Poll: A moral dilemma

[Srdjan]

No one has right to kill human being, if ***** didn't want children she should have used protection or pill, not kill five weeks old fetus, which is perfectly healthy and legally undisputed.

So kill million cows, you would kill them anyway and you didn't say the meat would be thrown, it would be used anyway.

WHAT makes a human life worth more than a million cows?

I want you to answer that.

Humans being sentient and shit. Human life certainly worth more then bunch of live stock which we slaughter by millions every single day.

 

[Srdjan]

No one has right to kill human being, if ***** didn't want children she should have used protection or pill, not kill five weeks old fetus, which is perfectly healthy and legally undisputed.

Hmmm... kill a tiny baby that hasn't even realized its own existence and the parents don't even want, or kill a MILLION cows that are beneficial to mankind and the world, that everybody relies on.

Oh, and you don't know if she used protection or not, so you can't really add that to your argument. Maybe she did use protection and she got pregnant anyways. Which is... possible! (A thousand gasps from across the world)

So kill million cows, you would kill them anyway and you didn't say the meat would be thrown, it would be used anyway.

Even before the edit, he mentioned that the meat would be wasted. And if you were thinking that people would go to all of their slaughtered cows, which were probably dead for a while, considering they would kill them at night so no arguments would erupt, get as much meat as they can from them and try to sell it or use it before it spoils. I apologize, as I had no idea that people were so stupid.

I won't even respond to your opinion.

And for passive-aggresivlly calling me stupid: Fuck you, you stupid idiot.

 

[COMaestro]

Why are so many of you people not reading the options? So many people are saying "oh it's wrong to abort the baby so kill the cows!" or "save the cows they are more useful than one human being." If you allow the abortion to be PREVENTED (baby lives), then no cows are slaughtered. NOTHING DIES! If you allow the slaughter of the cows, then the abortion goes through and EVERYTHING DIES!

This poll ultimately boils down your dedication to Pro-Choice. If you are Pro-Life, where you believe abortion is wrong in all cases, then you should be happy with this poll. You vote what you believe and nothing dies. If you are Pro-Choice, only then do you need to think a little. Is the woman's choice to have an abortion more important than the lives (and all potential products) of a million cows?

I personally would say "no." The woman is going to have this baby and we're gonna save a million cows that will eventually be used to feed and clothe people.

 

[Estocavio]

A million cows could feed a freakin country - One baby can die, Abortion is relevant to Freedom Of Choice.

Think of it this way: If you were on a desert island with 5 men and 5 women, and one womans life was in danger. You have 2 choices: A; Save the woman. B; Get enough food and water to last six months. Same logic...

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Well if the parents were planning on getting an abortion that means they either don't have the means to care for the child or don't want it. Therefore saving the baby would only bring it into a family where it was not wanted. Also, by saving the cows you increase farmer revenue and help to feed thousands of families. I don't see why everyone thinks humans are so much better than everything else. I say save the cows abort the bastard.

 

[Capcom4ever]

The fetus isn't a living being, so its a matter of trash a mass of cells or trash food. The food from those cows could feed more lives than one so you would allow more humans life, I suppose.

 

[Jark212]

Kill the cows I guess, and stay the hell out of the abortion debate. A million cows are harvested every day anyways in order to feed the world. Plus cows put out massive amounts of methane so the loss of a million would be pretty good for the environment......

And unless I'm the father or a family member is involved a choice on a abortion wouldn't be in my place, it's the father/mother's choice...

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

What a waste of meat. If the cows were going to be used for meat or something useful then yeah the cows but if not then just stop the abortion.

Note: I have a normal diet and don't care about pro-choice or pro-life.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Let the cows be used normally and just kill the baby as soon as it's born.

I think we call that a "Win-win" scenario.

High five for pragmatism.

I have a better idea; let her have the abortion AND don't kill cows; afterall, there are far more efficient methods of abortion.

 

[TehCookie]

That is quite a moral dilemma, kill the fetus and kill the cows, or kill a baby and save the cows...

 

[Blue Musician]

I hate people, so I say save the cows, although I hate them as well.

