind of placenta farming. For many vegetarians and vegans, it is the way the farming is conducted which gives rise to the moral issue. The moral objections to eating placenta would be very similar to those vegans have about eating eggs.
That's an ill-thought-out viewpoint as well -- if you reason that since some animal produce is farmed in a cruel way, you will boycot all of it then where's the motivation for farmers to adopt more acceptable practices? They still won't have your custom, only now they'll have higher expenses. It costs a lot more to raise free-range chickens than battery ones, but people do it because free-range eggs have a far wider appeal.

Of course, if you think all farming is cruel then that's differenr, but the moral objection there is still not to eating placenta, but to the farming methods, which are a wholly seperate issue. I don't think eating battery-farmed eggs is wrong, but I do think buying them is wrong. Eating them makes no difference to anybody, but buying them encourages further cruelty. You have to understand the difference between wanting to win the lottery and wanting to be rich to get to the heart of these things.

Edit: Which is roughly what you just editted onto your post.

What if your friend has a pet cow who gives birth? No farming involved there. Is that wrong? What about your own placenta (obvously I don't mean you, but you know what I mean)?

Edit: See, I think the problem here is that the original question was oversimplified in the same way: you can't infer from the fact that someone doesn't eat why they don't eat meat. Some people are anti-abortion not out of any particular empathy to the fetus, but because they think people should be more careful and shouldn't be able to just have sex all over the place without fear of consequences. Or someone might be pro-abortion (which is a far better term than "pro-choice" because "pro-choice" is one of those propaganda terms like "liberal democrat" that are designed so that nobody can ever really object to them) because they think that while it is cruel, some social aspects justify that cruelty, whereas cows have no society so with cows it's just cruelty. Some people might think eating meat is fine but object to farming issues, and therefore don't eat any meat. It's easy enough to construct a perfectly self-consistent viewpoint for either answer to the original question, because we just don't know enough about this hypotheical pro-abortion vegitarian to infer how they'd behave.

Of course, if you think all farming is cruel then that's differenr, but the moral objection there is still not to eating placenta

That doesn't make sense to me. I understand that they may have a moral objection to the farming methods. They may then object to eating placenta because they feel that they would be endorsing the farming by doing so. Is this objection to eating placenta not also a moral objection?

foeti or placentas
Why not use the correct plural forms "foetūs" and "placentae"?

That doesn't make sense to me. I understand that they may have a moral objection to the farming methods. They may then object to eating placenta because they feel that they would be endorsing the farming by doing so. Is this objection to eating placenta not also a moral objection?
I mean that there is no reason for anybody to consider eating placenta intrinsically wrong, whereas there is an argument to say eating meat from a slaughtered animal is intrinsically wrong. They may object to the eating of any particular placenta, but not to the idea of eating placenta in general.

The point is that "It's Meat Therefore It's Wrong" is an oversimplification.

Example: Say you held this viewpoint. Say there was a huge placenta farming industry that was just so cruel it was funny. They think, say, that the placenta tastes better if you take a cheese grater, sprinkle salt and lemon on it, and grate the udders every day for an hour, then they extract the placenta by caesarian section without anaesthetic, and therefore you're Dead Against placenta. Say also that you're married, and your wife is pregnant. You get home from work the day after the birth and discover that your wife has, for reasons best known to herself, cooked up her own placenta and served it for dinner. Would you say "I'm not eating that, because other placentas elsewhere are farmed in a cruel way"?

Because if you would, you're mental.

Why not use the correct plural forms "foetūs" and "placentae"?

No, I'm sure foeti is correct. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foeti

I didn't bother to look up the correct plural form of placenta, but thanks for telling me.

No, I'm sure foeti is correct. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=foeti
Yes, I've seen all those entries.

But I checked my Stowasser dictionary and found it to be a masculine word declined by the 4th declension in Latin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension

English is a changing language... I can't remember even seeing a ū used in English before.

Yes, I've seen all those entries.

But I checked my Stowasser dictionary and found it to be a masculine word declined by the 4th declension in Latin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension
Well, if we were speaking Latin, that would make you right.

The correct plural form of "fetus" is "fetuses". Sorry, guys.

