Search Results: pro life arguments

After asking a question about if eating meat should be illegal and had a more nuanced poll about people's reaction I'm going to ask the third question: Is the meat industry as environment hostile as someone claims (why/why not)? I found arguments on the internet. #MeatBan #MeatShaming #Environment

Meat definition = Any animals including fish

Arguments for it's polluting:
* Require a lot of farmland. In addition you can grow healthier food with the same place if there's only vegetables grown according to the pro-vegetarian site "Framtiden. no"
* Less forests and savanna removed because of the need of farmlands; meaning less wild animals in the woods gets extinct
* Animals making methane gasses, ingredients used to make foods for them, fertilizers and transportation of animals.
* Animal rights - they gets to live, stress less etc.
* If less people ate meat, more people would get sick and die since not everyone knows how to live a properly vegan lifestyle which mean less people on earth and more resources to the rest of the population.

Arguments against:
* Growing vegetables still requires a lot of areal, water, fertilizer, pesticide etc.
* Forests would still get removed because of the need of farmland. Not all countries have equally suitable climates and terrain to grow vegetables, so some needs animals. The alternative is importing food from long distances which mean pollution, or very expensive technology like green house etc.
* What do we do with the animals still being alive after a ban? After living generations and whole lives on a farm adapting to living in the wild would be difficult without the proper training. Not as many animals are needed for cheese and milk as meat. Humane?

What's your definition and which of my definition fits you most (poll)?

My definitions:

Pro-choice: Don't necessary see abortion as positive, necessarily or negative. They may think it depends from case to case, but believes it's not their business and that women should be allowed to choose by themselves.

Pro-abortion: Are also for legalization of self-determined abortions, but thinks abortions can affect the society positively.

Both pro-abortionists and pro-choicers believes it's up to the woman, but pro-abortionists sees abortion as a more positive thing. E. g. less disabled and poor people in the world because they gets aborted away.

General pro-life: Are against legalization of self-determined abortions and thinks abortions in general speaking should be illegal and is immoral. But thinks some exceptions are okay like if the mother's health and life is in danger or a child is pregnant. If a child is pregnant, the parents and other adults should be held responsible.

I don't consider people who supports abortion in rape and incest cases as general pro-life.

Total pro-life: Against legalization of any kinds of abortions.

Half pro-life: Thinks abortion is okay when it's incest or rape. May also have other exception rules like general pro-lifers. They thinks other types of abortion are immoral, but some of them thinks it exists other solutions on the problem than making it illegal by law. They've often similar views on it as cheating.

#ProLife #ProChoice #Abortion

I'm general pro-life.
Why I'm Pro-Life & My Answers To Pro-Choice Arguments

This is just ONE argument i hear on the pro-choice side of the abortion argument. Its often a response to a pro-lifer saying 'why not just adopt instead of abort?' to which a pro-choice person might say 'adoption agencies and foster homes are terrible for kids, I'd rather abort the baby then put them through that life.'

So do you agree with that? its better to abort a baby then put it through a terrible adoption agency?

Do you agree that most adoption agencies and foster homes are bad for children?