 

[unoleian]

Think of the ecological implications of 1 million decomposing cattle.
Think of all the existing people that don't get to eat.
Think of the crops that suffer from lack of quality, organic fertilizer.
There's a serious trickle-down in the mass murder of that many cattle.
Even if the ranchers are compensated, what about those that would use the other parts of the cow besides the meat?

Oops, we killed an unborn baby. We can play with hypotheticals all day long about who the baby may have become, but they're still hypothetical. Only ideas, and the real, measurable impact on the world is small.

The mass, wasteful slaughter of that many animals has real, measurable consequences. Despite the ridiculousness of this moral quandary, the choice to me is easy.

ed- now, wait. why is the death of the baby tied to the death of the cattle? kill one, kill the others? Strange, but okay, guess that baby got lucky this time.

 

[Frankster]

I'd save the cows, what a incredibly horrendous waste of ressources D:

Between growing human population, planet being screwed up, etc... Human life isn't worth that much nowadays (bout the price of a mobile phone from what i heard) so saving 1 000 000 cows is worth much more from an economical viewpoint. We don't need another human in this world, but we still need plenty of food to feed the current ones (a rather harsh viewpoint, my coldness surprises even myself).

 

[magicmonkeybars]

Think of the ecological implications of 1 million decomposing cattle.
Think of all the existing people that don't get to eat.
Think of the crops that suffer from lack of quality, organic fertilizer.
There's a serious trickle-down in the mass murder of that many cattle.
Even if the ranchers are compensated, what about those that would use the other parts of the cow besides the meat?

Oops, we killed an unborn baby. We can play with hypotheticals all day long about who the baby may have become, but they're still hypothetical. Only ideas, and the real, measurable impact on the world is small.

The mass, wasteful slaughter of that many animals has real, measurable consequences. Despite the ridiculousness of this moral quandary, the choice to me is easy.

ed- now, wait. why is the death of the baby tied to the death of the cattle? kill one, kill the others? Strange, but okay, guess that baby got lucky this time.

Look at it this way, either you spend a day protesting an abortion clinic and convince the woman not to have an abortion or you spend the day killing a million cows with mini nukes on the prairie.
The price of freedom being a million cows.

 

[Oh That Dude]

snip

For the sake of thinking carefully about our what we consider right and wrong. It may not be a situation we will face but examining one's own morality is never useless.

Perhaps, but examining one's morality in a way which directly impacts upon decisions you may have to make is infinitely more useful than entirely hypothetical situations with no bearing upon your life. This is in fact my main concern with philosophy, and was the basis for my first year essay on it. 'Should philosophy strive to find a truth beyond human concerns, or is morality strictly human, and must be addressed as such.' If philosophy becomes too abstract then it loses all relevance. This question is too abstract.

One's morality doesn't change all that much based on a situation in my opinion.I'd say it's an overall set of principles that are applied to any situation we find ourselves in, therefore any situation is relevant and the testing nature of this one helps us examine ourselves all the better.

Unless you believe in moral relativism. I believe that my choices are entirely determined upon the situation in which I find myself. To properly answer this question I would need a lot more background information, in order to fully understand the outcomes of my decision.

I just don't hold to the opinion that there is any moral 'truth' or objective standpoint on moral issues, and having a 'principle' which you claim to adhere to would be easy enough to break down given the right circumstances, thus why bother having a principle at all, try and gain a sense of perspective on every issue, and when you try to convince yourself you are doing something for a 'principle' take a moment to remind yourself that all humans are selfish and you are likely doing it for yourself and trying to assuage your guilt by saying there is an objective truth.

Moral relativism, I don't have principles, I have the situation, and the postulated situation has no bearing on anything.

I agree. Well debated.

 

[willsham45]

I would allow the abortion over the needless killing of 1 million cows, especially when the cows could be killed and fed to me...I like beef ummmmmm

As for the abortion issue obviously they should have watched this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ


Off topic...How do I link videos into the post?

 

[Darth_Dude]

snippy

Blah, there's just no arguing with you people, whatever, you win.

However I still abortion is wrong.

OT: The human definately, cows are just animals, humans are just worth so much more.
(well some of them anyway)

 

[Mersein]

Burn 'em all. Let the worms sort 'em out.