u/AbiLovesTheology

Hi everyone.

I often hear people say you are only pro-life until birth and not if that baby grows up to be trans, poor, disabled, gay, homeless, a refugee or an ethnic minority and I wish pro-choicers would stop saying this because that is not what pro-life means to me, for me it comes from ahimsa (non-violence) which is my most sacred Hindu vow and my prayer to revere and protect every living being as a soul, to see the same soul in all, to cause the least harm possible in thought and word and action, to live with compassion and forgiveness and humility and gentleness and to walk softly upon the earth so that I do not crush even the smallest life, so I try to live by ahimsa (non-violence) before birth and after birth because every soul is eternal and sacred whether inside the womb or outside, I believe in universal healthcare and in helping the poor, the sick and needy through government policy and through personal charity for humans and animals because service to souls is service to the sacred, I am pro-gun control, I am against the death penalty, against human euthanasia, against war, against racism and against embryonic stem cell research because I do not believe in taking or destroying a life that belongs to the divine, I am a strict vegetarian because ahimsa (non-violence) means I do not want any creature to suffer or die for my food and I want my body to be a vessel of mercy, I am pro-LGBT rights because a trans life and a gay life are precious souls worthy of full protection, dignity, safety and love and God dwells in every heart, and I try to live with non-possession and truth and carefulness in how I eat and speak and act so that I do not harm others by carelessness or greed, and for many of us this is what pro-life really means, a lifelong religious practice of ahimsa (non-violence) for every living being from before birth through all of life.

So I want to sincerely ask, why do you say this, and why do people hold these signs with this text on them at marches? If you met me in my daily life, you would see me trying to live ahimsa (non-violence) in how I vote, how I give, how I eat, and how I love my neighbor. When you say we only care until birth, it assumes the worst of us and it closes the door to understanding.

For me, I believe Hinduism, Jainism and Tolstoyanism are the true pro-life movements, because they do not see pro-life as a single issue, but as ahimsa (non-violence) for all life, always. What if instead we started from that truth, that many pro-life people do care deeply for life after birth too, even if we disagree on abortion itself?

I (20s) am vegetarian (mostly plant-based) for ethical and religious reasons. I'm autistic and have OCD around food, plus other disabilities that mean I can't cook for myself, so I rely on my mum to cook for family events.

I'm planning my birthday party at my parents' house, where I ive. I politely asked if for my birthday, the food could be fully vegan. It's really important to my ethics and with my OCD I find it hard to eat or feel calm when meat is right there on the table at my own party. All my guests eat meat.

My mum said no, because I need to "respect other people's needs" and provide meat for them. I said not eating meat for one meal isn't a need. They can eat whatever they want before and after, it's just one meal.

She said I'm being controlling and telling mu guests what to put it their mouths.

For context, for my graduation they reluctantly agreed to do fully veg/vegan for me, which meant a lot. So I feel like it's fair to ask for the same for my birthday. Just one meal where I can actually eat and feel comfortable at my own party.

I don't think I'm controlling for wanting to be able to eat at my own birthday, but now I feel guilty.

AITAH?

TL;DR: I can't cook due to disabilities, have autism/OCD around food, asked mum to make my birthday fully vegan like she did for my graduation. She said I need to respect non-veg guests and I'm being controlling.

[removed]

