If you don't think it's moral to eat meat, don't eat it.

[Guaranteed]

Napi21 said something like this in the cow-eating post that was locked.

An analogous argument: if you don't think it's moral to have an abortion, don't have one.

Isn't this similar reasoning?

I actually don't agree with it, for the record.

Abortion should be legal through the 9th month of pregnancy- but not because of any kind of moral relativism.

It's because it's the woman's body. You can't force someone to bring a pregnancy to term. Period. That's why abortion can not be outlawed. It is entirely up to the woman what she does with her uterus.

Now, bring on the pro-choice attacks, despite the fact that I agree entirely. Or, maybe, as a man, I'm not allowed to have an opinion.

But, in that case, I guess it wouldn't be right for vegans to be moralizing on meat-eaters, either. Right?

[Atman]

1. Uh...

:popcorn:

[Sannum]

2. I'll take some of that

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

[Seabiscuit]

94. Yeah - a little more bbq sauce on mine, please!

And more cowbell!

Definitely more COW, Bull!

:evilgrin:

[Guaranteed]

4. LOL I don't know.

Shit, if it gets locked, it gets locked.

In my opinion, this is a good, debatable point.

Just trying to open up some minds, here.

[Harper_is_Bush]

12. "debatable point". No offense, but

what is the debatable point?

No shit, I can't spot it.

"If you don't think it's moral to eat meat, don't eat it."
was your title, but that's sort of a moot point.

Help?

[Guaranteed]

17. The point is the larger analogy.

The point is that I don't defend meat-eating by saying that "If you think it's wrong, don't do it."

I believe that, as humans, we are omnivores. I believe that humans need to eat meat to be healthy. I believe that many, many other animals eat meat, and there is no reason that humans shouldn't.

That is my reasoning. It isn't that others are just entitled to their own personal opinion, but should shut up about it.

[Harper_is_Bush]

24. Still lost me on that point.

I don't think it's moral or imoral to eat meat.
I just eat it.

You said
"I believe that humans need to eat meat to be healthy."
This is not something you need to "believe" or not like a person might believe in a God. It's a proven fact that your statement is false.

[Guaranteed]

27. It's a proven fact? Oh- has "healthy" even been DEFINED, my friend?

As far as I know, there have been no immortal vegans or vegetarians, have there?

Have there even been studies on their home lives, their psychologies, their values, their overall quality of life?

Please, explain to me how it has been PROVEN as FACT that humans DON'T need to eat meat to be "healthy."

[Harper_is_Bush]

33. Actually yes, it has. Something that sustains life is healthy

A vegitarian diet can be quite healthy.

Your claim was that humans needed meat to be healthy. That is false. It is a proven fact that that is false because humans can be very healthy without meat. More healthy than many meat eaters in fact.

Proven fact.

[Guaranteed]

36. No, it hasn't. You haven't defined "healthy."

In fact, people who don't eat meat are not getting certain proteins that meat-eaters get. That is a FACT.

Eating nothing but carbohydrates and proteins "sustains life." I'd hardly say that such a diet would be "healthy," though.

Vegetarians or vegans are missing certain proteins- not to mention iron and other minerals- that meat-eaters get. Considering that humanity has been built on meat-eating- there were no vegatarian original Homo sapiens- how can you say that taking those proteins out of one's diet is "healthy?" Isn't there a higher prevalence of anemia in vegetarians? Evolutionarily, what you're saying seems illogical.

That's just my inner-scientist talking, though.

You simply haven't defined "healthy," so you can't disprove what I said. Do that first, then we'll talk.

Until then, my belief endures.

[Harper_is_Bush]

46. I don't have to.

It's defined in the dictionary.

[Guaranteed]

48. Is that how my opinion was stated?

Did I look in the dictionary before I made that post?

Because, I believe that you said that my opinion was disproved factually.

Besides, if you're saying that the dictionary definition of "healthy" is "sustains life," does that mean that a diet of pure carbohydrates and protein is healthy, a point I previously made? Again, I'd have to disagree with that. There's a bit more to being "healthy" than just "sustaining life"- in my humble *cough cough* opinion.

Anyway....

[kahleefornia]

63. in dog food feeding trials,

"health" is defined as an animal that can reproduce. So, for example, if you feed mature dogs Purina WonderChow for 6 months, and those dogs can still have a litter of puppies, you're good.

That's one definition of healthy. Sorry, that's just the area I'm familiar with. You should probably define what *you* mean by healthy, if you want people to argue that certain diets can or cannot meet that standard.

I do think that our meat-incising canine teeth would suggest humans developed to eat meat.

