Re: Arguments from Nonexistence. Was: Extropians and animal rights

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Michael S. Lorrey

On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Michael S. Lorrey wrote:

> ...while we often see liberals hacking on how Republicans are pro-life with
> respect to abortion, but not with regard to the death penalty, I wonder why
> liberals can be so damn parsimonious, since they are the opposite, they are pro
> abortion, but against killing animals.....
>
> Mike

I understand but disagree with the arguments that yield the "conservative" stance. It seems less a simple inconsistency than a skewed prioritizing of the lives of potential beings over existing ones. As for the corollary "liberal" inconsistency, notice that the whiff of paradox vanishes if the "liberal" permits abortions for both human and nonhuman animals, while also pooh-poohing the consumption of either human or nonhuman animals as food. Again, existing beings have priority over nonexisting ones. No inconsistency at all. Best, Dale

	  	   Dale Carrico | dalec@socrates.berkeley.edu
	  University of California at Berkeley, Department of Rhetoric

• [ Next ][ Previous ] In reply to: Michael S. Lorrey