Can you be pro-life and shoot a deer?

[Moooooo]

Ughhhh, yea.  Deer... Child... Deer... Child?

[opebo]

Human life is more valuable than animal life.

Such valuations are purely subjective.  I've no doubt my father would've gladly seen whole nations in Africa perish to preserve the life of his favourite Chihuahua.. who now lies under the dogwood tree.

[Cubby]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

[Bono]

2."Helper or Intelligent Animals" those that serve a purpose in aiding humans.  For example, a dog watches out for the master in case of a break-in, and in turn gets attention and petting, (a mutual benefit).  Horses also fit in here, since they can give someone a ride.  Typical pets also serve a purpose here.

Horses can be eaten.

[Ebowed]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

[minionofmidas]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

Ah, but that's like believing a chicken egg is precious life while a human is meant for food purposes.

A distinction of a is food, b is holy, is utterly inconsistent no matter where you put it.
You'll just have to accept that you're devouring precious life in order to maintain your own life, and this is as god ordained it. It's all a cycle. (And no, that doesn't make abortions a good or okay thing)

[MODU]

2."Helper or Intelligent Animals" those that serve a purpose in aiding humans.  For example, a dog watches out for the master in case of a break-in, and in turn gets attention and petting, (a mutual benefit).  Horses also fit in here, since they can give someone a ride.  Typical pets also serve a purpose here.

Horses can be eaten.

Had horse in the Neatherlands.  Wasn't too bad, but not my first choice. 

[KEmperor]

The fact that you cannot distinguish between human life and that of a deer is rather disturbing and quite telling.

[MaC]

2."Helper or Intelligent Animals" those that serve a purpose in aiding humans.  For example, a dog watches out for the master in case of a break-in, and in turn gets attention and petting, (a mutual benefit).  Horses also fit in here, since they can give someone a ride.  Typical pets also serve a purpose here.

Horses can be eaten.

They can be.  You can eat any animal, but they're not meant to be since they can mutually benefit living with humans.

[Cubby]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

What does chicken have to do with this?? We're talking about Deer, who (usually) aren't meant to be food. Of course if venison is common in your neck of the woods, then okay. The thread title says deer not chicken.

[John Dibble]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

What does chicken have to do with this?? We're talking about Deer, who (usually) aren't meant to be food. Of course if venison is common in your neck of the woods, then okay. The thread title says deer not chicken.

What does the meat being commonly eaten have anything to do with it?

[Cubby]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

What does chicken have to do with this?? We're talking about Deer, who (usually) aren't meant to be food. Of course if venison is common in your neck of the woods, then okay. The thread title says deer not chicken.

What does the meat being commonly eaten have anything to do with it?

Now I'm really confused

[John Dibble]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

What does chicken have to do with this?? We're talking about Deer, who (usually) aren't meant to be food. Of course if venison is common in your neck of the woods, then okay. The thread title says deer not chicken.

What does the meat being commonly eaten have anything to do with it?

Now I'm really confused

See bolded text above. You seem to assert that it's ok to shoot the deer if venison is commonly eaten in his area, but it is not ok if it isn't.

[Ebowed]

A distinction of a is food, b is holy, is utterly inconsistent no matter where you put it.
You'll just have to accept that you're devouring precious life in order to maintain your own life, and this is as god ordained it.

No, it is not inconsistent: if I believe that one type of life is more precious than another, and that the type that is less precious is available strictly for me and others who are in my same species to use, there is no inconsistency.  You assume that I think human life and animal life are equal: if I believed this, then yes, I would be inconsistent.

[Cubby]

No, its not philosophically consistent, and the results of this poll are very sad.

Uhh no.  Believing a human embryo is precious life while a chicken is meant for food purposes is not inconsistent in any way whatsoever.

What does chicken have to do with this?? We're talking about Deer, who (usually) aren't meant to be food. Of course if venison is common in your neck of the woods, then okay. The thread title says deer not chicken.

What does the meat being commonly eaten have anything to do with it?

