to think parents shouldn't bring their child up vegetarian?

[Picante]

Unless for religious reasons.

Yes this is a thread about a thread but I think I was annoying too many people over there so I've started my very own for people to get annoyed with me here!

I just think it's mean. Meat is such a huge part of our culture and fair enough if you're old enough to decide that you don't want to kill animals... but children should be given all sorts of food in the early years, including meat, until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves!

I mean carefully done by the interviewer not by Riven.

"Wow, monkeytrousers, you really are being egregiously stupid, pompous and inept, aren't you? "

Absobloodylutely! lol

Sorry, thats a bit flippant, but it did tickle me. I am, you see, a great defender of free speech and the right to offend (or at least try to) so I salute your efforts.

I am not asserting that the things Singer and others discuss are not contentious or debatable; this is the reason they write about them. To ask uncomfortable questions about humans and human nature and get reasonable people to think about them so the nuts do not think they have the monopoly on them - so there are always more ethical choices not simply brutal ones. They look at human nature and try to work with it, not against it.

But that's not the same as someone attemopting to paint him as some facist eugenicist. That is, to one extreme, the height of intellectual dishonesty and at the other the nadir of willfull ignorance - especially if someone is immediatley prepered to think something so extreme about someone and not bother to even try to understand the nuance of the debate or get a hint of balance.

@those opposed to Singer

i think this is a patent misunderstanding of Singer - he advocates inteligent animals having a higher status, not cognitive-disabled people having a lower status than animals. To do otherwise is speciesism.

do you have a rational defence of speciesisdm to bring forth, or do you just want to make a knee-jerk judgement based on nothing?

as a situation-ethicist, his advocation is basically that everyone has to decide for themselves about their own situation.

there is a huge degree of rationality about his ideas - is this what bothers people?

monkeytrousers - I think I now have a small crush on you.

We eat meat.
Largely because of my own laziness.
I wish we didn't.

Because "it's yummy"

What bothers me specifically is that he considers it okay to allow infants to be killed if they don't meet parental requirements at birth, or in the first weeks of life. He says that a human life is more valuable if it's less painful or difficult, and that the parent should be allowed to determine that on the basis of well, they could abort, so why not infanticide? Firstly it's a ridiculous way to evaluate a life - if you took that to extremes Paris Hilton has led a more worthwhile life than Stephen Hawking. And secondly it ignores the most salient point that a mother can terminate because she is carrying the foetus in her body - fathers can't decide on an abortion, whatever the situation, because of that basic biological fact. Once born and capable of life outside the uterus I think it's abhorrent to consider occasions when you might actively decide to kill someone, on the basis that they aren't physically perfect - or at all, actually. So what?

And yep, of course I'm cheerfully speciesist. How the bugger else could I eat roast beef? If you think all life is equally sacred, I can respect that, disagree though I may. To downgrade the concern for human while upgrading that for animals, though... no. I think that's abhorrent.

monkeytrousers, that was actually the edited version! And while I do genuinely admire the graciousness, I can't really comprehend the notion that it's okay to discuss doing appalling, inhuman things, in all seriousness, as long as you agonise over the ethics en route. Something appalling is still appalling, however daintily presented. With you on the free speech, but as you acknowledged, that doesn't prevent freedom of response.

Typical, why do I get all the decomposing dudes?

Qally, parents already do determine these things. Unpalitable as it seems, he isn't creating a phenomenon that isn't there. It is there already. That's the point.

Fathers can't have abortions. But, more often than not, they actually are the ones who commit the infanticide.

It is abhorrent. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It simoly isn't rational to pretend otherwise and refuse to discuss these issues on that basis.

As one(bat?) pointed out, it isn't about downgrading human life and upgrading 'animals' (we are animals too BTW).

As for the legitimacy of discussing terrible things (which are realities) what is the alternative? Discussing is not doing. YTo go down that route is to go into Orwellian ideas of 'thought crime'.

...do we even need to eat food, its a great way to cut down on the supermarket bill.

they are people out there that don't and exist. The most famous person to perfom 'inedia' was Therese Neumann - and she did not eat for 35 years.

That would solve the problem of pesticides and genocide to animals and vegetables...

not that I am giving up food anytime soon, more another perspective (and I haven't looped MN out for awhile)

There's a biiig difference between discussing and advocating the acceptability of something, though, no? And I'm not quite sure why mentioning that infanticide occurs somehow legitimises it - rape occurs too, I've yet to read anyone advocating it on that basis. I'm genuinely appalled by the idea that a parent has the right to kill a child, and for something as endurable as haemophilia? On the grounds that the parents would probably replace said child with a healthy one, whose life would be more worth living, as less painful and difficult? No. People aren't interchangeable, which is his stated position (and I disagree with his ethical justification for abortion, too - and I may add that my thinking was adopted in the conjoined twins case about 5 or 6 years ago; a person has the right to determine their own bodily autonomy, on purely ethical grounds, and that is so even if it may mean the other dies without that lent body.) Everyone has the right to their basic humanity, and that means the right to live unless and until they choose otherwise, or their life is unspeakably painful and can't be ameliorated - at that point you're in the realms of what right trumps what, as Singer perfectly reasonably discusses.

