The Pro-Life debate
There’s enough material online if you are interested, about whether a woman should be allowed to abort a child. The people who say that the woman should have the choice to do what she wants fall into this group popularly known as pro-choice. The people who don’t fall into this group called pro-life. These aren’t names I chose, just what is usually used everywhere.
For what it is worth, I’m 100% in the pro-choice group – no one but the woman or at the most her partner (to a small extent) should have the right to decide. But recently, an incident occurred that made me briefly wonder if there was a contradiction in my belief system.
I’m a lacto-vegetarian and these days nearly vegan. This means that I do not consume eggs. The logic I’ve tended to use, is that the egg eventually becomes a chicken and I do not want to interrupt that process in any way. That’s always been the main reason whenever people have asked. There are secondary reasons I have, which are that I find dairy farming and forced production of eggs extremely hurtful towards chickens in general. But the main reason has always been – Egg = chicken.. eventually. But one evening, at Trader Joe’s..
I suddenly realized that I was pro-choice with respect to humans, meaning the woman decides to abort a foetus and not let it develop – and I’d be fine with that. With hens however, I was saying I wouldn’t eat an egg because it would eventually (not the artificial eggs that will never become chickens) be alive. There seemed to be a very major contradiction here, that bothered me for a while, because both views are very important to me.
After a bit of thinking I reached a conclusion that it was not possible for me to have any other view with respect to hens. If hens had the ability to think and communicate, and say that they were okay with me eating Egg 1 although it was going to become a chicken, but not Egg 2 for whatever reason – I’d be pro-choice there as well. But hens cannot and will probably never think (thinking as in the way a human thinks) and hence never make a decision. They are hence at the mercy of humans. Hence, I think I take the safer option that no hen would want her chickens to die in a pan and do not eat eggs.
All this was just because I basically dislike contradictions in my life and find living with them to be extremely hypocritical. There maybe loopholes in this above theory as well and many other parts in my life. I’m not saying I’m perfect. Far from it. Just that I make a big effort to stay contradiction free, everywhere – once I realize that there is one. There will be times that I am unable to resolve one, despite my best efforts.
And that.. that’s not fine, I don’t like it – but there’s literally nothing I can do about it. The pain involved in resolving a contradiction might be far too much to take, despite my fairly high endurance levels đ
myotherramblings 
There’s just one loophole I could find here: Hens (Or rather animals) can’t think in the way humans can. In the past few months, I’ve observed some animal behaviour (especially in dogs and crows) that convinces me animals do think and communicate. And in most cases, it’s not impossible for humans to understand this. Most often, we choose to ignore it.
Another aside: Most eggs sold at the grocery store are usually unfertilized and would never develop into a chick.
Having said all this, I am also pro-choice. đ
Sure, I did mention the 2nd point (albeit briefly and hidden in between). The logic I use to try and convince myself there is that chicken farms and the way hens are forced to lay eggs more than their bodies can take, is not something I like.
But you’re right, until recently I always used to think that a rooster was involved.
Its interesting that you say animals can think. I mean – I do not doubt it one bit that they do, but are they advanced enough to convey what they mean to us? You’re saying, yes it is possible. That’s interesting. Do you have any literature you’d recommend to learn more about this?
Don’t think I need literature for this; here’s my explanation with anecdotal experiences.
1. For several months, I have been feeding the crows at my window with egg yolks – I eat only the whites. On several mornings, I’ve seen crows hovering around my balcony just before I feed them. Sometimes they are even cawing. Isn’t that communication?
2. My neighbour has a dog. Like most other dogs, he wags his tail when he’s happy to see me, he yelps (its a distressing cry – wish my neighbour could sense this) when he’s put on a leash or is confined to a closed space for too long. The yelps get longer when he needs to relieve himself. That’s not all, he mostly stops yelping when someone looks at him. Isn’t that communication?
Yes, one may argue this is not the way humans would communicate. My point is: How is this different from a person communicating to me (or you) in a language I don’t understand, say Swedish? Likewise, maybe we don’t understand the way animals communicate yet, just the way animals don’t understand all that we say. Why then can we take the higher ground and claim that animals don’t think / communicate and we do?
Thanks for the response. Sure, I agree that could be and is communication AND that we know little about what it means. And that we should work more towards understanding more.
The only thing I don’t know we have a choice on, is on how to communicate with animals. Some animals we can *try* and interpret what they mean, but most… everything wild – its practically impossible. I mean, sure you have zoos and sanctuaries and forest rangers and everyone else who try to understand, but beyond that – I’m not sure what else can be done.
We could switch back time and stop cutting forests down and all that.. but that’s a pipe dream in today’s world. Do you think anything else can be done?
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:38 PM, myotherramblings wrote:
>