Animal Rights?

[_ID_]

So we're pretty much in accord. I basically agree with your boundaries.

Do the boundaries change? For example. In the past, people harvested furs such as mink, to keep themselves warm. Now, there are ample substitutes that work as well or even better. (But let's not debate 'better'. Let's just go with that presumption in answering the question.) Is it still acceptable to harvest furs because we see them as a luxury?

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

[Ozme52]

We do many things in the name of luxury. When you come right down to it, abortion is a luxury, and we as humans have the right to do it. I can't see giving an animal more rights than a fetus (potential human or human depending on your particular view).

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

[_ID_]

Let's not go there at all. Abortion a luxury. Even as a pro-choice advocate I can't agree with that statement.

But you've implied that animal suffering in the name of luxury is okay. How does luxury differ from entertainment? I need you to elucidate.

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

[Ozme52]

Abortion is a luxury because it isn't needed in order for you to continue living. Are there instances in that it is the best option, yes.

The difference between luxury and entertainment to me is entertainment is done with no end result except the animals suffering and sometimes death. For example, we do animal testing for perfume and make up. If we didn't do that, would we have those perfumes and make up? Maybe not, but the suffering was done for an end progressive result that is only a luxury.

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

[_ID_]

Then any use of any animal that ends in its death is a luxury... we certainly don't need to eat animals to continue living... Even shearing for wool must be questioned... the animal certainly suffers to an, admittedly small, extent, fear while being sheared and cold immediately after....

I would agree, but I am still going to use them for these purposes.

I understand your definitions but I don't agree with where you draw the boundaries.

That's what makes intelligent debate so cool. We can understand each other, but disagree.

BTW, for neolithic man right up to perhaps the industrial era, abortion wouldn't be considered a luxury. The birth of a baby to a tribe/family on the edge of starvation would be a hardship and perhaps deadly to individuals within the tribe/family. Abortion using herbs was common until the advent of "modern" medicine and in control of women to make that decision for themselves.

So I still disagree with your take on abortion.

I'm not an an ant-abortion camper, just one that believes it should be out of necessity not as a substitute for a Trojan.