I also find it quite bizarre that people who care about animal welfare can think disabled children's lives are worth less than those who aren't disabled. They're all human, of course, which is my core ethical standpoint - call it speciesist if you want, I honestly have no problem with that. But I know a lot of Quaker vegans and vegetarians who see that diet as part of their testimony of non-violence to all creatures, and they'd find the Singer attitude to disabled infants horrifying, I promise you. It seems inordinately inconsistent to me, as well as morally repugnant.

Paps, is that you??

Qally, yes I agree, but Singer is not advocating one course of action over another. Again, onebat put it as lucidly as possible.

I am too appalled by the idea that anyone would think they have the 'right' to kill. But again, it isn't about rights, it is - as strange as it seems - about ethics and morality.

What kind of quality of life would a person, child or no, have if they were unwanted, starved, neglected? We live such privledged lives in the West we very oftem forget that for most people life is a series of tragic trade-offs. I do not condemn or envy the people (who are just as emotional cogent as you or I) who are placed in such impossible positions. But many are.

Got to go sorry - DS calling

"What kind of quality of life would a person, child or no, have if they were unwanted, starved, neglected? We live such privledged lives in the West we very oftem forget that for most people life is a series of tragic trade-offs. I do not condemn or envy the people (who are just as emotional cogent as you or I) who are placed in such impossible positions. But many are."

I don't think people in truly extreme situations can be judged in the same moral terms, no, because the struggle to survive can be overwhelming. But Singer is definitely not only talking about people in such situations, so that's beside the point he's making. He's specifically discussing complex diagnostic tests to identify disabilities that may not be immediately apparent, or identifiable in utero, and such tests are not available in the conditions you describe. So his terms of reference are those with access to sophisticated medical care:

"Regarding newborn infants as replaceable, as we now regard fetuses, would have considerable advantages over prenatal diagnosis followed by abortion. Prenatal diagnosis still cannot detect all major disabilities. Some disabilities, in fact, are not present before birth; they may be the result of extremely pre- mature birth, or of something going wrong in the birth process itself. At present parents can choose to keep or destroy their disabled offspring only if the disability happens to be detected during pregnancy. There is no logical basis for restricting parents' choice to these particular disabilities. If disabled newborn infants were not regarded as having a right to life until, say, a week or a month after birth it would allow parents, in consultation with their doctors, to choose on the basis of far greater knowledge of the infant's condition than is possible before birth."

And actually he does advocate it if it's what the parents want. He regards it as morally neutral at worst under his value system. I quote:

"the issue of ending life for disabled newborn infants is not without complications, which we do not have the space to discuss adequately. Nevertheless the main point is clear: killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

Sorry, but I find the reasoning he's employing disturbing, because he's reducing infant human beings to commodities, of value only inasmuch as they benefit adults. And he's arguing that a life with difficulties is inherently less worthwhile, and invoking thalidomide compensation in illustration: arguing that the compensation proves life without thalidomide damage is preferable. Well, of course it is - for that person. He seems to miss the salient point that what is on offer is not a life without such damage. It's no life at all. The benefits of continued existence for the baby in question don't bother him - as he says, he sees people as interchangeable, and the corollary of that is, expendable.

Finally, if he genuinely thinks people who terminate for severe disability think their baby is "replaceable" then he hasn't met the ones I have. He's reducing an extremely complex decision to one akin to shopping around for the best deal. Again, he's reducing people to commodities, or agents of happiness, rather than individuals.

"killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

In rational terms this is true. The morality of it is to be debated.

See, the thing that really weirds me out is that he doesn't regard a disabled baby as a person - not just from my reasoning on his views about replaceability, either: he outright states that they are not:

"killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person."

And given he's talking specifically in moral terms - uses that word - "morally" - how can it be both a true statement, and open to debate on moral grounds? The statement is one of a moral principle - if it's actually true, as you state, then there's no debate to be had. I actually can't think of anything less true, tbh, than to deny a baby's very humanity. Makes me wonder how much he's had to do with babies.

I hate it when people start to theorise about the worth or not of other people's very existence. It makes my skin crawl. It just isn't a subject that lends itself to intellectual masturbation, IMO (and I had plenty of practice at said onanistic pursuit as a student). I do think it's the philosophical equivalent of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. Namely, human life.

