aryan

Well, have fun feeling superior. While you're sitting there pondering how much better you are than everyone else, I'll be enjoying me some hard boiled eggs!

I'm kinda on the fence when it comes to pets, although I tend to believe vegan should avoid buying them. especially those requiring animals for food, don't own any except for the fish & tank I inherited from daughter when she moved. But if someone saves an animal from being euthanized at the animal shelter, does that fit neatly in to you equation? Is it somehow wrong for pet owners to provides their pets with a steady stream of admiration and loyalty? I don't think it's wrong at all. That's my point. In that case it should be very easy to refute. Go ahead. I'm waiting. Exploitation: use or utilization, esp. for profit. My point is that just saying something is "exploitation" doesn't make it wrong, by using examples of things that people generally consider to be ethical (though there are disagreements). I'm not saying that shopping at a store is unethical, which is how you seemed to interpret it. If my thread is "fail" then it shouldn't be very hard to refute what I've said. Yet YOU have "failed" to do that. Go ahead.

When I go shopping, I exploit the store. That is, I use the store to get things that I want for my own benefit as a result of my own greed. However, the store benefits. In fact, in a way the store could be said to be exploiting me, and exploiting my desire to own their products, in order to get their hands on my money. Similarly, anyone who has a cat or dog is exploiting that cat/dog. They are keeping him/her there only because they enjoy having a companion animal who loves them unconditionally and provides them with a steady stream of admiration and loyalty. I hereby conclude that exploitation in and of itself is not unethical; it is only unethical if the exploited party is worse off as a result of it.

Miscarriage means the fetus is expelled... in this story it dies, she still carries it to term, then it becomes undead... Oh! Well that's good then. So she ends up living happily ever after with her husband and their baby right? I'm sure nothing out of the ordinary occurs as a result of her baby being temporarily dead.

You said it.

thats one weak response Not nearly as weak as that one.

that couldnt be further from the truth. there just so happens to be many other belief systems out there You can make up whatever "belief system" you want but at the end of the day people who have kids do so because THEY wanted them.

Wow, when you put it that way, maybe they deserve captivity... I definitely don't support rape. But not all dolphins are rapists, right?

It is estimated that around the world, about 53 billion animals are killed for food purposes every year. But that's not including fish and other aquatic animals who, according to some researchers, also die in the tens of billions, bringing the whole figure close to 100 billion/year. But this is a separate issue.

Personally I love PETA; they've done a lot of good for animals. And if they've shown some naked women in the process, so be it. The Onion may have a sense of humor (I should hope so, they are a comedy newspaper after all) but they haven't really done much for the world other than provide entertainment.

People who belong to groups that are looked at though prejudged views, can also have prejudicial views, even about the demographics they belong to. Yes, I am aware. Please see the remainder of my post.

I'm afraid I don't understand... are you saying that it would be ethical?

those are called "artifact children." not all children are artifact children, but it seems that more often than not in the west they are, largely in part to cultural and religious factors. All children are either: 1) intentionally conceived 2) accidentally conceived If ever the former, those kids were had to fulfill the parents' own selfish desires to have kids. Otherwise, there would be no point in having them.

But we do raise humans. We call it parenting. We wouldn't let our kids do things that could put them in harm's way, such as play in the street, for example. And do we not really do this to fulfill our own selfish desires to have kids? Of course we do, but that doesn't mean the kids don't still benefit.

Hm? I'm not treating them as property. If I were I'd keep them on a shelf in the closet, like I do my other belongings. I am curious as to what it would take for them to be truly free range... does it mean completely without borders or fences? If so this could be very dangerous for the chickens, as they could lose their way if they travel too far, not too mention run into predators or cars. My new backyard would be a lovely place for them; it's on a quiet river and almost completely shaded by big, gorgeous overhead trees, like a canopy. Oh, it's so lovely! And then when they are ready to go to sleep, they could retire to their big comfy bedroom via outdoor stairway to my mostly-flat roof.

Hm? How can restriction do anything but prevent learning? The concern is safety, not learning.

LOOSE MORALS ALERT!! I listen to wholesome Christian music by such singers as Amy Grant and Leeland. There's no inspiration like He.

KEEP YOUR CAT SAFE INDOORS. Cut off your mom's fingers and see how she likes it. (Don't really do this.) Well, he won't have a life to live at all if he goes outside and gets hit by a car or stuck in a tree. Yes. Make sure he has adequate entertainment and plenty of love and he should be content to stay safe inside. When I was a kid we had an outdoor cat. She, naturally, died. RIP Blossom. Keeping your cat inside is about protecting your cat's best interests.