I am lacto vegetarian. The only animal products I use are cow milk and cow milk products, and I do notuse them much, only sometimes. I purchase milk, not beef, and it is a category error to conflate beef andmilk because these are two distinct markets with two distinct cheques, two distinct contracts, and twodistinct intents. My transaction for milk concerns a renewable secretion. I admit openly that in presentcommercial dairy the scale of that secretion has been enlarged by selective breeding, so a commercialcow produces far more than any calf can drink and far more than a sanctuary cow, but the category ofsurplus remains biologically true in both systems, a healthy dairy cow always produces more than asingle calf needs, and if that surplus is not removed she suffers pain and mastitis, so the need to bemilked is not invented by the farmer, it is her present embodied reality whether she walks to a shed or toa hand milker. The machine and the schedule do not create the milk, they harvest it. My secondadmission is that in commercial dairy that milk is made possible by pregnancy, and pregnancy is anecessary condition for milk. I do not deny causation, I deny moral equivalence. To buy milk is to fundthat a cow becomes pregnant, but pregnancy itself is not a harm, it is her natural mammalian functionand in a natural herd she would be pregnant almost every year by a bull, so what I fund is motherhood,not rape. The method of that pregnancy in commercial dairy is artificial insemination, which is indeed aninvasive procedure with a hand in her vagina, and that method is not requested by me, it is chosen by thefarmer because it is cheaper than keeping a bull, safer for his workers, and allows genetics for more milk.If he kept a bull and allowed natural mating, as in my sanctuary model, I would still get the same milk, sothe milk buyer demands pregnancy, the farmer chooses the invasive method to supply it at lowest cost,and that choice of method is his sin, not mine, just as a person who hires a taxi demands a journey, thedriver who chooses to break the speed limit to do it cheaper commits the sin of speeding, not thepassenger. The same logic applies to the male calf. I admit that in present UK and EU commercial dairythe male calf of a dairy breed is often not wanted for beef because he is skinny, so he is shot on farm orsold for a few pounds for veal or cheap mince. That is not because a beef eater specifically ordered aJersey calf, it is because the farmer calculates that rearing him for two years on milk and grain costsmore than his beef value, so he kills a sentient being to avoid a loss. That cost calculation and thatdecision to kill rather than rear him as a bullock for draught, biogas, compost, and sponsorship incomeas in my model, is the farmers choice to maximise profit, it is not what I requested. I requested milk, Istated clearly that my intention is that male calves, spent mothers, and bulls should never be killed at alland should be reared for their whole natural life, so the farmer who has a profitable non killing alternativebut still chooses to shoot the calf commits that killing for his own profit, not on my instruction, and his sindoes not transfer to me. On crop deaths, I admit that commercial dairy cows are fed soya and maizewhich themselves involve pesticide and harvest deaths, so dairy is not zero crop deaths, but thecomparison is still in my favour. A dairy cow also converts grass from non arable land and crop residuesand byproducts that humans cannot eat into milk, while oat and soya milk are grown entirely on arableland that must be kept sterile by killing billions of mice, voles, shrews, ground nesting birds, insects, andsoil life with poison and combine harvesters every year, with zero years of life preserved. A commercialdairy cow lives four to six years and her calf lives months to years, both are years of preserved sentientlife that would not exist at all under veganism which seeks to end breeding, whereas an oat fieldpreserves no life at all for any year, it only kills. So per litre, commercial dairy funds some crop deathsplus one wrongful death at the end decided by the farmer, oat milk funds only crop deaths but funds nolife at all and demands extinction of the cow, and when you add the fact that sanctuary dairy replacessoya with grazing and residues and funds old cows and bullocks with biogas and compost, the leastharm and greatest preservation of life, even now in this flawed commercial system, is to keep the cow,her calf, and her breed alive today while working to build the no killing sanctuary model for tomorrow, andthe sin of her eventual slaughter, the method of her insemination, and the shooting of her calf remainswith the farmer, the supermarket that contracts him to do it cheap, the slaughterman, and the beef eaterwho creates the cheap beef market that makes shooting cheaper than rearing, not with me whosecheque and intention is only that she should live and be milked with thanks.

In Hinduism, which is my religion, the cow is seen as mother and sacred, not as meat, and her holiness was never based on pushing her away but on living with her in reverence. In Hinduism her holiness is in her own being, in her gentle, peaceful, pure and kind hearted nature, in her selfless, maternal disposition which asks nothing and gives everything, and that inner nature overflows outwardly in many forms, and one of those forms is milk. In Hinduism milk is not what makes her holy because it is useful to man, milk is holy because it reveals what she is, a being whose very body is made to nourish others beyond her own calf, just as a river flows beyond its banks and a tree fruits beyond its own need. That selfless excess is her dharma. In Hinduism Krishna himself is revealed as a cowherd to show the highest philosophical truth that divinity itself finds its fullest expression in protection, stewardship and loving guardianship of living beings, and that to guard such selflessness is itself worship. Because in Hinduism milk is seen as pure, life giving, and fit to offer to God as the highest blessed food, so in Hinduism true non violence does not mean wiping the animal out by refusing to breed her at all, it means a bond of care where you guard her, you love her, you let her live her full natural life till old age, and in return you receive with thanks the rich surplus she gives freely beyond what her calf needs. That ancient bond of service and milk in Hinduism is the original no killing model that honours her inborn purpose as mother and nourisher given by God, not for human profit but as an expression of her own sacred nature, rather than demanding her purpose be denied and her sacred kind disappear from the world altogether.

