Oh, Peas! NYT Tries To Show “Absurdity” Of Being Pro-life By Equating Living Plants With Unborn Children

The New York Times, which never met an unborn human child it would ever try to save from being aborted, or ever cared whether it was killed in or out of the womb, wants us to save plants (peas in this narrative) from being “slaughtered” on the vine and eaten.  Arguing that the chemical reactions and stimuli responses that occur within its roots are actually the peas talking to one another, Michael Marder, writing for the NYT, asserts that peas (plants in general) are capable of feelings, emotions and can feel pain, in the same way pro-lifers insist that unborn children (fetuses) do, and therefore ought to be protected from humans harvesting and consuming them.

“Imagine a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own. Given this brief description, most of us will think of a human person, some will associate it with an animal, and virtually no one’s imagination will conjure up a plant.”

In other words, how can anyone really be pro-life if they don’t also extend that argument to plants.  And if they don’t extend that pro-life argument to plants, then how can they really be pro-life?  And if they don’t extend that pro-life argument to plants, then they are hypocrites.  And if they are hypocrites, then it gives justification for continuing to ridicule them and ignore them all the while unborn children are being killed in and out of the womb and the NYT is publishing absurd opinion pieces from radical, die-hard liberals disguised as satire.  The NYT, not one liberal, thinks of an unborn child as a human being, so why would any of them ever think “a being capable of processing, remembering and sharing information — a being with potentialities proper to it and inhabiting a world of its own” would “conjure” a fetus?  But of course they would “conjure up a plant”, in a futile attempt to be absurd and to show how “absurd” the pro-life movement is, and is being, trying to protect unborn children, even though they neither believe a plant feels and reacts to its environment in the same way, or is remotely similar to, a fetus in any sense of the definition any more than they want to believe a fetus feels anything in its enclosed water-filled environment during its nine months of development and growth.  Because if a fetus can feel, then it can certainly feel pain as it is being ripped in, and to, pieces by an abortionist.  And if a fetus can feel, and feel pain, how can it do that if it is not conscious?  And if a fetus is conscious is it not alive?  The NYT has, suspiciously, not yet demanded the passage of legislation that grants “planthood” status to peas and other fruits and vegetables, whatever life-bearing seeds, they think ought to be protected from being slaughtered in or out of its root, vine, stalk, etc.  Perhaps not everyone at the very liberal NYT is yet convinced that peas ought to be granted “planthood” status.  If they need more proof to show how “human-like” peas are, perhaps they ought to employ sonograms on pea plants.  But if they do, would they know not to “rape” the plant using the “trans-carpel” type of ultrasound?

Related articles

• Pea-Brained Nonsense in the NYT (kolber.typepad.com)
• Box lunch: Talking peas and rom-com food trucks (eatocracy.cnn.com)