Mixed feelings about zoos/aquariums

[fakei]

Human life begins at birth, so no, it is not taking a human life by any metric. I value the life and choice of a living, breathing person than I do of a lump of cells that *might* become a human.

You mean life separated from the mother, because before that it is already alive.


In scientific terms it's undeniable that it is a living being developing and at some point already with a developed nervous system.

In antiquity there was a debate over when the soul enters the fetus, that's why not all early Christians were opposed to abortion. Nevertheless, from a metaphysical perspective it's not clear, so it's better not take a chance.

A fetus is a "living creature" in the same way a mushroom is.

Not exactly, because as far as we know a fungus is not growing to become a human being. As a disclaimer I don't think we should should kill living creatures lightly and unnecessarily.

Probably sensible.
But if you looked at my numbers, dogs and cats make up a tiny portion of the mammal biomass. 60 odd percent is animals we breed to kill. And they eat food that we grow too... 80% of the soy grown in the Amazon is fed to cows...

I'm aware of that.

 

[g0rph]

You mean life separated from the mother, because before that it is already alive.


In scientific terms it's undeniable that it is a living being developing and at some point already with a developed nervous system.

In antiquity there was a debate over when the soul enters the fetus, that's why not all early Christians were opposed to abortion. Nevertheless, from a metaphysical perspective it's not clear, so it's better not take a chance.

The "soul" is a man-made concept that has zero bearing on reality. It is not a real, tangible thing any more than a ghost or a fairy is.
A fetus, before being viable is no more a human than a shrew is (and IMO the shrew has far more worth as a sentient being). It is only a slightly advanced blueprint of a human.
If a woman has a thing growing inside her, it is her choice and hers alone whether she lets it grow to completion...within obvious limits (i.e. viability of living outside of her), and even then, the life of the mother should always take precedence.
Anything else is anti-female choice.

Not exactly, because as far as we know a fungus is not growing to become a human being.

No. A fungus is not becoming a human, of course. But the clue is in the word "becoming". It isn't yet. And it might not be. It's a possibility only. Abortion is simply getting rid of that possibility.

As a disclaimer I don't think we should should kill living creatures lightly and unnecessarily.

I feel zero remorse weeding the garden, and zero remorse eating plants or fungus. And nor should I.
I do however feel incredibly sad about the farmed animals...sentient beings who want to live...which is why I chose to forego the pleasure of eating and wearing them. And why I look at labels on shampoo and suchlike.
The important thing is sentience and thus the ability to suffer...Nothing else...IMO. I don't like to suffer and don't wish suffering on any other sentient being. (Although a bit of healthy debate with disagreement never bothers me too much - agree to disagree and all that )
Sure, I feel sad when beautiful trees are cut down, but that's more to do with my own wonderment at their majesty than anything to do with their "being". They are non-sentient, replaceable objects in the end...

 

[fakei]

The "soul" is a man-made concept that has zero bearing on reality. It is not a real, tangible thing any more than a ghost or a fairy is.

I actually agree with you although it is not clear if is for the same reason, the soul like the world of senses exists as an illusion.

A fetus, before being viable is no more a human than a shrew is (and IMO the shrew has far more worth as a sentient being). It is only a slightly advanced blueprint of a human.

They are at different stages of development.

If a woman has a thing growing inside her, it is her choice and hers alone whether she lets it grow to completion...within obvious limits (i.e. viability of living outside of her), and even then, the life of the mother should always take precedence.
Anything else is anti-female choice.

Arguing that something is wrong or that it should be prohibited are two different things. That's actually the reason I don't think it should prohibited, at least to a certain stage.

No. A fungus is not becoming a human, of course. But the clue is in the word "becoming". It isn't yet. And it might not be. It's a possibility only. Abortion is simply getting rid of that possibility.

Everything in the world of sense is becoming something, it is nothing permanently, killing the fetus is denying that chance.

I feel zero remorse weeding the garden, and zero remorse eating plants or fungus. And nor should I.
I do however feel incredibly sad about the farmed animals...sentient beings who want to live...which is why I chose to forego the pleasure of eating and wearing them. And why I look at labels on shampoo and suchlike.
The important thing is sentience and thus the ability to suffer...Nothing else...IMO. I don't like to suffer and don't wish suffering on any other sentient being. (Although a bit of healthy debate with disagreement never bothers me too much - agree to disagree and all that )
Sure, I feel sad when beautiful trees are cut down, but that's more to do with my own wonderment at their majesty than anything to do with their "being". They are non-sentient, replaceable objects in the end...

People see different things.

 

[Tom L.]

By the way, off-topic , if no-one has read it, I encourage everyone to read "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull" by Richard Bach. It only takes about 30 mins but is very life-affirming..

(your post only partially quoted) I read that book a LONG time ago, when it first came out (in the '70s- I remember discussing it with a college friend of mine). I vaguely remember that we agreed it was more about spirituality in general than about animals in particular. The movie sound track, by Neil Diamond, is nice too; you should probably sample it on YouTube before buying it (if it's even available anyplace).

 

[g0rph]

(your post only partially quoted) I read that book a LONG time ago, when it first came out (in the '70s- I remember discussing it with a college friend of mine). I vaguely remember that we agreed it was more about spirituality in general than about animals in particular. The movie sound track, by Neil Diamond, is nice too; you should probably sample it on YouTube before buying it (if it's even available anyplace).

I guess we all have ways of interpreting things.
I am about as spiritual as a house-brick, but I do have a sense of awe at many things. I thought Richard Bach captured that really well.
Oh and I have always had a soft spot for seagulls...
I thought the filmed version was awful. The whole point of the book, IMO, was to use your imagination and paint your own story.

 

[Tom L.]

I thought the filmed version was awful. The whole point of the book, IMO, was to use your imagination and paint your own story.

(I only partially quoted your post). I didn't see the Johnathan Seagull movie- but I think it would be VERY hard to make this book a film- at least a live-action film, which I think it was. The story is very dialogue-heavy, and the dialogue is good- but if it were live-action, I suppose the voices would just have to be dubbed into the film, and since the characters' beaks would not be opening and closing with the words... nope, it wouldn't work.

"Watership Down", a book with rabbits as most of the main characters, was also filmed- but it was animated, with Fiver, Bigwig, Hazel, General Woundwort, and the rest of the characters depicted as speaking as humans would.