If they weren't bred in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. Yes, but it is better for a being to be created and experience a life of leisure than to never be created in the first place. Interesting... so you're saying I should adopt or rescue chickens, rather than purchase them. I can see what you're saying, but at the same time, the chickens wouldn't really know or care if they were there because of their eggs or for their company alone, right? They still have the freedom and enjoyment and good life, and of course I would keep them after they stopped producing eggs.

You do make a lot of good points. I'm wondering how you'd feel about it if the chickens had access to the backyard... it's very big and right along a quiet river, and would be almost like living in nature for them, if not better. Quite pleasant. If I just had a few it would be plenty of space for them, and they could go back and fourth from the roof to the yard. I know that dogs and cats often enjoy the company of humans; are chickens the same way? If so I could entertain them and play games with them. They could also be friends with each other, and thus would have a social life available to them whenever they wanted it. I have been vegan for several years but still remember how when I was a kid my mom would make a lot of meals for me using hard boiled eggs and I now just have those sort of memories associated with them I suppose. I love the yellow inside with white outside. I love biting into it - the softness of it, the texture - and seeing the yellow center. But I wouldn't want to make chickens suffer at all. I would only want to do this if I could make their lives more enjoyable than they would otherwise be.

I'm glad you've found the option that's best for you, lobster. More power to you. And if other people want to eat cake and brownies all day and die of a heart attack at an early age, more power to them - that's their choice. But society should stop pushing that girls who make a third choice have a disorder and need to be "fixed" or "cured." If they want to change, fine, but the assumption that all of them do is wrong; some of them even became that way intentionally to begin with.

I am trying to decide if raising chickens for eggs would be ethical. Quite frankly, I miss hardboiled eggs. A lot. Here are the dilemmas I'm trying to work through: 1) Is it possible to ensure that I obtain the chickens from an ethical place? 2) If so, is it ethical to take eggs from chickens? After all, they did create the eggs, so is it stealing for humans to take them, no matter how the chickens were treated? As far as caring for them goes, I'm going to be moving into a new house soon, and I'm building the house with a semi-flat roof that could be, with some modifications, very suitable for housing chickens. I'd probably hire someone to take care of them for about $8,000-$10,000 a year (If I did this I would only have a few chickens so caring for them would probably take less than an hour per day) so that they would be in the safe hands of a qualified person. The only question that I need to answer is - is it ethical?

I don't think it's sexism. The president of PETA is a female as are some of its supporters/workers/volunteers. They've had a few naked men in their campaigns but not as many, the reason being that men are more likely to respond to sexual cues than women. Because of this you'll tend to see more naked women anywhere you go, not just in PETA ads; it's marketing.

I am aware that this is my personal opinion... I never tried to present it as anything else. And yes, I've read the Wikipedia article on anorexia. But you can also die from being overweight! It is just as dangerous, if not more so, although it might kill you more slowly. My cousin has been pro-ana for years and is still alive and as far as I can tell perfectly healthy... she does eat, she just eats very little, and she runs 6x a week. In the old days when people didn't always have enough food a lack of extra fat could be dangerous in the case that there were a famine, but in America today that's not an issue; we have plenty of food but people continue to eat like they're starving when they're anything but. When people go on hunger strikes they don't eat anything at all, but people can eat and still be considered anorexic depending on the frequency and amount. My cousin has never said she's fat; she recognizes that she is very thin and is happy with herself that way. One who is thin but thinks herself fat would have Body dysmorphic disorder, but this is different from anorexia.

I don't think gluttony is a disorder, I just don't find it attractive. I respect your opinion but personally I think it's obese people who are really damaging their health. Obesity dramatically increases one's chances of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and cancer, just to name a few. 66% of Americans are overweight. Fat acceptance movements are running high and I think it's great but what about acceptance for those at the other end of the spectrum? They face far more stigma and isolation. I have a cousin who is pro-ana and that has driven away a lot of the family - they just can't accept that it's none of their business what she chooses to do with her body, just like with fat people. She gets told off all the time, and no one sees anything wrong with that, yet if someone tells off a fat person for their choices, that person is criticized. I'm one of the few people in the family who continues to support her and stay friends with her. One time when we were hanging out a complete stranger approached her and said, "Oh my God, you're so thin, are you alright? Are you okay? Do you need someone to talk to?" Her intentions were good, as I'm sure she didn't realize how this could be seen as not only offensive but humiliating, but people need to be able to live their lives.