A modern cow sanctuary can be profitable and keep milk cheap if it stops seeing milk as its only product and monetises the whole life economy of the cow. The model is simple. One, dung is converted in an onsite biogas plant to electricity and bottled gas, which powers the farm and is sold to the grid, and the slurry left over becomes high value vermicompost and organic fertiliser sold at a premium to farms that are desperate to move off chemicals. Two, male calves and bulls are not a loss, they are raised as working assets. Male calves are reared for draught power for ploughing and carting, for production of high value semen for breeding, and for their lifetime dung and urine which alone covers their feed cost. Trained bullocks can be hired out for organic tillage, for hauling, and for farm tourism rides, and calm bulls are ideal for therapy and educational work with children. This replaces the beef subsidy with five clean incomes. Three, the site earns from direct sale of premium milk, ghee, curd, and buttermilk through a subscription, from temple and festival supply contracts, from paid sanctuary visits, school education days, and cow adoption sponsorships where families pay monthly to support a retired cow or a male calf. When you stack biogas income, compost income, premium dairy, bullock hire, and sponsorship against the low input cost of keeping animals alive on crop residue and common grazing, the cost of maintaining old cows, dry cows, male calves and bulls is fully covered, so the sale price of milk does not need to rise at all, and can in fact stay cheaper than corporate organic milk because the sanctuary has five income streams while the commercial farm has only one.

Pro-life consistent life ethic person here.

I heard a story about a couple who already had a child with severe special needs due to a rare genetic condition (forgot the name) and they had a healthy son as well, who was a carrier of the same condition as his younger sister. The couple desperately wanted another baby after their daughter died of a different medical issue. They knew that there was a risk another child could be born with the disease, but they also knew there was a chance the baby could be born healthy like the son. They conceived and found out through screening that the third child had the same condition as the daughter. They thought raising the child would change their family a lot, give them stress etc and have a bad impact on their son's life. They also thought the child might suffer, so they took the decision for the woman to have an early surgical abortion.

I feel so conflicted by this. On one hand, I know how tough disability can be personally and that it can be very tough caring for someone with a disability and that it can change a family. On the other side, I'm a compassionate CLE champion.

What do you think about this story? What would you have done in this situation? It must have been such a tough, sad decision.

Pro-life consistent life ethic person here.

I heard a story about a couple who already had a child with severe special needs due to a rare genetic condition (forgot the name) and they had a healthy son as well, who was a carrier of the same condition as his younger sister. The couple desperately wanted another baby after their daughter died of a different medical issue. They knew that there was a risk another child could be born with the disease, but they also knew there was a chance the baby could be born healthy like the son. They conceived and found out through screening that the third child had the same condition as the daughter. They thought raising the child would change their family a lot, give them stress etc and have a bad impact on their son's life. They also thought the child might suffer, so they took the decision for the woman to have an early surgical abortion.

I feel so conflicted by this. On one hand, I know how tough disability can be personally and that it can be very tough caring for someone with a disability and that it can change a family. On the other side, I'm a compassionate CLE champion.

What do you think about this story? What would you have done in this situation? It must have been such a tough, sad decision.

CS Lewis said you cannot call Jesus just a great moral teacher. I agree, but not for his reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed, not a perfect moral teacher and certainly not God.

Jesus defines perfection in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Psalm 103:19 says the same. Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.

My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same for 2500 years.

For us, vegetarianism is not diet, it is daily practice of Matthew 5:9 and 5:45.

You will say "all foods clean" Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:15. Read what Peter himself says it means. Mark 7 is about unwashed hands, Matthew 15:20 says so: "to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." And the phrase "declaring all foods clean" is Mark's parenthetical comment, not Jesus's words - Matthew who was there doesn't have it. More important: in Acts 10:14, years after the resurrection, Peter is STILL refusing to eat unclean animals: "I have never eaten anything common or unclean." If Jesus had declared all foods clean, why is Peter still kosher? Because he didn't understand it that way.

