Quick one tonight, and this is merely because my left leaning followers on Twitter are complaining to me that 140 tweets are not enough for them to convey their thoughts regarding my question today, which was essentially this:
Why are some of the folks who are convinced of the sentience of chickens unconvinced that an unborn baby is a person?
I got a wide variety of interesting responses. Some were very emotional and sweet from either side of the political spectrum, with personal experience and anguish. Some were quite brief and to the point. I do have to admit that those responses came from my more conservative followers. They seemed to immediately grok what I was asking. I also had my fair share of multi-tweet analysis of what it means to be sentient, brain development stages, and is-a-zygote-a-baby type questions. I also got a dollop of silliness and snark, which I expect and enjoy.
Those of you who wanted more air time please, log your responses below in my comments section. I have to explain one thing, though. My tolerance for people who lack reading comprehension is limited. Because some of you are going to think this, I am not comparing eggs to human fetuses. I am asking why some of the folk who agonize over the treatment of chickens & might possibly lambast you for eating an egg still think the jury is out on the human soul. That’s all.
Fair warning: people who post “morality aside” will evoke laughter. Both are moral choices. Someone choosing not to eat traumatized chicken or eggs, unless they are allergic to traumatized chicken meat/eggs, is making as moral a decision as someone choosing to keep a child.
My summation on Twitter was that it made a certain kind of sense to think that the sentience of chickens & the personhood of fetuses were both ludicrous concepts, just as it makes sense that someone concerned about the personhood of chickens would fiercely fight to protect the personhood of fetuses. See greater path Buddhism for how that works. Sentience is as sentience does; you can’t reserve it for one life form and not the ones higher up in the food chain.
Funny quick story: one of the weirdest conversations I had with my ex boyfriend was during Planet Earth. He was furious, livid, outraged & beside himself when the fox ate the chicks. I asked him what was wrong, because although it was disturbing to watch, his response was kind of over the top. He said, “Those are defenseless babies! This is horrible!” I blinked. “That’s a fox. She wants to feed her babies. I mean are you actually serious?” and then I had to shut up because I had apparently crossed some kind of heartless bastard line.
What floors me is the picking & choosing what poor defenseless creature counts as someone worth fighting to protect. Isn’t every vulnerable creature worthy of our concern?
Sorry, PETA, but I am squarely in the “chickens are squawky, mobile vegetables” camp. And while I believe women should have the same rights as men, I am deeply saddened by the idea that anybody would punish a child for something over which the child had no control. Don’t use the rape card on me; I’ve been there, survived that.
Killing should only be for self defense & sustenance. From what are you protecting yourself? (Here is a good time to invoke the life of the mother exception.)
Lots of us childless wonders want to adopt your kids. Those of you who want to use the foster kids argument, it is a sad fact that older children do get placed in the system for ages because of the stupidity & cruelty of their birth parents. This I give you. But that does not translate where a new baby is concerned. There are waiting lists for those. Foster kids tend to come as a package deal (adopt all of the siblings or none at all) and have severe disorders like RAD. It takes a very special person to adopt a foster child, and I think many people are more special than they imagine
Why chickens and not children? I guess that’s the briefest, most conservative way to ask that question. What’s the logic?