Murderous Hypocrisy

I have noticed an extreme dichotomy in society surrounding the topics of abortion and animal rights.
So far the statements that I have heard do not make sense. Many have spoken of abortion being pro-choice if it is inconvenient to the mother.
Those same people who believe in pro-choice also speak of being vegan because eating meat is murder.
So the thought remains, why is an animals life more important than an unborn child. You shouldn't eat meat or kill an animal for any reason but your unborn child isn't even viewed as a creature deserving of life if it is an inconvenience to the mother. (I’m not speaking of medical necessity or rape victims, I'm simply referring to those who will abort because they don't feel like taking on the responsibility of being a parent.)
How do we reconcile this hypocrisy in society?

 

Responsibility and money.

 

It's crazy, I know, but it's the mindset those running the show want people to have. It really has everything to do with the normalization of population control in the public mindset. The people who run the world have a very anti-human belief system they have also been trying to instill in the public's minds since the 60s.

 

No, many have spoken of abortion being pro-choice because it is/ should be the mothers choice.

But don't let me interrupt your Rush Limbaugh-esque inflammations...
Carry on:coffee:

 

Yes, because anyone that thinks abortion is wrong MUST be Rush Limbaugh lovers.

 

Most of the thugz I know support the choice for abortion & also eat meat. I think I only know one person who is vegan.

 

Don't be an idiot rat, I'm not taking your bait.

 

This is what I'm talking about rat, if you can't see the inflammatory nature of this approach I don't know how to help you.


lots of people who eat meat are pro choice

 

Accusatory rush-esque comments are NOT inflammatory?
Hypocrite.

I have seen this behavior here instead of hate mongering how about answering the OP's question...

"How do we reconcile this hypocrisy in society?"

 

I'm not stating all pro-choice advocates are vegan. I'm stating that the ones that are are quite hypocritical in their thinking. Many who do believe in abortion fight quite often for animal rights saying the animal has a right to live (of which I agree) but in the same token why is an animals life more important than that of an unborn child? What makes that animals life more important than that of a child who hasn't even been givin a chance simply because the parents who had sex knowing pregnancy was a possibility believe they should kill it because it wasn't planned for? There is no responsibility taken for the actions made. Why is this ok?

 

I believe such issues will always be a hot topic for debate until other problems come along that will ultimately usurp them no matter how much the media tries to smokescreen using them. Everyone deals with hypocrisy all the time, and each case is different. In this case I believe you're (the OP) just generalizing some groups of people into others and getting confused by doing so. It does help to generalize and stereotype in certain instances just know when you are and when it comes to critically think on a subject think about individuals being individuals and no two people think totally alike.

 

I'm saying that I have seen much of this behaviour where two beliefs contradict each other. It is happening and I believe that sociologically and psychologically there is something happening that is creating negative effects such as these where moral beliefs no longer make sense. Why ignore that some people behave in this fashion?

 

Animals are food, an unborn baby isn't. (For most people at least)

I wonder why abortion is still an issue actually. To me it's such a non-issue and something that people should know for themselves, kinda like blaming an apple tree for not growing cherries.

 

Don't you have a corn-on-the-cob eating contest to attend or something ?

 

i've noticed this sort of hypocracy around the topic of automobile ownership and operation and the use of financial credit.

people claiming to want to live in peace and freedom, while refusing to recognize, or even care about, the kind of choices and priorities, that create the incentives that perpetuate and worsen ongoing repression.

and yes, real people, ordinary law abiding real people, all over the planet, ARE being needlessly murdered because of it.

 

Being pro choice isn't about assigning a black and white, right and wrong answer to the issue. It's about recognizing it as a personal choice, something the government has absolutely no power to regulate. Abortions are as old as time. It's not like everyone who is pro choice is running out getting an abortion.

 

Most of the literature pertaining to abortion tends to deal in arguments by analogy. You get the case of the woman and the violinist. A woman is kidnapped by a group of Opera lovers and she is connected to a world famous violinist so that he may use her kidneys for nine months. Only she can save him and if she leaves, he will die. She knew being kidnapped was a risk and normally locks her door, but this time forgot. Is she morally obligated to stay?

There is another thought experiment with animal rights. Imagine vampires take over the world. They drink human blood. They raise humans for the purpose of drinking their blood, and eventually the human dies. The vampires can drink orange juice to get their nutrition, but they don't like it as much. Are the vampires morally obligated to drink oj instead of blood?

These will generate an intuition in lots of people, it is going to generate conflicting intuitions. That is the nature of intuitions for many reasons. For the most part it is evolutionary. People have intuitions to guide them into morality since most models indicate that morality is an evolutionarily stable strategy. They were never meant to be perfect, just good enough to get you through life. This of course also means that things like moral truths don't really exist, which is something most will not want to swallow. The other alternative is to show that there are morally significant differences between the analogy and the ethical dilemma in question.

 

Infanticide is extremely common in the animal world. Often the males do it, but there are several instances where the females engage in it too. Female rats will eat their entire litter if they become stressed. In many tribes, if an unwanted child is born they will kill it through exposure. This of course does not mean that it is morally acceptable, but it does hint at some deeper evolutionary processes in our psychology.

 

It only took the world just over a decade to go from 6 billion to 7 billion, population is rising exponentally. It is something thats going to hit hard in this century

As for vegans, from what I've seen looking from the outside, their real reasons for such a diet have little to do with animal rights

 

It's not.

You can't equate a relatively small number of people with the society as a whole.

You ask why people are hypocritical about this particular issue.
The majority of the people I've met in my life is hypocritical about one thing or another. They have contradictory beliefs, use double standards, etc.
Why would this exact issue be an exception?

The socially and psychologically relevant question is: 'Why are people hypocritical?'