I use to have a fish tank in my room in my teen years, where many of my fish died for reasons i could not work out. I had this one Angel fish who looked very sick and seemed to be suffering to some extent and could not stay afloat. So i did the "humane" thing and took the fish out of the tank with my net, so to give it a quicker death.
What surprised me was what happened next, with all my "good" intentions the fish still had a bit of fight left in him and flapped around until it landed back into the water which it was not even directly over. Now it may have just been luck and instincts that made him(or her) land back in the water and not on my carpet, but i realised that this fish intention was to continue fighting for that last breath to the very end.
I was watched a show called "Animal Rescue", where the RSPCA invades peoples homes because they have too many pets(any many cases which are given to them when no one else wants them)which may have fleas, ticks or live in an environment which isn't considered "humane" , the RSPCA confiscates these animals, takes them to the pound and if not cute enough to adopted, end up being "destroyed" humanely.
Which brings me to my main point that many believe to be true, that is, that not being born or that being destroyed is more humane than being born in an environment which they don't believe is a life worth living.This can be taken further for example, many people think that its better not to allow a baby to be born if they know the baby will grow up with a disability or may live a life of suffering. To me abortion for this reason has more to do with it being a hassle on the parents or society, but should not be justified as being for the better, perhaps it is really only more convenient.
In my opinion a unborn baby, like my fish has no concept of defeat, suffering, what is humane or what life "should" be like. All its instincts just drive them to live till that last breath. So i ask myself, isn't a life that is poor or full of suffering still worth allowing to be lived? and who am i to think i know better than that life it self.
What are you thoughts?
Hux
My opinion on this has changed since I have given up on the theory of a caring god. I believe because humans domesticated animals we have taken on the responsibility of their care. IMHO it is much better to alleviate suffering. Busting into houses etc. is a much larger issue.
I would personally prefer to see sick and suffering animals put out of their misery, humanely of course.
I recently “rescued” some stray kittens ( after disliking them most my life). Every day I have to stop the thoughts of how much better I like them than so many humans I know.
As for people, I think it should be up to them to decide the time and place of their own demise.
The carelessness of abortion is a terrible thing, butt………. . A huge topic all its own. I do not like Rothbard’s belief of a parasite. I cannot get past the responsibility of the owner of the body.
We do know this – if not for gov. incentives to have children there would be a whole lot less who are not wanted and continue the cycle of suffering.
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
Hey Mike, im just wondering why you feel there would be less unwanted children if there there where no gov. incentives ? The thought recently popped into my head, it would be nice to hear you expand on the topic though.
As for the OG post, i more or less agree with you !
I am thinking alot about animal rights at the moment, It is one of the most difficult things for me to shake off as my family has always been ant-hunting etc.
huxx:What are you thoughts?
Hey Hux, good to see another aussie here.
Excerpt of what I wrote elsewhere in another thread.
Essentially, the situation I see potentially evolving in a Libertarian Society...
I believe there would be "pro animal" groups if you want to call them. Organizations like the R.S.P.C.A etc that monitor and get calls about the misuse and treatment of animals.
If people believe there is abuse occurring they could contact the Animal Protection Organization, who then contacts the owners and request an inspection. If refused they could then put a notice out on the person, add them to a online animal abuse suspect list, and keep a database on all others who are known to be abusive. If the owner wishes to remove themselves from the list, they could attempt to prove they are not abusing their animals. Animal breeders and sellers can check in with this organization before selling to a prospected buyer to make sure the animal won't be abused.
In the written contract for sale, they could also stipulate they will be allowed access in 6 months time to check on the health of the animal.
huxx:In my opinion a unborn baby, like my fish has no concept of defeat, suffering, what is humane or what life "should" be like. All its instincts just drive them to live till that last breath. So i ask myself, isn't a life that is poor or full of suffering still worth allowing to be lived?
I think you may find this agreeable. Evictionism - A Private Property Approach to Resolving the Abortion Controversy.
@ Mike - also check this out.
Back when I was still an university student I rented out with a friend a very cheap (by the standards) apartment, happy to have got ourselves a deal. After a few nights we discovered the reason: almost every night there were terrible cries from upstairs. We soon learned that the family living upstairs had a child born a cripple. I don't remember what the degenerative condition was but the poor thing was mentally handicapped and felt such terrible pains that she often spent the whole night crying and screaming. All her parents could do was praying God for a quick and merciful death because not only there was no cure but morphine was quickly becoming useless. Is this life worth living at all?
I can assure you this experience turned me decisively against keeping men and animals alive at all costs.
Hi there Ash,
It seems to me proven not only by my experience with people- but also economic laws. Any action that is subsidized will increase.
Also there is an economy of scale with child bearing. Your “pay” goes up more than your cost to feed another mouth. Child bearing has always been, for the most part( outside of religious issues and lack of birth control), an economic activity. Years ago people needed more children to help support the family, guess that is still the case. The people who can least afford them ( on their own) have the most.
One of the things that turned me from the radical leftism of my youth was an actual statement from a family member from a heavy welfare state in the NE.
“ the do-dah man pays for our kids” do-dah man I found out was the state. I was appalled. They had 5 kids and it was disgraceful.
There is a lot of good scholarly work out there on this.
While hunting gives me the creeps – I do believe it is a net good.
Thanks Mike, i think I'm going to do a bit of hunting and find some works on subsidies for poor parents.
You think 5 is bad, i went to school in Tipperary, which is a heavy welfare town in Ireland, one of my friends at the time had 1 brother and 6 sisters. Both parents out of work and claiming, God knows how many he has now.
Ash,
My international ignorance might be showing- but is high birth rates in Ireland possibly a function of Catholic Church dogma as opposed to welfare incentives??
In America the instance of out of wed-lock births have been directly correlated with increased welfare benefits.
No no your absoloutly right, high birth rates could be atributed to Catholosism it could also be due to the so called celtic tiger, the baby boom hit Ireland later then the rest of the world but it certainly isn't the case with this crowd lol.