Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

Stop saying humans are the only animals who kill their young! (Page 1)

User Profile
Time and again, I hear pro-life advocates argue that abortion is evil and unnatural and the "proof" of it is in the fact that other animals don't abort their young. Animals don't have access to technology which would enable them to abort, but that doesn't seem to stop them from getting rid of babies they don't want. Someone who grudgingly conceded that animals kill their own young stated that such infanticide is almost always committed by the male of the species. It's been hinted that in the wild, mothers are universally devoted and only human females are evil enough to not love and cherish their offspring. Since my word will not be good enough for the truly zealous, below are links to some reputable sources:

http://faiththedog.info/

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Wild-Animals-70 5/Animals-kill-young.htm

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/ 0,9171,912086-1,00.html

http://www.listafterlist.com/tabid/57/list id/12070/Pets++Animals/Animals+That+Kill+T heir+Young.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_% 28zoology%29

I could go on and on with the links, but I think this is enough to make my point. The only argument left in the face of these facts would be, "Well animals don't ABORT their babies before they even get a chance to be born." I don't think I need to point out how lame that will sound, but I'm doing so as a preemptive strike because I don't want to hear any more about how "unnatural" it is to kill babies.
Did you find this post helpful?
|

replied February 17th, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
It's pretty well known that pregnant rabbits can reabsorb the fetuses if they are stressed or the food supply fails -- essentially, aborting the pregnancy for social reasons!

(Plenty of references, just google "rabbit fetus reabsorb").
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
Tiger Sharks eat each other in the womb and the mother swims off as a last ditch effort to not have her newborns for an after labor snack.

Shoot I feel bad for animals who are forced to breed or inseminated because some human wants to see a new baby *insert cute and cuddly zoo animal here*.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied April 12th, 2011
Interesting
I think that people should consider all options and not the one that is so propaganda in media, news, and such a huge money maker.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Community Volunteer
No, there is another argument, although I disagree with it. And that is that we, as humans, are somehow above other animals. Like I said, I disagree with it, but that is my two cents.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Community Volunteer
Phenicks wrote:

Shoot I feel bad for animals who are forced to breed or inseminated because some human wants to see a new baby *insert cute and cuddly zoo animal here*.
I do and I don't feel bad for them. If they are not endangered, I see no reason why they should gestate. But if insemination is taking place to conserve the species, then I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when the conservation of one species preserves the conservation of other species as well, like with tigers and other big cats. And polar bears. Animals do not have the means or technology to preserve their own kind against us humans, selfish and greedy apex predators that we are.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
I do and I don't feel bad for them. If they are not endangered, I see no reason why they should gestate. But if insemination is taking place to conserve the species, then I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when the conservation of one species preserves the conservation of other species as well, like with tigers and other big cats. And polar bears. Animals do not have the means or technology to preserve their own kind against us humans, selfish and greedy apex predators that we are.


I think its wrong to screw with another being's reproductive organs. The natural way of life means if you ate X and X is no longer an option you'll start eating Y as a means to survival until evolution catches up. Animals living in the wild live so much longer on average than those living in captation (sp? I KNOW I botched that word). As much as it hurt me to see an episode of Earth on Animal Planet where a little leopard cub was hunted and my guess eaten (because the show goes off with the mother very far away from her cub and two very large male primates were closing in on him for a snack) they made a ntoe to say how they do NOT interfere in such situations. Its the circle of life and wild animals have been living thriving, going extinct and evolving long before humans got deeply involved in their lives.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Community Volunteer
Phenicks wrote:
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
I do and I don't feel bad for them. If they are not endangered, I see no reason why they should gestate. But if insemination is taking place to conserve the species, then I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when the conservation of one species preserves the conservation of other species as well, like with tigers and other big cats. And polar bears. Animals do not have the means or technology to preserve their own kind against us humans, selfish and greedy apex predators that we are.