Acts 10:17 says Peter was perplexed what the vision meant. Then in Acts 10:28 Peter himself gives the official interpretation: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." Not food. Person. Acts 11:18 the whole Jerusalem church agrees: "to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance." No one says "now we can eat pork." It's about people, not permission to kill needlessly.

You will say "Jesus ate fish." I know. Luke 24:42. That is exactly why I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. If perfection is Matthew 5:9 peacemakers and 5:45 sun on all and Psalm 145:9 compassion over ALL he has made, then a teacher who can live without killing and doesn't is more perfect than one who does. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never ate fish. Swaminarayan Shikshapatri 11: "never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if scriptures seem to allow it." 12: "never cause it to be eaten." That's sun on all.

And even if it were permitted, permitted is not perfect. Genesis 1:29 original perfect diet is vegetarian. Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect restored kingdom is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Proverbs 12:10 "The righteous care for the needs of their animals." If you can live healthily without killing in 2026 - which you can - then killing for taste is needless. Heart and mouth are connected. Matthew 15:18 "what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart." What you choose to put in when you have a choice reveals heart.

Jesus preached eternal hell. Mine never did.

Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." Matthew 22:13 "Bind him and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41 "throw them into the furnace." My teachers teach consequences and karma, but never infinite torture for finite life.

That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "will repay according to each one's deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says "punishment of eternal destruction." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever - annihilation respects free will. Choosing to sustain conscious torment forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

For you, Jesus is the same God as OT God - John 1:1, Trinity. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced the exact same excuse - "Vedas allow animal sacrifice" - and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In NT, Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," John 2:15 whip. You invented Just War because you left the door open. My teachers never did.

If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.

OBJECTIONS AND MY REPLIES

"1 Timothy 4:3 says forbidding meats is doctrine of demons."
Read verse 3-4 in context. Paul is talking about Gnostics who said creation is evil, therefore you must not marry and must not eat anything. I am not saying creation is evil. I am saying creation is good, therefore don't kill needlessly. And Swaminarayan doesn't forbid marriage. And Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 8:13 "if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat." If Paul can give up meat for love, I can for compassion.

"Jesus ate fish Luke 24:42 and Passover lamb."
Yes, and that is exactly why I say he is not perfect by Matthew 5:9 and 5:45. If sun on all and peacemaker is perfection, then eating lamb when you have another choice is not perfect. My teachers are vegetarian even at festivals. That fits sun on all better.

"Animals have no soul / dominion Genesis 1:26."
Genesis 1:29 dominion given is vegetarian. Dominion in Bible is stewardship, not butchery. Psalm 145:9 compassion over ALL he has made. Even if hierarchy, more compassion is more perfect than less. No grey line between needless killing and not killing.

"Hell is justice, you are too soft."
Then Psalm 103:10 "He does not deal with us according to our sins" is false. Justice requires proportion. Infinite for finite is not proportion. Finite for finite is justice - that is what my teachers teach that.

Thank you for debating with me

Ask Meta AI...

CS Lewis famously said, a man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be just a great moral teacher, you must call him liar, lunatic, or Lord. I agree you cannot call him just a great moral teacher, but not for Lewis's reason. On non-violence, I call him morally flawed. The teachers I follow, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, fit perfection and non-violence better.

Jesus himself gives the test in Matthew 5:9: "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God." And 5:44-48: "love your enemies... so you may be children of your Father, who makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Psalm 145:9: "The Lord is good to ALL, and his compassion is over ALL that he has made." Perfection is impartial mercy, sun on all.

My teachers live that test. Both forbid killing, causing to be killed, or profiting from killing any human or animal. Swaminarayan, whom I follow, Shikshapatri 11-12: never kill any living being, however small, never eat meat, fish, or eggs, even as a sacrifice to a deity, even if other scriptures seem to allow it. 14-16: never kill a human, never assist or order killing, even if a king commands. Mahavira taught the same.

Vegetarianism should be a moral obligation if you can. CCC 2418: it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. In 2026 where we live, you can live healthily without killing - NHS and Academy of Nutrition say so. If you can, killing for taste is needless, therefore contrary to dignity by your own rule. I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. Even on your hierarchy, more compassion over more of what God made is more perfect.