Again, this is an rational and objective observation. Taking all things into account, it is undeniably true. A humaninfant is less sentient than a full grown pig or cow, which are thoguht of as 'dumb' animals.

All mammilian nervous systems are near identical, which means that babies, cows, adults all feel pain in propably identical measure. The capacity to contextualise that pain is near impossible in a human infant though, as it is in other 'dumb' animals perhaps. Its about as moral to kill a semi-sentient infant as it is to kill a cow. What he is sayibng is that, by these criteria, killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. There is a context here. Do you see that? He is not saying killing a disabled infant is not morally wrong - full stop. You really need to look up the is/ought fallacy and the naturalistic fallacy. It's impossible to even begin to grasp the comlexity of these debates with out an apreciattion of them.

The most interesting article I found seemed to be this one.
I would conclude that we need some of both vegetarians and omnivores because farm animals have evolved to live with us and can't cope in the wild. We would either have no farm animals (if mass slaughter because not economically viable) or half starved, diseased bands of them wandering around if they were no longer necessary and they were abandoned by farmers. A few lucky ones could live in farm park/museums and have veterinary care and live to old age.
It would seem to be a good idea if everyone ate less meat-both for their health and the state of the planet.

Farm animals haven't evolved. They have been artificially selected and bred.

only read op but-'just think it's mean. Meat is such a huge part of our culture and fair enough if you're old enough to decide that you don't want to kill animals... but children should be given all sorts of food in the early years, including meat, until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves!'

what rubbish!as a meat eater surely your pushing your values on your children by giving them meat.same thing different diet.
i have 3 dc.i teach them where meat comes from and why i believe we can live without it.1 is veggie by choice-he knows where its from and decided he doesnt want to eat meat.dd eats meat-she doesnt mind where its from and ds2 who is 3 is veggie because thats what i believe is best and at 3 he cant decide.

the 2 veggies are far healthier than the meat eater as it happens.but get over yourself with your judgyness!

Read the article monkeytrousers.
They have been artificially selected and bred but they are here now-they are not going to disappear because people don't approve. They can't manage in the wild-or at least I don't think people would want bands of feral pigs around their houses! Farmers feed and look after the animals and in return get the meat, hides, wool, milk etc. They are mutually dependant. The farmer isn't going to have a terrific bill for keeping them as pets-he needs the products-they need looking after. In the unlikely even of everyone turning vegetarian tomorrow they would either have to be mass slaughter or turned out to fend for themselves. That is why I say that we should eat less meat but we need omnivores as well as vegetarians.
I found the article because no one answered my question of a while back-they called it extreme or silly because it wouldn't happen (which it won't),but I think it is something to bear in mind when calling it dead flesh and disgusting-farm animals won't conveniently disappear.

My 2 boys just don't eat much meat because they don't like it, so we (mum and dad) have found ways to adjust our diets as a family. We feel that our diet is more diverse now that we don't eat so much meat (we still have some, but not much) and the kids like a big variety of veg, fruits, and pulses. I tried and tried to get them to like meat, but they just don't want to know. I don't consider our family to be vegetarians, and I certainly don't think that I am not feeding my kids well.

What non-veggy don't know so much is that we don't just 'take out' meat from our diet and leave the rest as it is - we have very good ways of eating other foods that give us all the nutrients we need. The kids eat what they like, and if I'd offer them a veggiburger and a hamburger, they would both go for the veggiburger because it tastes nicer.

PM, what gives you the impression that if the world became veggie overnight that farmers would simply abandon their livestock? There is a huge excluded middle to your argument. If it was a viable thing to do, goverments would impliment strategies.If it was vaiable - which it isn't

You would end the 'problem' in a few generations by simply segregating the sexes.

I don't eat meat or fish. Haven't done so for about 25 years (I am getting on a bit). DS eats everything - as long as the quality is good, I'd rather he ate a nice cut of well cooked meat and made up his own mind when he is older.

So why the hell do bloody meat eaters freak out when I tell them I am looking for a nice bit of rabbit for him? My mum (who grew up during the war, so ate all types of horrible things) used to make a lovely rabbit stew. Wusses. Really. Why is it fifferent from a cutesy ikkle lambie or baby cow. I do suppose these people eat veal too...

Had to get that off my chest.

Really, simple answer to the chicken there and you dying thing. If somebody was that bothered about eating the chicken, there would hypothetically be vegetation from which that chicken got nutrition itself. That's always a stupid little scenario that really, is unlikely to ever happen and therefore not in need of thought. I'd have thought that it would not be used by adults who understood that

I like how the vegetarians have a better perspective on the idea of eating limited kinds of meat haha Why limit your options if you're going to eat it?