💡 Trivia Vegan Activists Who Sob Over Bacon But Cheer for Abortion

[Gildarts Tale]

Let me get this straight.

You’re out here blockading slaughterhouses, crying over “murdered” chickens, and posting 47-slide Instagram carousels about how dairy is violence and fish feel pain. “No animal deserves to die for your tastebuds!” you scream, while sipping ethically sourced oat milk and virtue-signaling harder than a priest at a pride parade.

But the second someone mentions a heartbeat at 6 weeks, tiny fingers at 8 weeks, or a fetus that can actually feel pain… suddenly it’s “my body, my choice” and we’re supposed to clap for “reproductive justice.”

So let me ask the obvious question you vegan pro-choicers love dodging:

Why is a pig’s life sacred, but a human baby’s isn’t?

You’ll boycott a restaurant for using real butter, but celebrate when a perfectly healthy unborn child gets vacuumed out like yesterday’s smoothie. The same crowd that loses it over factory farming has zero problem with turning developing humans into “products of conception” medical waste.

Cognitive dissonance so thick you could spread it on your gluten-free toast.

Congrats, folks. You’ve reached the final boss level of selective compassion: cows > babies.

I’ll be over here eating a steak and respecting actual human life. Pass the cognitive dissonance and the oat milk on your way out.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Ang hayop, nakikita ng mata na talaga nakakaramdam ng intense of feeling pain and suffering. Ang women ay ganun din. One of the reason why pinapanigan nila ang women and ang animal mismo dahil sila ang nakakaramdam ng intense of feeling pain and suffering.

Yung fetus ay walang ka siguraduhan kung meron buhay or wala so walang kasiguraduhan kung nakakaramdam sila ng pain and suffering, lalo na kung hindi pa nadedevelop ang brain and heartbeat.

Debatable siya dahil subjectively depende sa tao kung based on their beliefs and their conscience na gusto nito lagyan ng buhay. Subjectively dahil hati ang group na the other side, they would say na no life and other side naman, they would say na meron buhay. Ibig sabihin, hindi siya universal and absolute.

So ang malamang , mas pipiliin ng activist is ang mga animal at mga women.

If ang reason is less important ang animal so pwede kumain ang pork or ano and less important and women when it comes to suffering and pain dahil wala naman nabago kahit in the patriarchal bible lumalabas na low social status ng mga women at andoon pa ang katagang magpasakop ang women sa men at dahil less lang siya and of course (obvious naman, hindi nabubuntis si lalake) yeah..... eh di panigan ang fetus ng babae.

Ganun lang ka-simple. I appreciate it. Kawawa naman kasi ang lalake dahil wala sila ka-fetus-fetus. Wala silang kapangyarihan magproduce. Wala silang womb, kaya, imagine, kung inallowed ang babae na meron siya authority sa sarili niya katawan? Ano consequence sa part ng lalake diba? Hindi na nila macocontrol ang babae malamang dahil ang may control sa sarili katawan ay babae na po. Hindi lalake. Wala na silang abilidad na pigilan na pigilan ang babae sa sarili katawan nito.

So you know, kailangan eenforce. Eenforce with the help with external validation up above the sky which is a masculine deity. Ayun. They have to power to make pigil-pigil pagdating sa sarili katawan ng nabubukod tanging babae.

Yeah. I understood. If less important ang animal and less important ang women pagdating sa suffering and pain , go, e di panigan ang fetus ng babae , simple lang.

Tutal, ang suffering and pain, andoon uli sa bible ang katagang ipinagpala ang naaapi or tipong nagdurusa, meron lugar naman daw sa heaven so if ever lots of death ng women every year dahil hindi allowed abortion , makakabenefit naman ang lalake diyan.

Kahit naman mawala ang babae , ayos lang ata sa kanila , basta ang importante is nakapag produce ng babies inside the womb. Fetus kasi ang importante sa lahat.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Ang hayop, nakikita ng mata na talaga nakakaramdam ng intense of feeling pain and suffering. Ang women ay ganun din. One of the reason why pinapanigan nila ang women and ang animal mismo dahil sila ang nakakaramdam ng intense of feeling pain and suffering.