Now I'm really confused

See bolded text above. You seem to assert that it's ok to shoot the deer if venison is commonly eaten in his area, but it is not ok if it isn't.

Well I didn't mean it like that. Ideally, I don't want any animal to get killed but since I eat meat I'm just deluding myself. This just plays into Jake's hypothesis that I'm a liberal sissy.

[minionofmidas]

A distinction of a is food, b is holy, is utterly inconsistent no matter where you put it.
You'll just have to accept that you're devouring precious life in order to maintain your own life, and this is as god ordained it.

No, it is not inconsistent: if I believe that one type of life is more precious than another, and that the type that is less precious is available strictly for me and others who are in my same species to use, there is no inconsistency.  You assume that I think human life and animal life are equal: if I believed this, then yes, I would be inconsistent.

Ah well, but the assumption they aren't equal is a fairly stupid and utterly ungrounded one. . And the part about "available strictly for me and others in the same species to use"...I don't get that? You mean a bear has no right to eat venison, it belongs to humans? Or what?

[Ebowed]

How is the assumption that human life and animal life are inequal stupid and unground?  I think it's safe to give that description to the opposite assumption.  If you don't see a difference in worth between a human and say, a bear, that is frightening.

And the part about "available strictly for me and others in the same species to use"...I don't get that? You mean a bear has no right to eat venison, it belongs to humans? Or what?

Bad wording on my part.  I do believe that all animals are available for humans to use for food and other purposes.  A bear has a right to eat venison and any other animal it can handle killing, although obviously if it tries to kill a human, the human would retalliate (hopefully) and save itself.

[minionofmidas]

How is the assumption that human life and animal life are inequal stupid and unground?  I think it's safe to give that description to the opposite assumption.  If you don't see a difference in worth between a human and say, a bear, that is frightening.

From a global perspective, there is nothing special or unique about mankind, nothing that sets us apart from all other species.
Obviously human society will have to be primarily involved with making rules about humans, and will place a higher value on a human life, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But then sheep and bees care more about their fellow sheep or bee than about other species, too, you know.
But from a global point of view, all life is equal and equally sacred. And will get eaten, if you want to buried rather than cremated that is.

[Ebowed]

I'm a cremation type of guy, sorry.

Either way, I find your comment that there is nothing special or unique about mankind laughable.  I don't think I've ever found books written by dogs, or music written by a lemur.  There are some people who would make a case for civilization attempted by chimpanzees (apparently some of the more advanced apes have wars like humans, though I don't know the validity of those claims).  But that is, at best, a mess, and certainly not as advanced as the civilization that humans have created in last 10,000 years.

[minionofmidas]

Coming from a more biological perspective here...there is no one trait that totally sets us apart. Sure we got the most developed language by far, and the largest brain (except for whales but theirs are highly specialized to a couple of functions)...and these factors explain our civilization...but the point is, they're not unique, they're merely the top ends of a continuum.
And yeah, chimps have wars. So do ants, so I don't see what's so special about that.

[Ebowed]

Oh, from a biological perspective, sure.  But we can't simplify things that easily.  Obviously, when it comes to the ability to experience emotions, love, pain, etc., and have a meaningful conversation with a fellow member of the species...  I would argue that animal emotions are based on instinct and previous experiences, while humans have all that plus a concionce, an idea of what's right and wrong, and the ability to love a fellow human.  (I don't mean love in the shallow sense of a dog loving his owner, or opebo having sex with a prostitute, which is more loyalty, or in the latter case, pointless existence.)

[minionofmidas]

I would argue that animal emotions are based on extinct and previous experiences, while humans have all that plus a concionce, an idea of what's right and wrong, and the ability to love a fellow human.

While I would argue that animal emotions are based on instinct and previous experiences aka intelligence, and that a conscience is not very well defined, an idea of what's right and wrong is a part of intelligence, and love is an instinct. And that humans are animals. We tend automatically to exaggerate the reflected part of our actions, and the instinctive part of animal actions; or maybe we can't judge ourselves fairly and frankly aren't supposed to be able to do that.