Jesus also preached eternal hell. My teachers and my God never did.

Matthew 25:46: "eternal punishment." Mark 9:43: "unquenchable fire." CCC 1035 affirms hell and its eternity. My teachers teach consequences, but never infinite torture for finite life.

That violates your own definition of perfection. If perfection is sun on all and proportionate justice, Romans 2:6 "according to deeds," infinite torment for 70 years is infinitely disproportionate. You will say "sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment" or "hell is self-chosen separation." But Matthew 22:13 and 13:41 say active casting: "Bind him... cast him... throw them into the furnace." If I lock a man in a burning house when I have the key and infinite power, I am the burner. You can respect a no without torturing forever. Choosing to keep a soul tormented forever when you could end it is active violence every second of eternity. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment."

For Catholics, Jesus is the same God as the OT God. 1 Samuel 15:3: "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Deuteronomy 20:16: "you shall not leave alive anything that breathes." My teachers have zero verses like that, ever. Swaminarayan faced that exact excuse, that the Vedas allow sacrifice, and rejected it in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. In the NT, centurion in Matthew 8:5 never told to leave army, "buy a sword" in Luke 22:36, whip in John 2:15. You invented Just War. My teachers never needed to.

If blessed are the peacemakers, if perfect is sun on all, if needless killing is contrary to dignity, and if perfect love cannot torture forever, then Mahavira and Swaminarayan, who never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal, fit perfection better. We are not Christians but we practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better, in heart and in mouth.

OBJECTION 1: "Acts 10 and Mark 7:19 - Jesus declared all foods clean. Vegetarianism is not more perfect."

Answer: Read Peter's own interpretation in the same chapter. Acts 10:28: "God has shown me that I should not call any PERSON common or unclean." The early Church understood it as about Gentiles, which is why your saints, Basil, John Chrysostom, Jerome, the Desert Fathers, still called vegetarianism more perfect and lived it. Mark 7 is about ritual hand-washing, Matthew 15:20 says so explicitly: "these are what defile a person; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile." It is not about whether you may needlessly kill when you have a choice. And CCC 2418 already settles it: if you can live without causing suffering or death, and you still do it for taste, it is needless. Needless is contrary to human dignity by your own Catechism. That makes it a moral obligation if you can.

OBJECTION 2: "Animals don't have rational souls. Dominion means we can use them."

I am not arguing for equality of souls here, although I do believe that. I am arguing from your premise. Even if humans are higher, Genesis 1:29 original dominion is vegetarian, and Isaiah 11:6-9 perfect dominion restored is vegetarian: "they shall not hurt or destroy." Psalm 145:9 says compassion is over ALL he has made. More compassion over more of what he made is more perfect than less, even on hierarchy. Stewardship is not license for needless killing.

OBJECTION 3: "OT violence was Old Covenant / progressive revelation. Jesus fulfilled it."

For Catholics, Jesus IS the God of the OT. John 1:1, Trinity. You cannot separate them. 1 Samuel 15:3 and Deuteronomy 20:16 command to kill infants and animals, including "cattle and sheep." That last part matters - it's animal killing commanded as worship. My teachers faced that exact defense - "the Vedas allow sacrifice" - and Swaminarayan rejected it outright in Shikshapatri 11: even if scripture seems to allow it, do not kill. No progressive revelation needed if you never had the violent verses to begin with. We have zero herem verses, ever.

OBJECTION 4: "Just War and self-defense is necessary. Pacifism doesn't work."

Matthew 5:9 says blessed are the peacemakers, not blessed are the just-war theorists. You had to invent Just War theory precisely because Matthew 8:5 praises a centurion and never tells him to leave the army, Luke 22:36 "buy a sword," and John 2:15 whip. Mahavira and Swaminarayan never needed Just War because they never left the door open. Shikshapatri 14: never kill a human, even if a king commands. That is peacemaking without loopholes. If perfection is sun on all, including enemies, Luke 6:27, then refusing to kill even your enemy fits perfection better.

OBJECTION 5: "Hell is self-chosen separation and respects free will. God doesn't send you, you choose it."

