Hazuki Dojo

Are they pro-life?

pro-bestiality, I think.

Peta Values = animal>human

beedle values=animals>PETA activists

beedle values>Peta Values

But think of the sea kittens!!!!!!

Avon Barksdale wrote:Are they pro-life?

[I made it so you can skip to the very last line for my answer.]

I think the people responsible for PETA and other similar organizations are cowards afraid to stand up for their fellow man, so they choose to stand up for creatures of lesser worth because they are easier to defend because they are, in one sense, easier to love, being harmless or distant.

Everyone knows, deep down, it is absurd and immoral to love your brother and your hamster equally.

I understand the term "pro-life" to specifically refer to the opposition of what is popularly called "abortion", which means nothing other than killing very young human life, usually within the mother's womb. (I detest euphemism; it is harmful to human minds when some people hide behind loaded words and stop saying, and ultimately thinking, what they mean.) Since most of us have probably heard of PETA officially condemning Obama's merciless slaying of a fly, it should be crystal clear to every rational person that PETA's understanding of the universe and the value of the various forms of life lacks logical consistency, to say nothing of common sense, for I have never heard PETA officially condemn killing very young human life. On the one hand they attempt to abolish the value distinction between man and animal, and on the other hand they attempt to declare the preeminence of the human will in deciding which humans should live and which should die before, and sometimes after (forced euthanasia), a particular point in life-development. Moreover, the other side of the argument is that killing is not in itself wrong, but rather it is inflicting pain that is evil. They call painless killing "humane." But pain or painlessness, as the case may be, cannot be the only determining factor in deciding what is right and what is wrong, else ordinary murder would be perfectly acceptable provided that the assailant render his victim unconscious first, or prey on sleepers. Yet, the value of human life cannot be decided merely on the basis of the opinion of the individual either, else suicide would be considered a right, and it would fast become a criminal offense for firefighters and police to waste precious resources inflating cushions and talking down depressed people on bridges and roof-tops. We are civilized, after all. It's too messy to let people jump for it. We need to build clean, sanitary, bright rooms, and fill them with professional authorities in long white coats to quietly and humanely off people who want to die. Then they can efficiently burn the bodies behind closed doors, without the horrific smell that used to deter cremation, and quickly deliver the ashes back to their paying customers. Progress, ladies and gentlemen. To the future!

There are several common bad counter-arguments from PETA supporters, of course, such as: "To kill without pain is humane. Abortions are performed on preborn human lives that have yet to develop nervous systems to feel pain. Therefore, abortions are humane." Unfortunately for those called fetuses, killing these very young preborn human individuals is legal in most places long after the nervous system works, though it varies from state to state. So that line doesn't fly because the facts are wrong. From the perspective of the life concerned, even if their erroneous claim was true, what about being painlessly dispatched changes the fact that you have been deprived of life?

There is also something they call "late-term abortion," the definition of which is obvious, the specifics of which are better left undiscussed. If nothing else, Mr. Obama is consistent, unlike PETA. During his short time as a senator, he voted against the Infants Born Alive Bill, which came about after a nurse protested the common policy in Illinois state hospitals that young human individuals who survive "abortions" (which happens from time to time) be left to die in a storeroom. His reasoning is perfect: at least two people in a position of power wanted that little one dead, and by heaven, he or she shall die one way or another. He was in a position of power over the fly and chose to destroy it. The philosophy of Mr. Obama is simple: the world is a jungle - be stronger or be squished. 2+2=4. How some people can possess both a reverence for all life (at least non-human life, apparently), and believe the value to which all reverence is necessarily attached to be an illusion at the same time, has always fascinated and, quite frankly, confused the hell out me. Oh, well. To each his own irrationality. Whatever sinks your boat.

In short, my answer to your question is no.

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwkYhLiY_fM

Haha..