Well, if we were speaking Latin, that would make you right.
Latin is used for medical terms, which this obviously is.
And "foeti" as plural seems wrong to me.
The ū character only marks the difference in pronunciation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%AA
The correct plural form of "fetus" is "fetuses". Sorry, guys.
Yes, in colloquial language this is true.

Yes, in colloquial language this is true.
Oh, come on. It can't be "feti" because the Latin plural doesn't take the '-i' ending and English words aren't pluralised that way. It can't be "foetūs" because English doesn't have a 'ū' character. So it's "fetuses" -- not least because the dictionary says so.

See also, 'viruses'.

It can't be "foetūs" because English doesn't have a 'ū' character.
That small bar over the vowel (macron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%AA)) is only to indicate that the vowel is long.
It's not a character per se, and it does exist in the English language.
So:
Singular: foetus
Plural: foetus
See also, 'viruses'.
That's totally different.
Virus has no known plural form in Latin. So you can only use the modern plural forms for multiple virus particles or virus programs.

Foetus on the other hand has a correct plural form, back in classic Latin and in its use as a medical term.

Foeti: wrong
Foetus: correct
Foetuses: correct, in common language

If you'd start to use Latin words as termini technici, you'd have to think if you're going to be consistent to always use them and not switch to the anglicized form and back.

Foetuses: correct, in common language
Oh, yes? Then why do 183 thousand medical papers (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fetuses&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search) use "fetuses"?

Besides which, I'm not going to listen to your opinions on how to pluralise it until you start getting the singular form right. There's no 'o' in it.

Then why do 183 thousand medical papers (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fetuses&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search) use "fetuses"?
Probably because the plural is the same as the singular if you don't denote it with a macron.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that Bloopy's use of "foeti" (http://forum.team17.co.uk/showpost.php?p=515430&postcount=66) was wrong.
There's no 'o' in it.
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fetus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Etymology_and_spelling_variations
Also, I might have been biased by the germanized form "Fötus", which strangely goes against my point of using correct Latin forms. :p

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fetus.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus#Etymology_and_spelling_variations
Thankyou. You've just provided two links to sources that state the plural as "fetuses".

Thankyou. You've just provided two links to sources that state the plural as "fetuses".
Yes, those links state the colloquial language plural.
(Although I used them to show you that foetus with an "o" is a spelling variation.)

Still, fetus is a masculin noun of the 4th declension in Latin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Fourth_declension
That's the whole point of my argument.

Still, fetus is a masculin noun of the 4th declension in Latin.
Yes, it is. But it's not in English.

I mean, there are loads of words we take from other languages, and some we take their plural and others we use our own. And using "fetus" as the plural is more confusing and pretensious than it is helpful.

And using "fetus" as the plural is more confusing and pretensious than it is helpful.
That is true.

Besides which, I'm not going to listen to your opinions on how to pluralise it until you start getting the singular form right. There's no 'o' in it.

In British English there clearly is an 'o' in it, according to the general population. Medical experts can get rid of letters if they like, but if they (or you :p) want to go around saying everyone is wrong immediately then they need to do a better job of informing people.

I mean, there are loads of words we take from other languages, and some we take their plural and others we use our own.

But in all cases, because we have nabbed that word from the other language, it seems reasonable to use the plural from that language as well, even it is not the most commonly used option.

My mother's 1974 Oxford English Dictionary has 'foetus' with the plural -ūs.

My mother's 1974 Oxford English Dictionary has 'foetus' with the plural -ūs.
Someone should edit that Wikipedia arcticle.

My mother's 1974 Oxford English Dictionary

The point being that that's over thirty years ago now.

And I have to say, I always thought of it as foetus.

But in all cases, because we have nabbed that word from the other language, it seems reasonable to use the plural from that language as well, even it is not the most commonly used option.Try and tell that to the Welsh. At Cardiff International Airport two days ago I could have got on one of their lifftiau (lifts) or relieved myself in one of their toilediau (toilets)

The point being that that's over thirty years ago now.
Nope. The point being that the spelling with 'o' was quite happily valid, as well as the plural -ūs.

