In these videos they always say "are you okay?" before the pain receptors have even had a chance to respond.

fish have no pain receptors. therefore no reason to scream. also means they make good bait for bigger fish and sometimes peta members.

>> ^Stu:
Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems.


You might be technically correct considering the amount of insects in the world, but I doubt that's true for the larger animals we usually eat.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Pain_in_animals1

The mirror test huh? Besides humans the only ones who pass the mirror test are the great apes, which thankfully are the same order as humans so we know you aren't a cannibal. That leaves the other 18 orders of animals in the class of mammalia free to eat including veal, lamb, dogs, cats and every other pet you can conceive of. Well, except monkeys and I knew a guy with a pet monkey but it's rare so we won't put them in the pet category. So the mirror test is a pretty shitty test of what someone will or won't eat.

You just sound like another PETA member trying to convince billions of people that we aren't the top of the food chain and we should care about what we eat. Alive or dead a vast majority of animals don't have the same pain receptors we contain for the simple fact of being eaten alive. They have touch receptors in the extremities for movement and awareness of surroundings. You can look that up in any science textbook about animal nervous systems. You can believe and preach what you want about cruelness to animals. Either way it is still going to be eaten.

Even still, crushing an animal to death and having it die in seconds in your mouth as compared to being boiled alive over minutes is still less cruel. You should think of the alternatives of how the animal might die before you say eating it alive is cruel.
>> ^Gallowflak:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
It's a mixed bag for me. I'm completely inconsistent. This makes me squeamish and therefore seems cruel to me, but then I remember that I eat lobster from time to time, and lobster is prepared by boiling it alive. Cockles and mussels are also cooked while they're alive. A lot of the world includes insect protein in their diet, and insects are rarely dispatched humanely before preparation. Some are roasted alive before consumption. (I'm not even sure if there is a way to humanely kill an insect anyway. Decapitation?) And how about the way we treat animals before they're killed? How about veal? And has anyone seen film of modern chicken houses? Meat consumption is littered with ethical issues. I think about it often while stuffing Big Macs in my face.>> ^Fusionaut:
I don't know if biting into something that is still alive is all that wrong under the right circumstances. It happens in the wild all of the time. Dunking it in a hot, pepper sauce before the first bite seems cruel to me though. However, I did eat a live mayfly once. Grabbed it out of the air and then CHOMP! The wings got stuck in my teeth. Now you know a weird fact about me.


Right, but I'm not sure that typical meat consumption is comparable to consuming an animal alive for no purpose other than... whatever the purpose is. It's grotesque, it's excessive and it shows casual disregard - and perhaps even contempt - for the suffering of species that don't have our gawking faces. The fact that animals are eaten alive in the wild just isn't relevant, either. We're able to make the choice. Maybe I'm just a bitch. One of my overarching directives is to minimize the amount of suffering that I'm responsible for. This is just fucking awful.
It's not relevant but I don't eat veal or lamb, nor lobster or crab and certainly not octopus. I won't consume the flesh of any animal order that contains creatures which pass the mirror test.

Very well said, and I agree with you on many points. However, I don't believe that simple abortion is the answer. I think most people agree that fewer abortions in this country would be a good thing. I would have liked Palin's answer much more if she had said something more like my opinion, which is:

Yes, I do believe that abortion in the case of rape or incest is wrong and I would counsel a woman in that situation to go through with the pregnancy. It is, of course, a great sacrifice for her both emotionally and physically, and that is why I believe that it ought to be her choice. Her agency was taken from her by the man who impregnated her, and if she believe that her "life" (lifestyle) would be irreparably destroyed by the pregnancy, than she should be free to decide whether her life or the embryo's life is more human.

The answer to reducing abortions in general is not to make all abortions legal. There are steps that we must take in order to reduce abortion rates including providing healthcare and adoption programs for unwanted pregnancies, better and earlier sex education (with full consent of the parents), and free access to contraception. Abortion should be illegal for pregnancies more advanced than 24 weeks because when higher brain functioning and pain receptors are developed, there can be almost no doubt that the child ought to have human rights.

But pragmatics should never be a reason for a moral decision. That is why we ought NEVER to torture prisoners. Sure, we might save some American lives by torturing terrorists for information, but torture is something we do not (or should not) do as a matter of principle.

>> ^SDGundamX:
Two years ago, if you had asked me my position on abortion I would have told you I was pro-choice all the way. Then I saw an actual abortion performed and had everything I believed turned upside down. Seeing the doctor wash little dismembered body-parts--arms, legs, parts of a skull--and count everything up to make sure he got it all... that pretty much convinced me I needed to re-examine my beliefs. I have tried since that time to be open to all positions on the matter and to form my own opinion based on reason and logic. The conclusion I came to is very similar to swampgirl's--abortion is morally wrong but is also a necessary evil.
I'm an atheist, so I don't oppose abortion on any religious grounds. No, like swampgirl said earlier, I just think we should stop beating around the bush. We're taking human lives here. Granted, we're doing it as mercifully as we can (i.e. before the nervous and pain response systems are fully developed) and for ostensibly good reasons. But I think too many people try to gloss over the fact that a human life is ended in the process. I think people are uncomfortable with the idea and that's why we quibble over when a human is an officially recognized "person" or when certain rights should be ascribed.
However, although I oppose abortion on moral grounds, I do not agree with making abortions illegal. That probably seems paradoxical to most people, but it stems from the fact that I am pragmatic. There are serious problems with making abortion illegal: backroom abortions and their associated risks; a suddenly skyrocketing number of babies that need adoption placement in a system that is already burgeoning under the weight of unwanted or neglected children; massive population expansion at a time when resources such as clean water are becoming scarce; and so on. In an ideal world, we could make abortions illegal and provide superior care and support for all women who must carry unwanted babies and place all of those unwanted babies with caring, loving, families. But I've seen enough of the world to know that it is anything but ideal.
And so I believe that as horrible as it is, legal abortions are necessary in the world. It kind of depresses me a little bit that I can find something immoral and yet still condone it. I think maybe it's a sign that I'm getting old that I'm willing to compromise my morals for pragmatic concerns.