Yung fetus ay walang ka siguraduhan kung meron buhay or wala so walang kasiguraduhan kung nakakaramdam sila ng pain and suffering, lalo na kung hindi pa nadedevelop ang brain and heartbeat.

Debatable siya dahil subjectively depende sa tao kung based on their beliefs and their conscience na gusto nito lagyan ng buhay. Subjectively dahil hati ang group na the other side, they would say na no life and other side naman, they would say na meron buhay. Ibig sabihin, hindi siya universal and absolute.

So ang malamang , mas pipiliin ng activist is ang mga animal at mga women.

If ang reason is less important ang animal so pwede kumain ang pork or ano and less important and women when it comes to suffering and pain dahil wala naman nabago kahit in the patriarchal bible lumalabas na low social status ng mga women at andoon pa ang katagang magpasakop ang women sa men at dahil less lang siya and of course (obvious naman, hindi nabubuntis si lalake) yeah..... eh di panigan ang fetus ng babae.

Ganun lang ka-simple. I appreciate it. Kawawa naman kasi ang lalake dahil wala sila ka-fetus-fetus. Wala silang kapangyarihan magproduce. Wala silang womb, kaya, imagine, kung inallowed ang babae na meron siya authority sa sarili niya katawan? Ano consequence sa part ng lalake diba? Hindi na nila macocontrol ang babae malamang dahil ang may control sa sarili katawan ay babae na po. Hindi lalake. Wala na silang abilidad na pigilan na pigilan ang babae sa sarili katawan nito.

So you know, kailangan eenforce. Eenforce with the help with external validation up above the sky which is a masculine deity. Ayun. They have to power to make pigil-pigil pagdating sa sarili katawan ng nabubukod tanging babae.

Yeah. I understood. If less important ang animal and less important and women pagdating sa suffering and pain , go, e di panigan ang fetus ng babae , simple lang.

Tutal, ang suffering and pain, andoon uli sa bible ang katagang ipinagpala ang naaapi or tipong nagdurusa, meron lugar naman daw sa heaven so if ever lots of death ng women every year dahil hindi allowed abortion , makakabenefit naman ang lalake diyan.

Kahit naman mawala ang babae , ayos lang ata sa kanila , basta ang importante is nakapag produce ng babies inside the womb. Fetus kasi ang importante sa lahat.​

You said activists defend animals and women because they can feel pain and suffering. So the standard you chose is capacity to suffer.

But here is the problem. Science already shows a fetus develops nerves, reacts to stimuli, and has a heartbeat very early. Even if you argue about exact timing, *******cy is literally the process of a developing human life. It is not a rock. It is not a plant. It is a human organism in an earlier stage.

So your position becomes this: if we are unsure whether a being can suffer, we protect animals just in case, but we eliminate humans just in case they cannot. That is backwards risk logic.

If there is uncertainty, moral caution normally increases protection, not removes it.

And the patriarchy angle does not solve the contradiction either. If the issue is autonomy over the body, then the same principle should apply consistently. A baby seconds before birth and seconds after birth does not magically gain moral value just by crossing the birth canal.

You tried to argue compassion. But the logic you used ends up creating a hierarchy where pigs get the benefit of doubt and unborn humans do not. That is the contradiction people keep pointing out.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

You said activists defend animals and women because they can feel pain and suffering. So the standard you chose is capacity to suffer.

But here is the problem. Science already shows a fetus develops nerves, reacts to stimuli, and has a heartbeat very early. Even if you argue about exact timing, *******cy is literally the process of a developing human life. It is not a rock. It is not a plant. It is a human organism in an earlier stage.​

Sus meyo Inulit mo na naman. Ito rin ang dati ni respond mo sa other thread.