Try and tell that to the Welsh. At Cardiff International Airport two days ago I could have got on one of their lifftiau (lifts) or relieved myself in one of their toilediau (toilets)
Yeah I guess you're right. That was me you quoted by the way, not bonz. :p

But in all cases, because we have nabbed that word from the other language, it seems reasonable to use the plural from that language as well, even it is not the most commonly used option.
So hold on there.

You're saying that if English people decide to take a Latin word and insert the letter "o" for no particular reason, that that's just natural language progression and should be respected, but when we decide to pluralise it according to our own rules instead of those that the original Latin word would have used that's wrong? That doesn't make sense.

I know "foetus" is a perfectly acceptable spelling -- but if you're taking this etymologically pedantic viewpoint then you aren't allowed to think that, because in Latin that's wrong.

Edit: Read this: http://expat-at-large.com/Fetus_foetus.htm
I think he's put rather more effort into workingthis out than we will, so we should probably listen to him.

Nope. The point being that the spelling with 'o' was quite happily valid, as well as the plural -ūs.Let me clarify: My point being that that dictionary's from 1974.

but when we decide to pluralise it according to our own rules instead of those that the original Latin word would have used that's wrong?
No I did not say it's wrong. Please read my post more carefully.

No I did not say it's wrong. Please read my post more carefully.
The trouble here is that I've been associating yours and bonz' posts -- because you're arguing much the same corner and have similar names. And I utterly fail to see how anyone can reasonably advocate a needlessly confusing and opaque plural form (Heck, I've done a science degree and couldn't even guess at how to pronounce it) simply because it's more etymologically correct, whilst at the same time advocating a spelling which is in every context apart from localised common usage wrong. That, to me, is insane. You, however, are not arguing both of those things, so are not insane (at least, not for that reason). You are, if I've understood you correctly, arguing that everything is right except an -i ending. Which is fair enough.

Bonz is, though. Bonz is saying that "fetuses" is a colloquialism. It's not. It would be a colloquialism if we called them "kidseeds", or "shozzers". And yet, even though he remains utterly convinced that the -uses ending is slang, he persists in using the foe- beginning, which is wrong in medical context, US English, and (crucially) Latin. There is no single standard by which you could reach both of those opinions. Bonz is clearly insane.

Bonz is saying that "fetuses" is a colloquialism.
I think there is a difference between "colloquialism" and "slang".
At least in German there is one.
With colloquial langauge I mean a language that is not a technical language or loanwords from foreign language.
[QUOTE=AndrewTaylor]foe- beginning, which is wrong in medical context, US English, and (crucially) Latin.
I have actually admitted that fallacy of mine a few posts earlier.
As I said, I have been biased by the German form "Fötus" (with its plural "Föten", which is the germanized, colloquial form - equivalent to fetus/fetuses, the anglicized version)

Still, it is being used in British English.
That and the German form obviously come from the same background in linguistic developement.
Bonz is clearly insane.
Well, thank you!

Why should we use proper plural forms of Latin words when nobody does that for Russian words? Plural of "balalaika" isn't "balalaikas" it's "balalaiki".

What's really great are the taking the plural of a plural. Like, there's a Russian food called "pirozhok," plural "pirozhki," but people call them "pirozhkis" which is taking the plural of the plural. It's ridiculous, that's what it is.


Hey, if we should use the proper Latin forms of words, then I insist all Russian words should be written properly in the Cyrillic alphabet. "Balalaika" is to be "Балалайка" and "Pirozhki" should be "Пирожки" and "Khruschev" should be "Хрущёв" and Gorbachev should be "Горбачёв" etc.


My point is that it's ridiculous to make a fuss about using Latin properly when we brutalize so many other words from other languages.

I made a long post on this going off on a few tangents but I didn't select this computer to remember me and as such it automatically logged me off because I'd been typing for so long.

When we refer to what is living or not we look at the adult of a species. Something that is living does the 7 life processes (viruses aren't classed as living because they cannot reproduce on their own, they need a host cell).

A child cannot reproduce. Does that mean it isn't living? Well, no. Would it be wrong to eat a child? Yes.

I think once the cells of the foetus have become specialised and starts to develop into a baby, it should effectively be living.

As far as I can see, what we define as living is really more of a grey area than it is made out to be. I've already mentioned that viruses are not classed as living but I expect soon they will be added to the tree of life.

