AmericanPapist Comments
Think that's goofy? How about the utter lack of concern from environmentalists for the estrogen in the waters? It's really quite scary.
Perhaps it has something to do with how the estrogen got there?
Truly, the disconnect is astounding.
God Bless,
Well, of course, there is hypocrisy enough to go around in all human endeavors . . .
but it is truly stunning how many of our liberal friends are so sensitive to the issue of "torture" when it involves terrorists and enemy combatants, but they don't seem to have similar concerns about pre-born infants whose necks are pierced by scissors as their brains are suctioned out just before their skulls are crushed.
I wonder if they support abortion in the case of animal rapes? Dragonflies are not exactly courteous to their women... Daggers embedded into their skulls, face down in the water (sometimes drowning them)...
You've gotta wonder though how many environmentalists as well support Ethanol even though it creates dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, and is basically no better... If I want to cut down on my emissions, I walk whenever possible.
This is nothing compared to marsupials, from a pro-life perspective.
Marsupials do not give birth to infants or fetuses. They give birth to embryos. The embryo then moves into the pouch of the mother where it matures into a fetus and eventually an infant.
This was an entire series done on...I think the National Geographic Channel. It was called "In the Womb" - and they had three shows - the mammal babies, human babies, and human multiples. Here's one of a puppy...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared..._womb/img/
3.jpg
And the multiples...
http://blog.wired.com/biotech/
im...omb_450x310.jpg
I think it's a lot more CG than anything, but the entire series is just fascinating, and there is no way not to appreciate lifeafter seeing something that amazing.
Actually, I've known quite a few animal-rights folks who are also anti-abortion. Check out the Portland pro-life vegans website: http://community.livejournal.com.../
prolife_vegans. I saw a fellow with a sign at the Walk For Life West Coast that said "Vegan For Life". Also, a lot of eco-minded people oppose artificial contraception. Thinking people can only be inconsistent for so long before they have to change some of their views.
I like the quote you pulled for the baby elephant. The fact that it is an "elephant foetus" makes me think it interesting that those who are wont to use the term "foetus" don't talk about a "human foetus." Rather, a human foetus is just simply a foetus. When it comes to baby animals, to answer your question, the good followers of Peter Singer are more ready to accept that the generative potential of a fully functioning, independent member of a species already resides, at least verbally, in the in utero foetus. Now, I should also like to point out that Singer himself would probably have difficulty with the default of calling human babies in utero simply "foeti," as this would be a speciesist preference for the human example as the normative one. (if it is a 2nd declension word.) Thus, all I have to say really is that the phrase "elephant foetus" is both silly and utterly ignorant of it's own silliness. Oh, BTW, and babies are adorable.
What's so hypocritical about supporting abortion for humans and not having a position for animals? Who, exactly, is performing abortions on animals?
Commenting by HaloScan