Hahaha Oh my....... Hay Sabi ko nga , separate ang group pagdating diyan subjectively kung kaya, hindi absolute and hindi universal when it comes to a fetus po. Nagtataka ako , anong sinasabi na meron ng heartbeat very early ? Baka pulse rate iyon galing cells pero hindi heartbeat. Grabe naman. Papaano magkakaroon ng hearbeat kung hindi pa nadevelop ang heart pero siya, ikaw, kung gusto mo rin palitan ang pulse rate sa heartbeat at kung gusto mo na lagyan ng life , ika nga , depende sa tao if gusto niya lagyan ng buhay.​

So your position becomes this: if we are unsure whether a being can suffer, we protect animals just in case, but we eliminate humans just in case they cannot. That is backwards risk logic.​

Ay. Hindi. Hindi yun. Ang fetus po kasi is not absolute kung human po siya o hindi so basically, kung not absolute kung human o hindi or ito, kung meron life o wala which is not absolute ika nga , therefore hindi ito makakaramdam ng physical pain , makakaramdam ng suffering or intense pain dahil nasa loob siya ng womb, in the fetus unlike women and animal , they are absolute human being na nakakaramdam ng intense pain and suffering.

Yun ang ibig ko sabihin. Ngayon, kapag hindi mo tanggap, huwag mo na tanggapin , hahaha ​

If there is uncertainty, moral caution normally increases protection, not removes it.​

......yan ang sinasabi ko. Depende sa conscience ng tao kung want niya na magkaroon ng life o hindi ang sinapupunan , kung kaya , dahil not absolute o walang kasiguraduhan lalo na hati diyan ang group pagdating sa ganyan klaseng pananaw , eh mas binibigyan nila ng priority ang women at ang animal dahil absolutely na human po at animal na nakaka feel ng intense pain and suffering po.​

You tried to argue compassion. But the logic you used ends up creating a hierarchy where pigs get the benefit of doubt and unborn humans do not. That is the contradiction people keep pointing out.​

Reverse. Ganun din. Ginagawa superior and hierarchy ang fetus na not really absolute kung meron life o wala o human ba o hindi then low o inferior ang meron sa women at animals na meron din life.

Ang catch lang is ito. Walang "equal" in a sense. Walang perfect na mundo. Ang tanging solusyon is empathy. Ang ibig sabihin magkaroon ng "understanding" na bakit meron existing na ganyan sitwasyon kaysa manoproblema na bakit meron nag-eexist na animal killing, bakit nag-eexist na walang equality in women at bakit nag-eexist ang abortion.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

Sus meyo Inulit mo na naman. Ito rin ang dati ni respond mo sa other thread.

Hahaha Oh my....... Hay Sabi ko nga , separate ang group pagdating diyan subjectively kung kaya, hindi absolute and hindi universal when it comes to a fetus po. Nagtataka ako , anong sinasabi na meron ng heartbeat very early ? Baka pulse rate iyon galing cells pero hindi heartbeat. Grabe naman. Papaano magkakaroon ng hearbeat kung hindi pa nadevelop ang heart pero siya, ikaw, kung gusto mo rin palitan ang pulse rate sa heartbeat at kung gusto mo na lagyan ng life , ika nga , depende sa tao if gusto niya lagyan ng buhay.



Ay. Hindi. Hindi yun. Ang fetus po kasi is not absolute kung human po siya o hindi so basically, kung not absolute kung human o hindi or ito, kung meron life o wala which is not absolute ika nga , therefore hindi ito makakaramdam ng physical pain , makakaramdam ng suffering or intense pain dahil nasa loob siya ng womb, in the fetus unlike women and animal , they are absolute human being na nakakaramdam ng intense pain and suffering.

Yun ang ibig ko sabihin. Ngayon, kapag hindi mo tanggap, huwag mo na tanggapin , hahaha



......yan ang sinasabi ko. Depende sa conscience ng tao kung want niya na magkaroon ng life o hindi ang sinapupunan , kung kaya , dahil not absolute o walang kasiguraduhan lalo na hati diyan ang group pagdating sa ganyan klaseng pananaw , eh mas binibigyan nila ng priority ang women at ang animal dahil absolutely na human po at animal na nakaka feel ng intense pain and suffering po.



Reverse. Ganun din. Ginagawa superior and hierarchy ang fetus na not really absolute kung meron life o wala o human ba o hindi then low o inferior ang meron sa women at animals na meron din life.