I think its wrong to screw with another being's reproductive organs. The natural way of life means if you ate X and X is no longer an option you'll start eating Y as a means to survival until evolution catches up. Animals living in the wild live so much longer on average than those living in captation (sp? I KNOW I botched that word). As much as it hurt me to see an episode of Earth on Animal Planet where a little leopard cub was hunted and my guess eaten (because the show goes off with the mother very far away from her cub and two very large male primates were closing in on him for a snack) they made a ntoe to say how they do NOT interfere in such situations. Its the circle of life and wild animals have been living thriving, going extinct and evolving long before humans got deeply involved in their lives.
It is NOT part of the circle of life when we humans get involved and start hunting animals for their fur or tusks and ONLY that, just so we can have a pretty spotted coat or a nice ivory statue of some diety we worship. Or taking away other species' habitats so we can build (another) large mall/shopping center/housing complex/nuclear power plant. That is why I am all for insemination to conserve a species WE destroyed. I am not talking about eat or be eaten, I am talking about downright selfish destruction of one species just to make room for our own species or get that cool fur coat or ivory statue or whatever. I hunt deer for food and leather. I don't hunt tigers for their fur. I don't hunt whales for their blubber. That is pure selfish destruction. We have the means of creating artificial ivories, artificial furs and we can create cosmetics without the use of whale blubber. So why do we continue to use animals as disposable resources? I am not for messing with one's reproductive organs, but if saving the tigers, who cannot sustain their breeding in the wild (there are just too few of them to do so because of us), saves other species from either disappearing or running rampant, then I am all for artificially inseminating them or at least letting them get it on in captivity. With tigers, and some other species, they cannot breed in captivity, and breeding in the wild will not sustain their numbers. So, I am all for helping a species we helped disappear come back into the world. I am sorry, but tigers and most other animals have sex to breed, even the dolphins do. Some animals will also mate as recreation, but all in all, the whole purpose of that act in the wild is the instinct to procreate. We are above animals in the sense that we are a more evolved species and can procreate at will (by that I mean we can use protection, abort, or even choose IVF/artificial insemination) or choose to not procreate. Our survival does not depend upon it as the animals in the wild depend upon procreation for survival.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied August 5th, 2012
Wild Humans
Animals in the wild destroy other animals habitats all the time. Ant Eaters destroy ant hill Badgers take over fox dens bears push over trees to eat the squirrels. Humans are not destroying the world. 90% of the species that went extinct went extinct millions of years ago before humans even existed. Perhaps they're going extinct has nothing to do with man but is made by nature? If they can't propagate in the wild or in captivity because they're too shy then maybe they're not "survival of the fittest" kind of animals. We are no more evolved than animals. We still need nature to take its course otherwise those implanted embryos may still not take root and you still may not get pregnant no matter how many hormone injections you take. What makes man special?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 17th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
Horse breeders and cattle farmers literally rape the animals. Mares are often hobbled to keep them from resisting a stallion when he mounts them. Bulls are "stimulated" up the rectum or tricked into mounting a fake cow. Cows are kept in restricting pens and penetrated with devices that eject the collected bull semen. Their young are killed shortly after birth so that people can enjoy tender veal.

"Welcome to the world baby cow. Now die, so that someone can have the pleasure of your tender meat."

Funny thing is, a lot of these people who have no problem slaughtering baby animals born of rape so that they can have a tasty (yet un-necessary) meal are prolifers.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank Darkmoon for this post: DeleteThisProfilePlease 

User Profile
replied February 17th, 2010
Experienced User
Darkmoon wrote:
Funny thing is, a lot of these people who have no problem slaughtering baby animals born of rape so that they can have a tasty (yet un-necessary) meal are prolifers.


I agree completely and have often pointed out the hypocrisy of pro-life meat eaters. Their main argument centers around the "ideal" that life is sacred and it's soooo very wrong to kill those who are helpless (They seem to overlook the helplessness of caged chickens and penned-in pigs and cows and lambs against men with cattle prods and guns.) when there are OTHER options available. These people realize that they can be vegetarians, but they don't want to because "animals aren't as important as people." They'll roll their eyes when I call them on that philosophy but watch the outrage boil over when I suggest that fetuses aren't as important as grown women.