Then why does Jesus say active casting? Matthew 22:13 "Bind him hand and foot and cast him into outer darkness." Matthew 13:41-42: "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will... throw them into the furnace." That's not respectful distance, that's active punishment. And even if it were self-chosen, eternal is never necessary to respect a no. You can respect free will with annihilation, or exile, or a chance to reform. Choosing to sustain a soul in conscious torment forever when you have infinite power to end it is itself violence, every second of eternity. My teachers allow a soul to experience result and then move on. That respects choice without infinite violence.

OBJECTION 6: "Sin against an infinite God deserves infinite punishment. That's justice."

Then Psalm 103:10 is false: "He does not deal with us according to our sins." And mercy is meaningless. If a child insults his father, infinite torture is not perfect justice, any human court would call it monstrous. Romans 2:6 says God repays "according to each one's deeds." Infinite is not according to finite. Proportion is essential to justice. My teachers have justice - cause and effect - but always finite and proportionate, never infinite.

OBJECTION 7: "Warning about hell is loving, like warning about a cliff."

A cliff you didn't create is a warning. A furnace you created, you fuel, and you have the key to, and you throw people into, is a threat. If I build a furnace and say love me or I will throw you in forever, that is not love, that is coercion. 1 John 4:18: "Perfect love casts out fear, because fear has to do with punishment." A system that needs eternal fear to work cannot be perfect love, or peacemaking, Matthew 5:9.

If perfection is what Matthew 5 says it is - peacemakers called children of God, sun and rain on all, compassion over all he has made - and if needless killing is contrary to dignity, then vegetarianism is a moral obligation if you can, and eternal torture cannot be perfection. I am not a Christian because of the ethics, not in spite of them. I am not Christian but I practice Matthew 5:9 and 5:45 better in heart and in mouth, because my teachers, Mahavira and Swaminarayan, never preached eternal hell and never commanded killing of human or animal.

>

Hypothetical question for vegans:

If there were a fire and you could only save one, who would you choose: your pet cat or your mother?

Also, if you were driving and had to swerve and could only avoid hitting one, would you save a human or a deer—and why?

I’m curious how vegans think about these situations, especially in terms of how you weigh human and non-human animal life, and what principles guide the decision. This is a genuine question and I don't know the answer. I dont want to accidentally be specieist.

TW: Mention of antisemitism and physical attacks

Hello all. I am new to learning about the conflict and antisemitism. I live in the UK and there has been quite a few antisemitic attacks recently, which I think are absolutely horrible.

Can someone ELI5 this to me please? Why do some people (some Muslims usually) attack Jewish people or institutions because of what's happening in Gaza/Palestine? I know many Jews don't support what Israel are doing, so why would people equate being Jewish (often Orthodox) with supporting the Israeli government leading to attacks?

I just want peace for all. Thank you in advance.

Hello everyone.

I'm a pro-life student and I'm 24 years old. One of my teachers (let's call them Miss C for anonymity) is very pro-choice and made these arguments about abortion (which is frustrating and confusing, since one of the subjects they teach is biology)

They said that "Zygote is a cell, not an organism, so you can’t say that from conception there is a new organism."

They also said "Unborn are not human beings prior to birth  because they are not responsible for keeping themselves alive. Zygote is not a human organism because it’s not a series of organ systems." They said "it's a human, but not a human being".

They also said that if I wanted I would have to I would have to convince them that the unborn are human beings. Miss C's criteria for a human being is: that you are responsible for keeping yourself alive by doing your inhaling yourself. I would need to convince them that either their criteria is wrong, or that the unborn do meet that criteria from conception. 

They reject the heartbeat argument because it indicates brain activity, not that you are keeping yourself alive.

Miss C thinks that any termination of pregnancy is an abortion, even if the baby will likely live.  

How to respond? I'm just lost for words at this. I think they are very nice and I love their lessons, but they are SO misguided on the topic of abortion.

Hare Krishna.

I wanted to know the best argument why unfertilised eggs are forbidden and non vegetarian. With unfertilised eggs, there is no chance of it developing into a chick, no killing of animals necessarily and eggs are biologically NOT chicken periods. I always avoid eggs and any egg product because I know they are non-vegetarian, but I wanted to know why unfertilised eggs are considered. non-veg. Thank you