Ang catch lang is ito. Walang "equal" in a sense. Walang perfect na mundo. Ang tanging solusyon is empathy. Ang ibig sabihin magkaroon ng "understanding" na bakit meron existing na ganyan sitwasyon kaysa manoproblema na bakit meron nag-eexist na animal killing, bakit nag-eexist na walang equality in women at bakit nag-eexist ang abortion.​

Biology is actually clear here. From fertilization, the fetus is a distinct human organism with its own DNA and continuous development. That is not religion. That is basic embryology.

The debate is about moral value, not whether it is human life.

And the pain argument is inconsistent. We do not remove human rights from newborns, coma patients, or people under anesthesia just because they cannot feel pain at a moment in time. Human rights are based on being human, not current ability to feel pain.

Again. If uncertainty exists, moral caution normally increases protection, not removes it. That is the core point.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

O siya. Para sayo po yan.

Sabi, " The debate is about moral value, not whether it is human life. " ~ moral value came from Christian beliefs and yet, ang sasabihin ay " that is not religion " where ginagawa objective na keyso galing kuno ang fetus sa science. Unconsciously, hindi mo namamalayan sa sarili na mataas ang moral ground mo as a devoted religious Christian po kung kaya , ang naiisip at nararamdam mo na ang patungkol diyan sa fetus is keyso universally 100% absolute na lahat basta galing science ay naniniwala na ang nasa loob ay absolutely meron life which is hindi lahat ng tao ay ganun ang napeperceived po.​

 

[GoatPhomator666]

I both like bacon and abortion. Its the best. Its like the chef's kiss.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

Depende po kasi sa conscience ng tao or kung kagaano kalinis ang conscious mind ng tao pagdating sa right and wrong, the core value ng morality. Eh, subjective po kasi and morality is obviously, associated sa masculine moral values ng Christianism bilang kabuuan.

Hindi naman lahat ng relihiyon ay ganyan. Ang modern Judaism nga, allowed ang abortion eh, but case to case basis dahil priority nila is mga mothers kaysa kung ano ang nasa fetus mismo. Priority talaga. Superior kung baga. Kapag a threat mismo ang fetus or itinatawag nila na the silent killer, eaabort nito ang kung ano nasa loob ng fetus.

Sa atin, hindi. Less important talaga ang mothers sa atin. If a threat na ang fetus and in danger na ang life ng mother, mas priority pa rin nila ang kung ano nasa loob ng fetus mismo. Ganun ang atin, kaya, meron tayo na marining-rinig na " anak, namatay ang nanay mo sa pagbubüntis, magpasalamat ka at nabuhay ka sa mundo ".

Ika nga, lahat ay may consequence. The world is not perfect. Mamimili ang tao mismo. Either ang sinapupunan or ang mother. Wala siya equal. Diyan na gagamit ng practicality o logic versus ang pagiging maawain.

Hindi lang ganito sitwasyon. Sa iba-ibang sitwasyon. Katulad ng éùthanasia , tipong gamot para for medical field na doctor or expert mismo gagawa para tanggalin buhay ng isang hayop or tao. Kapag meron sakit at hirap na hirap na, gagamit ng éùthanasia kapag no hope ipagaling mismo.

Kapag maawain, ang sasabihin, importante ang buhay ng tao at kapag practicality or gagamit ng logic mismo, ang sasabihin na kailangan eend ang suffering ng tao with permission po lalo na kung no hope mismo.

Sa atin, pinayagan pagdating sa pet (less important kasi, tingnan niyo sa bible, walang nakalagay) pero pagdating sa elderly or tipong may sakit na nasa incubator na forever na andoon, naka-stuck na at walang pag-asa gumaling.... sobrang maawain, ayaw nila epaethunasia.

Hindi rin perfect ang sobrang maawain. Influence din tayo ng Pagan pagdating sa logic at good na rin iyon plus, ang pagiging maawain ng Christian dahil kapag sobrang maawain, harmful din ang kalalabasan.

Sa Buddhism, case to case basis din like if a fetus ay nagbibigay ng suffering sa mother, allowed sa kanila at meron naman na ayaw. Meron din kasi sila reincarnation, kaya ganun. Iba kasi ang beliefs nila. Ang priority is also the mother din.

