@ZombieInMyButt

1 year ago

Most pro-lifers would be pro-choice if the subject of the debate was meat If a group of vegan lawmakers issued a national ban that would make it illegal for anyone to eat meat because of their belief that all life should be preserved at all costs, there would undoubtedly be near unanimous outrage. "Why would the government force this belief upon everyone?! We should have the choice to make our own moral judgement on this matter and decide for ourselves. If someone thinks it is unacceptable to kill animals to sustain oneself, then they are free to stop eating meat. But why should they be able to impose their views about life onto me and others? What I eat has zero impact on their life or well-being, so why should they have any say about how I feed myself?" And yet, anti-abortion activists are unashamedly asking the government to force their personal views onto the rest of the country. If you believe life starts at conception, do not get an abortion. But just like you would not let a vegetarian force you to also give up meat because of their belief that all life should be protected, don’t force others to live their lives according to your own views. You’ve chosen for yourself. Let others decide what’s right for themselves. *The sentience of animals v. fetuses is not the issue* My point is that when it comes to philosophical questions like these, people will always have different opinions. I would even argue that there is no right or wrong answer. At best, people have strong opinions based on personal values and beliefs, often strongly shaped by culture and upbringing. I do not care what you think of animals or fetuses (in the context of abortion bans), what the economic consequences of either may be or if one is worse than the other. That is irrelevant. What you believe or decide to do about either issue does not affect me personally. However, if you or the government start imposing either belief on me, that's a different story. *I hope that this comparison can help people have a conversation with the other side* Let’s face it: both sides will never agree on the definition of life. And nor should they have to (everyone is free to choose what they believe). I think we should not demonize the other side or try to forcibly change their views. But it does not mean we should not still try to talk and find common ground. We can at least agree to disagree about our definition of life and respect the other opinion. What I think should not be tolerated, however, is having one side impose their belief onto the other. That is where I find the issue of animal life to be interesting: if someone struggles to understand your pro-choice stance, *put them in the pro-choice seat of the animal life debate.* Make them realize why choice matters by making them think about how they would feel in this situation. What if they had to change their dietary habits because of a subjective belief held by another group of individuals? You could easily substitute vegetarianism with any other morally subjective topic, but I am using this comparison because it raises a similar philosophical question ("what is your definition of life and of sentient beings") and has a context in which the labels “pro-life” and “pro-choice” can also be applied (although I also think that “pro-life” is a bad label in the abortion debate... but that’s a different topic). Using this specific comparison may help some people empathize with you, and look at things from your perspective. They may realize they can stick to their "pro-life" beliefs, but should still respect the right of others to decide for themselves on the issue. They may hate those having abortions because of how they value an embryo's life, just like someone else may hate them for eating meat because of how they value animal life. Of course, the person you talk to may see animal life differently or think one issue is worse than the other, but again, *that is irrelevant**. What matters is that people with the opposite moral opinion do, in fact, exist. Some people do believe you are responsible for the death of animals if you eat meat. So the only real question is: **should those individuals be allowed to impose their beliefs on you, by forcibly preventing you from exercising your own decision on the matter?*

2 |