[Guaranteed]

67. I'd definitely agree with your last opinion.

Our teeth- and taste-buds- certainly seem to imply a facility for meat-eating.

To answer your question, my definition of healthy is having a WELL-BALANCED diet that allows a LARGE VARIANCE - the largest AVAILABLE variance- of minerals, proteins, and even carbohydrates. This will give a human the energy, building blocks and vitamins it needs to be TRULY healthy.

[flvegan]

64. Oh...bullshit.

You said this:
"In fact, people who don't eat meat are not getting certain proteins that meat-eaters get. That is a FACT."

That's not a fact, it's a bullshit post, based in a lack of education.

Tell you what, I'll put this person that doesn't eat meat against you, and let's see where that goes. Don't broad-brush if you aren't willing to back it up. Oh, and you should read up on our ancestors, that are now believed in some studies to be prey, NOT predators...and largely...yup, vegetarian.

Your belief endures just as 33% of those responding to polls believe that Bush is just doing a bang-up job.

[bee]

96. Research for your inner scientist:

A paper published in 1999 summarized the results of a study associating diet with chronic disease in a group of nearly 35,000 Seventh day Adventists living in California. The members of the group who followed a vegetarian diet (defined as eating no red meat, poultry, or fish)had lower incidences of many diseases, including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, arthritis, colon cancer, prostate cancer, and ischemic heart disease than the nonvegetarians (Fraser, 1999). Also in 1999, Key, et al., analyzed the combined results from five studies involving a total of more than 76,000 people that compared the incidence of disease among vegetarians (defined as eating no red meat, poultry or fish) to that of nonvegetarians with similar lifestyles. Mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24% lower in vegetarians than nonvegetarians (Key, et al).

Fraser GE. Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease, and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California Seventh-day Adventists. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 70(suppl): 532S-8S.

Key TJ, et al. Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies. Am J Clin Nutr 1999; 70(suppl): 516S-24S.

Further, Harvard just recently did a study on protein that that explains that vegans simply need to take in several sources of protein to make the protein "complete" as opposed to just a single source, meat. It also states that animal protein and vegetable protein probably have the same effects on health. Excepting of course, that veggies lack all that fat, etc. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html

And speaking of illogical (since you brought it up) how about adult humans drinking milk meant for the young of another species. You dont see that anywhere else in the animal kingdom. wacky shit.
Evolutionarily, if humans required milk, shouldnt all human mothers perpetually produce it? And shouldnt the enzyme required to break it down (lactase) stay in our bodies past the age of two? Ah, but we live in a society where people take drugs to force their body to accept milk. And where the meat & dairy industries are big, big business.

[MazeRat7]

101. *more crickets*

Good facts. Hopefully you will get a response. I am still waiting (post #65) to "learn" of one singular substance meat has, that is required for human nutrition, that is not available from another source. Of course we both know the answer... but I figured I would see if the OP knew as well. *wink.

MZr7

[bee]

115. Hi Maze...

Check out my post #106. The article is a good one to have on hand. I so wish there was some way to dispel the meat is necessary myth. In the article it likens the meat industries roll to that of the tobacco companies back when they denied that smokes had ill effects & I think the analogy is pretty accurate. We know better than to trust the govt... so why do we still trust the fda? Me, I never felt nearly as good eating meat as I have as a Vegan. And I juice fruits and veggies like a maniac - so I know I dont lack anything. Of course, theres nothing in meat that cant be found in another food source. But the meat sellers will never admit that. Imagine the chaos! ;)
For the first couple of years after I became a vegan, I use to argue the meat/dairy thing all the time. And while I *did* manage to change some peoples minds about milk.... NEVER on the meat. sigh~

[Guaranteed]

102. I'd guess that the milk drinking

from other species is a pretty recent phenomenon, relatively. In any case, it's just food that's available. It's probably NOT the healthiest milk to drink, and we probably don't need it, especially past our younger years. That issue is kind of beside the point. No, cow milk is not critical to our diet, and- IF we eat MEAT- we can easily replace the vitamins that it supplies.

As far as the study you cite, I would very easily infer that there would be certain traits/diseases that would be less prevalent in vegetarian people than in meat-eating people. The lack of fat and cholesterol in a vegetarian diet would obviously lead to that.

However, I'd also guess that there are OTHER traits/diseases that are MORE prevalent in vegetarians. How about starving to death in conditions with low amounts of food? I'd guess that characteristic would be more prevalent among vegetarians.

More seriously, I've already mentioned other conditions. Anemia would be one of them. Low-birth weight might be another, among women who are pregnant- and, yes, that's just an educated guess. There would have to be countless others- because this is a trade-off, you see. And, in my mind, a vegetarian, in a way, is sacrificing a very important part of their diet- a lot of their strength, really.

