As we well know, vegans tend to be leftists. They argue for animal rights and not consuming animals, but also argue for “women’s rights” with abortion. This is an easily made argument because vegans refuse to eat eggs. Eggs by their design are just external embryos that still require care by a provider to continue living. Applied heat must be maintained for the embryo to develop and eventually hatch. By transient logic a vegan that supports abortion would also eat eggs or support others eating eggs because eggs are a developing embryo. This shows the cognitive dissonance in vegan rationality if the person is vegan for “living animals”. However, the truth of vegans is they find the consumption of dead flesh revolting, not that animals deserve to live. This is also seen in how vegans make their pet vegan, even though it is proven to be detrimental to carnivorous animals #vegancats, #vegandogs, et al. The argument for the well-being of animals is also a lie because animals breed for consumption have a garunteed survival because we require them for consumption. Cows, pigs, and chickens have flourishing populations to the point we worry about cow farts affecting climate.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (11)
sorted by:
Ew, GROSS. When you have a choice, there's no way anyone should want a bloody egg/actual chicken abortion to eat.
But then, there are certain people who would eat human foetuses, too.
Also, I've heard vicuna wool is basically from aborted sheep.
What gets me, though, is the same people who hate abortion also hate welfare moms.
Welfare is counter productive to children’s growth. It would be far more beneficial to make orphan child communities like boystown, where the money and resources going into the community would be used for the advancement of the children. Welfare only advances the mother’s decisions, not the well being of their children.
Also related: The single biggest indicator for a child to live in poverty or commit crime is growing up with a single mother. This means someone from an orphanage is less likely to commit crime or live in poverty than someone who is raised by a single mother despite welfare.
So, like, residential schools.
Good luck keeping the pedos and abusers out, it's never been successful anywhere before. Not schools, not monasteries, not armies. Oh, and it's all fine and dandy as long as it's your philosophy being taught at these creches.
Just sayin', no solution is perfect. Forced sterilizaton, and maybe just preventing the births of what might still wind up being net tax recipients would be better all the way around.
No, but like I said before statistically orphans are less like to commit crime than kids with single moms. So even with welfare that spends far more, orphanages make a better product already.
Yes, because those workhouses taught just that - they taught kids to WORK.