I’m not a vegan, but if you think “well, animals do it to each other, therefore it must be okay for humans to do” is a legitimate (or persuasive) argument, you are sadly mistaken.

Animals are not moral actors, and it doesn’t make sense to speak of their actions in terms of right and wrong. Lots of animals kill humans every year, too - but that doesn’t make it right for humans, as moral actors, to kill other humans. For many species, the idea of consensual sex is a foreign concept - but that doesn’t legitimize humans committing rape. Lots of animals act as parasites on other animals, but that doesn’t legitimize humans doing the same thing.

No, that’s not the crux of the argument, although I see where you got that.

My point was really much more simple than that. I was just saying it wasn’t a proper analogy. Next time, I’ll be more explicit.

That’s a rather curious argument - that the _ends_ for which you do something automatically justifies the _means_. Presumably, you wouldn’t approve of raising fetuses or babies to eat, even though eating baby flesh would then serve a “basic and essential purpose” - that of sustaining life.

Which, of course, suggests, that you’re just hiding the real basis of your position.

(standard vegan arguments about how TVP is a tasty and ethical substitute notwithstanding)

What are you having for dinner?

It’s also not porn!

The gene challenged woman that did it will have to actually put a proper label on it.

Art, NO,, Science, NO, Porn, NO. One really fucked up mind with a dildo and horse hypodermic fetish? Possible.

Grant seeker? way too possible, actual acceptor of such a grant, scary!

Keep rewarding Yale with donations ya’ll!

*********

Did not really read all the above responses, but scanning some it seemed that domestic violence got dragged into the subject. Not needed, 60% is still initiated by women themselves. I’ll just end that one there. As it really does not fit what this sick biotch has done against all women, all men, and in fact all mankind!

Because no person has the right to use my body against my will for any purpose.

Meh, I guess so. It’s just that this is the kind of story that gets invented to freak people out. I think that your tone is pretty even keel most of the time. I guess I just didn’t expect something like this to interrupt the usual stream of posts.

Whatev’. No big deal. I probably shouldn’t take things so seriously, eh?

Yet people all over the country do just that, and I’m sure plenty of them are otherwise pro-life.”

I don’t know… akrasia? That they do it doesn’t mean it’s consistent.

If you consider yourself pro-choice and yet found this disturbing, you should ask yourself why. I think that to be pro-choice, you have to be willing to say that a fetus isn’t a person. And if you think a fetus is a person, I don’t see how you can be anything but pro-life.

I say this as someone who is pro-choice because I don’t consider a fetus a person. But I have a hell of a lot more respect for the opinion of someone who is pro-life and knows why than for someone who is pro-choice because that’s what’s convenient.

Why would anyone who believes an embryo is a person freeze a batch of those persons, and have them destroyed when no longer needed?

Yet people all over the country do just that, and I’m sure plenty of them are otherwise pro-life.

Now that is one extreme so say it is only a 25% risk of death is the mothers life now worth less than that of the fetus? I still don’t feel comfortable making that call even if a fetus is a person.

Now there is always risk of death with pregnancy so I don’t see how the government can ever take a deciding role. Somebody who believes a fetus is a life could certainly think the mother is a coward for terminating pregnancy even though there is only a 0.01% chance of death but still to not let the mother make that choice is gambling with somebody elses life.