With few exceptions, I firmly believe that the pro-life movement is not about saving babies. It's about keeping women "in their place" and making it harder for them to be strong and independent. Women are easier to push around when they're saddled with a brood of offspring that keeps them from being able to work and earn a decent living. The #1 excuse that abused women give for sticking around is "He said he would take my kids away and since he has a job and I don't, he could do it." It's a hell of a lot harder to bully childless women by dangling a few bucks in their faces. Tons of women (men too) have stuck around in unhappy marriages "for the kids." Therefore, it serves the interest of certain zealots to keep women breeding and helpless, thereby "preserving the sanctity of the family." Translation: if people can choose not to have a houseful of kids, how in the world will we be able to bully them into doing what's best for themselves?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 18th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
Agreed, Damiana. Prolifers prove time and time again to be more about patrolling the behavior of women than "saving" unwanted fetuses. If they held any real value on life, it would extend beyond the fetal human stage. They accuse us of defending life that's "convenient" but at least we aren't eating it as a tasty meat snack!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 18th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
motherofhighspiritedones wrote:
Phenicks wrote:

Shoot I feel bad for animals who are forced to breed or inseminated because some human wants to see a new baby *insert cute and cuddly zoo animal here*.
I do and I don't feel bad for them. If they are not endangered, I see no reason why they should gestate. But if insemination is taking place to conserve the species, then I wholeheartedly agree. Especially when the conservation of one species preserves the conservation of other species as well, like with tigers and other big cats. And polar bears. Animals do not have the means or technology to preserve their own kind against us humans, selfish and greedy apex predators that we are.


No offense as I hold you in the highest regard, but who are you to decide which of these animals reproduce? What right do we have to force them? If you were one of these endangered species and someone tied you up to keep you from resisting the male, how do you think you would feel?

The thought of tigers and pandas and bald eagles dying out makes me sick to my stomach. The thought that there are self-serving elitist morons out there thinking that overpopulation of our species is the answer makes me feel even more nauseated. However, we are NOT the owners of these animals. We are supposed to be living WITH them, not using them for our own greed. I say toss a couple of tigers together and if they get it on, more power to them. Raping endangered species when our kind is determined to wipe them out won't help.

Hell, Prolifers don't even think black people are a member of the human species. Just look at the twisted billboards in Georgia.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2010
Community Volunteer
Darkmoon wrote:

No offense as I hold you in the highest regard, but who are you to decide which of these animals reproduce?
None taken. Your opinion is yours as mine is mine.
darkmoon wrote:
I say toss a couple of tigers together and if they get it on, more power to them.
The problem with that scenario, as with many other animals in captivity, is that tigers cannot breed captive. That is why I am thankful there are reserves in the wild. However, there is just not enough to sustain the population. How is helping them conserve their own kind when they don't have the means to do it themselves using them for our own greed? Yes, it can be construed as selfish, but so can anything else. There is also selflessness involved.

I don't go around artificially inseminating my own animals, but come on. Can an animal consent to ANYTHING we do to them? Be it breed, treat illness, perform an emergency surgery? It is considered cruel (and punishable by law) if you do not take care of your animals by giving them what they need (including medical care, which as I stated above, they cannot consent to) so why does it have to be considered cruel (or rape, which I don't see it that way, but I digress) to help them when they cannot help themselves?

When I breed my Danes, I breed them to males (or females) that have no health issues, are of good conformation, and are of right color (some colors can produce dead or blind/deaf pups, the merle is one of them) in order to sustain a good line of healthy, quality show dogs and sweet, healthy, happy companions. Do they get to choose their partner? No. Is that too, considered rape?

Where do you draw the line on this? Stop treating sick animals because they obviously cannot consent to treatment? Stop giving life saving surgery to animals because they cannot consent? Stop giving them food because they cannot tell you if they like it or not or if it is healthy enough for them? Stop brushing their coats because they may not like being touched at that moment? Or does it only apply to "rape"? We helped wipe out some of these animals, the least we can do is help them get on the right track to where we don't have to "screw with their reproductive organs" anymore.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 18th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
There ARE black pro-life groups. And amongst black social circles I have heard the whole "blacks children/people are an endangered species."

But back to animals- rape or forced impregnation for the sake of continuing their species serves no good purpose to wild animals. They have existed for centuries, and millenia without human interference and they can continue to do so.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 19th, 2010
Community Volunteer
Phenicks wrote:
There ARE black pro-life groups. And amongst black social circles I have heard the whole "blacks children/people are an endangered species."