However I also feel there are several levels of livingness (yay new word). All we are really is a brain. We think, perform actions. We do these deliberately and actively. A plant just lives. It doesn't actively decide it will grow roots to where the water is or move towards the light, hormones make it do that. They don't do things deliberately. They don't feel pain. We have that side in ourselves - we don't deliberately digest food, we just do. It's passive. Anything that does something entirely passively I have no compassion for if it is killed.

When we hunt for food we have to be able to tell the difference between a rock and a deer, but can we really use that meassurement for the extremly complicated parts of biology? There is a problem with all philosophy and truths. One definition of life works for many things, but not for viruses. A set of rules that are nessisary for explaining something else still can't coverer everything. We are probably just not smart enough to grasp it all, so naturally there will be confict. We are staring at the great stereogram of life but we can't quite see the picture yet.

So I guess I define life as something that can that can interact with other life and get feedback. Non living things don't reproduce at all, they can be changed into other objects, minerals or material, but it has no self gain.
Humans can change a rock into a wall, but only for the purpos of helping our selfs. A virus can reproduce, but it's a parasite so it needs help from others, but it still has the goal of reproduction. Plants eat minerals, but minerals don't eat anything.

Of course you don't have compassion for killing insects, we life in a society where it's even encouraged. No god means no rules =/. Therefor thinking every lifeform has equall value or the right to life is just a human invention.
Therefore killing animals is wrong if society sees it as wrong, and that's all there is too it. Humans are a social creature and therefor moral values lies in public opinion, not karma. Some cultures don't eat pigs, some do, both of them are right, but when you put them together they are going to argue and disagree. But that doesn't mean there is a greater truth than their simple opinions.

Personally I am pro abortion, and I will not claim it's right or wrong, since I don't beleive such a awnser exists in this case. But a unborn child has no concience, and I don't find that to be living yet. And now I mean living as an human being, and a human can think. A unborn child is still only an idea or sketch.

#### I got a bit lost and forgot to talk about brains. Whatever hehe.

One definition of life works for many things, but not for viruses.
That's because viruses aren't alive. They're just chemicals. Complicated ones, yes, but chemicals nonetheless. They form out of their constituents without any input. They can't be killed -- just denatured. They don't use any energy or do anything, they have no cells, no nerves, no muscles. They don't eat or excrete. They're just chemicals that happen to be good at getting themselves copied. By no reasonable definition is a virus "alive".

Hello.

I didn't read this thread.

I just thought I'd comment that I've never heard a good reason to become vegetarian. I used to be a vegetarian but then I got drunk and ate a kebab.

I can't think of any good reason why someone would not eat meat.

For example, a typical reason given is that animals are treated badly. If we stopped farming farm animals they would probably either decrease in numbers to the point of endangerment or extinction. How's that for animal cruelty? Etc.

Eat a meatshake.

Hehe, that's the spirit!

As for viruses.. "oh". :)

In argument or Devil's-advocation of those who become vegetarians via concerns with animal cruelty, I might even go so far as to say that being a vegetarian with all the animals which are currently being slaughtered for the purpose of being eaten, not eating them is cruel, because their lives may be being wasted by their carcasses being thrown away.

However, I do have some doubt this is the case, considering restaurants and grocers probably account for the sales of their meat, and therefore, farmers account for the same. Hmm. There's a lot to be said here. Maybe becoming a vegetarian is farmer cruelty because those poor farmers will lose sales! :p

Yes, I make arguments against myself. This is how I ponder.

Personaly, I would eat the cow fetus and the vegetarian.:)

Yum! You could mix them together into a nice slop which Vader has lovingly-termed a "meatshake".

Or label it as a vegetarian pie and sell it to a shop:)

In argument or Devil's-advocation of those who become vegetarians via concerns with animal cruelty, I might even go so far as to say that being a vegetarian with all the animals which are currently being slaughtered for the purpose of being eaten, not eating them is cruel, because their lives may be being wasted by their carcasses being thrown away.
Yes, that argument doesn't really work, because if you buy and eat meat products that creates demand and results in more meat in the future.

Yes, as my next paragraph explains! Do read on. ;)

Edit: I suppose it doesn't use the word, "demand", but that's really what I was implying.