You can't tell me that NARROWING a person's diet is, always, ultimately, good for them. With regular exercise and BALANCE in their diet, the healthiest person, overall, will be one that does not sacrifice certain proteins and minerals for "principal's" sake.

If our society, today, is so different that we don't need the nutritional elements that used to be so valuably offered to us by meat, then that should be the vegetarian position. Show us what is really going on here.

Because, evolutionarily, vegetarians are wrong. This would be a huge, huge change in humanity's diet. A change like that shouldn't be made for transient reasons. And, it damned well shouldn't be made for purely MORAL reasons, especially if one is going to maintain that it is perfectly okay for people starving in other parts of the world to eat meat.

[bee]

112. Other than the occasional B vitamin deficiency...

there have been no studies (that I know of) linking any ill health effects to veganism. Iron, calcium, etc.. can all be found in veg, fruit, grains too.. as long as you get a good assortment. As for giving up a lot of strength.. Im not sure why you would say that. I was a personal trainer for four years & people always marveled at the fact that I was a vegan. Even some of my co-workers were convinced that if you didnt eat meat, you couldnt have muscle. But its just not true. I did take in large amounts of many different proteins. Whey, etc. but never meat (though I was often accused of it) lol. Nutritionally speaking... I think the majority of Americans have a pretty crappy diet overall. With all the junk thats out there its a wonder that anyone can function. ;) But I generally agree with you that if people have a good quality balanced diet that they will be way better off (with or without meat).

As for narrowing a diet, it's always good for someone if whats being eliminated is bad for them. And when it comes right down to it... it appears that meat does more harm than good. I did post a study a little further down thread that I know will intrigue you (if you havent seen it yet). Back as far as 1991 they were saying that meat was not only not necessary to health but detrimental. Its a very interesting read.

Starvation is starvation I think. Meat or no meat. But there are food sources, such as the moringa tree, that provide massive amounts of vegetation and survive in a host of unfavorable conditions. As it turns out, the moringa doesnt like frost (at all!) but it grows 10' per year and is incredibly nutritious. There are other crops too - it would just be the matter of getting them to those who need them.

Evolutionarily, Ive read conflicting reports and honestly have no idea one way or another.
But either way, youre right.. it would be a huge change. Mind you, I would never argue that anyone shouldnt be allowed to eat meat any more than Id argue that people shouldnt be allowed to smoke, or drink, or anything else thats bad for them. On that respect, I would only say that farming & slaughtering practices need to be changed because as its done now... well its just cruel. But legislation based on 'morals', I think we agree, is wrong.

[Guaranteed]

118. I don't think that I can agree that meat does more harm than good.

Especially if you're considering the different situations of people around the world.

You may or may not have an argument for people here in the United States. However, for now I tend to think that it is safest to go with the way that things have been going for the past million years- and exercise, and eating a balanced diet.

However, I think the most important thing I need to respond to in your post is the last line. You said that we agree that it is wrong to base legislation on "morals."

Now, I have to say that, in my mind, the word "moral" might mean something far different than many people believe it to mean. "Moral" has no religious connotation in my mind- it's highly synonymous to the simple word "right." As in, that's not right, or that's right. It just represents how people are supposed to act, with most assured independence, in my mind, with regard to any humanly fallible religious texts that might be floating around out there.

Next, I don't think I've made my point entirely clear, here. The point I'm trying to make with this thread is not that legislation based on morals is wrong. In fact, I'd say that almost all legislation has some kind of moral element to it. I don't see anything wrong with that. Some legislation is simply wrong or misguided in its moral element, but some kind of element is almost always there. Killing is wrong/immoral. Stealing is wrong/immoral. People not having healthcare is wrong/immoral.

My point in this thread is that moral relativism can be used to both oppose the "liberal" view and to justify it, depending on the issue.

On the one hand, we tear down the morally relativistic view that "If you don't think it's moral to eat meat, don't eat it." We declare how barbaric it is to hold such a point of view. String up the meat-eaters, they are inhuman.

On the other hand, when we MAKE exactly the same type of argument in the ABORTION debate, suddenly it becomes amazingly legitimate. It's the old "Shut up, keep your opinions to yourself" argument, and we sometimes base our whole position on it! This time, anyone who DISAGREES with our relativistic argument is inhuman.

It's entirely inconsistent.

Again, in my opinion, NEITHER abortion nor meat-eating is morally wrong. So, when I hear these arguments, both for and against, I feel compelled to speak up, and not only DEFEND each action, but point out the inconsistency in argument.