But back to animals- rape or forced impregnation for the sake of continuing their species serves no good purpose to wild animals. They have existed for centuries, and millenia without human interference and they can continue to do so.
You are right. No human interference at all. Let's blame spiders then for the hunting for fur and ivory, we can blame the birds for taking up precious rainforest and other shelters animals call home all for their own selfish agendas. Absolutely no humans did this. We have not interfered at all. I wonder, is it the animals' own fault that they are now endangered? After all, we certainly didn't interfere...[/sarcasm]
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 20th, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
[quote=motherofhighspiritedones] You are right. No human interference at all. Let's blame spiders then for the hunting for fur and ivory, we can blame the birds for taking up precious rainforest and other shelters animals call home all for their own selfish agendas. Absolutely no humans did this. We have not interfered at all. I wonder, is it the animals' own fault that they are now endangered? After all, we certainly didn't interfere...[/sarcasm] [/quote]

When I said without human interference it was in reference to their ability to reproduce and continue their species. The way to do something about abuse of animals is to go after those who are abusing the animals in the first place, not rape or forcibly impregnant them- furthering the abuse.

If the human race was dying out, how would you feel about being randomly selected to have some strange guy's sperm injected into you because it was deemed *your* job to continue the species without so much as asking how you felt about pregnancy?

Sex and reproduction are very natural processes for wild animals and its wrong to interfere with that process because *you* think its going too slow.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 20th, 2010
Community Volunteer
Phenicks wrote:

If the human race was dying out, how would you feel about being randomly selected to have some strange guy's sperm injected into you because it was deemed *your* job to continue the species without so much as asking how you felt about pregnancy?
I actually wouldn't feel bad at all, if it is for a good cause. And yes it would kind of be considered my job in a way.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied February 21st, 2010
Extremely eHealthy
So, Phenicks, do you also disagree with spaying and neutering pets?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 21st, 2010
Community Volunteer
Phenicks already stated she does.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
Users who thank motherofhighspiritedones for this post: Phenicks 

User Profile
replied February 21st, 2010
Experienced User
I'm kind of torn on the subject of animal breeding and "interference." On the one hand, I agree that it's not polite to subject animals to rape, forced sterilization, and general reproductive slavery. On the other hand, the only way to practically avoid breeding and/or sterilizing animals is not to screw with them at all. If Phenicks believes it's wrong to neuter or spay, that's an admirable ideal only if she doesn't own pets. Otherwise, she'd either be subjecting an animal to suffering through an unfulfilled estrus period (Anyone who think it doesn't bother an animal to be confined in heat - or when there's a female in heat nearby - has never heard them yowl or seen them try to claw through the door.) or letting it crank out offspring that will contribute to the pet overpopulation problem. Each day 10,000 humans are born in the U.S. and each day 70,000 puppies and kittens are born. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all the animals. Source: http://www.spcala.com/pdf/hePresentation3& amp;4.pdf (If you want to use that link, you have to delete the amp crap between the 3 and 4. There should just be one of these: & but the ehealth site keeps changing the link for some reason.)

Forcibly breeding animals is a little more invasive and self-serving than refusing to sterilize them but in many cases, it's the only practical way to raise certain animals. Take livestock for example: would you want the price of meat to increase tenfold because farmers and ranchers are now letting the animals get it on at their own pace? I wouldn't. It sucks to think of the cows and pigs and other animals being held down for breeding and then separated prematurely from their young, but as long as people demand affordable meat prices, those practices will continue unabated.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied February 21st, 2010
Active User, very eHealthy
I don't own a pet and even if I did who says I would keep my animal companion confined while they were in heat? My german shepherd , Sasha, died 3 years ago and my husband's lab Gitera died 5 years ago. They each lived remarkably long lives 17 and 21 human years respectively.

The pet overpopulation problem isn't because petowners aren't neutering and spaying and otherwise exercising complete and utter control over another being's reproductive organs, its because BREEDERS are breeding far beyond the demand.

Who says every dog and cat has to live with a human? Why is there this notion that dogs and cats cant care for thier young without the help and direction of homo sapiens?

And there you have it, entitlement. Animals are being raped to make a bunch of humans feel better even though most of it is done in vain as much of the food bought and sold in the US often goes to waste.
|
Did you find this post helpful?
12 >>