So yun ang sinasabi ko na hindi siya absolute or universal kung tawagin na kahit science pa iyan, malamang eaasociate pa sa beliefs at like I said, nasa kanila na po yun kung gusto nila lagyan ng buhay o hindi.

Justification lang naman ang back up ng science para maealign lang siya sa moral values ng beliefs ng tao dahil ang Adam and Eve nga, hindi naman nila bina-back up ng science eh. Naniniwala pa rin nga sila sa buhangin galing si Adam at si Eve na galing sa ribs. Hindi na malamang ebaback ng science malamang dahil wala naman kilalaman sa morality po.​

 

[Gildarts Tale]

O siya. Para sayo po yan.

Sabi, " The debate is about moral value, not whether it is human life. " ~ moral value came from Christian beliefs and yet, ang sasabihin ay " that is not religion " where ginagawa objective na keyso galing kuno ang fetus sa science. Unconsciously, hindi mo namamalayan sa sarili na mataas ang moral ground mo as a devoted religious Christian po kung kaya , ang naiisip at nararamdam mo na ang patungkol diyan sa fetus is keyso universally 100% absolute na lahat basta galing science ay naniniwala na ang nasa loob ay absolutely meron life which is hindi lahat ng tao ay ganun ang napeperceived po.​

You’re mixing two different things: science describing what something is, and ethics deciding how we should treat it.

Embryology is not a Christian belief. It is a biological field. Standard textbooks state that a new human organism begins at fertilization because a new, genetically distinct organism starts a continuous process of development. That is a scientific description, not a religious claim.

What people disagree on is the moral status, not the biology. Some people think all human life has equal value. Others think value develops later. That is a philosophical and ethical debate.

But saying “science does not say it is human life” is simply incorrect. Science can identify the organism as human. What society chooses to do with that fact is the moral discussion. So this is not religion pretending to be science. It is science describing reality, and people debating the moral implications of that reality.

 

[Gildarts Tale]

I both like bacon and abortion. Its the best. Its like the chef's kiss.

At least you’re honest enough to say you’re fine with ending a baby’s life in the womb. That kind of honesty says a lot.

 

[Asherah Goddess]

You’re mixing two different things: science describing what something is, and ethics deciding how we should treat it.

Embryology is not a Christian belief. It is a biological field. Standard textbooks state that a new human organism begins at fertilization because a new, genetically distinct organism starts a continuous process of development. That is a scientific description, not a religious claim.​

Actually, hindi mo napapansin na rooted ka unconsciously sa christian moral values mo, somewhat strong religious conviction mismo, haha, gumagamit ka lang ng justification from science associated po sa christian moral values mo to proof na objectivity ang moral ground mo na you know, ayaw na masabihan na subjective lang naman ang hinohold na moral ground na abortion is wrong and it is a sin. Yeah.

Malakas po kasi ang science. Yung Adam and Eve nga, wala namang kilalaman sa science. Diretso belief na siya na galing sa buhangin si Adam at galing sa ribs si Eve dahil wala naman kilalaman sa morality.

Dagdag , hindi ka naman una naniwala sa science agad noh pagdating sa ganyan explanation sa fetus bago ka magpa-convert sa Christian po. Binyag Christian ka po since born at iba ang natutunan mo pagdating sa moral ng Christianity po.

It is a reason why hindi mo nakikitaan ang other group kung saan, some group, iba ang nadisiscover nila like they consider it no life. Yun lang yun.​

...but saying “science does not say it is human life” is simply incorrect. Science can identify the organism as human. What society chooses to do with that fact is the moral discussion. So this is not religion pretending to be science. It is science describing reality, and people debating the moral implications of that reality.​

...kaso ang pagkakapaliwanag mo ng science about diyan kung may life or wala ay naging absolute and universal na siya. Naging one sided na. Hindi mo na nakita na in terms of science discovery is meron ibang group na they do not consider na meron life pa. Sayo ang ipinalalabas na universal na siya. Tipong the objective universal truth na iyon ang true and the other is 100% wrong.​