That's what this thread was about. People, both liberal and conservative, love to fall back to this "Hey, what I think is right is just different than what you think is right, so shut up and don't tell me what is right" idea. It's a cop-out, and is actually DETRIMENTAL to our political discourse. It takes on so many forms.

Mind you, that's not to say that the argument doesn't have it's very appropriate places in some political topics. They are definitely out there.

But, when I believe something, I will defend it with reason.

I just wish that we could see more of that, not only from the Repukes side- which is one helluva request, since virtually all of their positions are untenable- but, from our side, as well. ESPECIALLY when we HAVE REASON ON OUR SIDE. It's a tragedy and a waste to resort to that kind of laziness when we don't have to.

Let's put in the work, and get it right.

[bee]

131. Thanks for the clarification. I'll admit, I was a bit confused by your OP

but now that I understand....

I guess its the word 'moral' that I have an issue with in general because whats moral is so subjective. But after consideration, I agree that many laws are, at least in part, based on morals. What I should have said is... legislating based on religious morals is wrong. Ill admit, Im horrified at the prospect of religious morals being made into laws. No doubt that contributes to my reluctance to use morals & legislation in the same sentence.

But Getting to your point..
that moral relativism can be used to both oppose the "liberal" (or any) view and to justify it, depending on the issue. I am in complete agreement with you there. I *do* feel that 'if you dont want to eat meat, dont eat it'. I have to, otherwise my other points of view hold no justification. For example, if you dont want to __________ dont, but dont tell me I cant ___________. Further, I couldnt even make the argument that eating meat is immoral if I wanted to. The farming and slaughtering practices engaged here in the US are wrong/immoral, yes. That I would argue until blue in the face... but eating it seems to be human nature (whether its necessary at this point, or not).

The whole killing things argument on both sides is filled with contradiction though, IMHO. Why is it OK to torture and kill innocent animals, but not a serial rapist or child molester? Oh but wait, I said 'animals' but I should have said 'animals to which humans are not emotionally attached'. Some killings are moral while some killings or not. Whats the difference? :shrug: People arent opposed to killing animals. What theyre opposed to is the psychological distress that one might feel if a type of animal deemed emotionally valuable to them is killed. If cows would only learn to suck up to humans, theyd be WAY better off.

My point: if the blanket statement 'killing is immoral' is true then the statement 'meat eating is moral' is false. Substitute meat eating for abortion, death penalty, etc. And therein lies problem with all sides of the argument.

[LaurenG]

119. Have you ever seen flvegan

The "boy" is probably a strapping 200 pound solid rock. He could thump your meat eating little body into next week with his pinky. I think you should say that if you think vegetarians are morally wrong don't be one.

One day we will regard all life as sacred until then we will continue to use animals as a commodity. It all boils down to sanctity of life, all life. If you eat meat it's because you were raised on it, you like the taste and probably don't have to slaughter your own. Would you eat your cat or dog because of your taste for meat. Me neither, but then I look at all animal life as a potential pet and me I don't eat my pets.

[eridani]

117. Lactase does indeed stay in some bodies past the age of two

A way for some Europeans and their descendents to get vitamin D and calcium. Granted that they are a minority of the world population, but lactase production hangs on well into adulthood. Doesn't last forever, though. At age 59, my husband, an avid milk drinker until that age, had to give it up due to intestinal distress.

[bee]

125. Youre correct. What I *should* have said is that it starts

depleting at two. Thats what I get for runnin my mouth (instead of sleeping) at 3am. :)

[FlaGranny]

123. Another study:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism

In "Mortality in vegetarians and nonvegetarians: detailed findings from a collaborative analysis of 5 prospective studies" <29>, six major studies (three in Britain, one in Germany, one in U.S and one in Italy) of this kind were cross examined. It was found that the mortality ratio was the lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by occasional meat eaters (0.84) and vegetarians (0.84) which was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegans (1.0). These statistics do not mean that fish eating is the healthiest diet. In "Mortality in British vegetarians" <30>, it was concluded that "British vegetarians have low mortality compared with the general population. Their death rates are similar to those of comparable non-vegetarians, suggesting that much of this benefit may be attributed to non-dietary lifestyle factors such as a low prevalence of smoking and a generally high socio-economic status, or to aspects of the diet other than the avoidance of meat and fish."

Interesting study, with all the pros and cons and seems to be quite balanced and fair.

Another snip:

"Predators usually have sharp teeth or claws to tear fresh meat. Dogs, cats or lions are examples, while plant-eating animals (such as horse and deer) have no sharp teeth or claws to tear meat. Humans occupy a middle ground between the two having no claws and mostly blunt teeth (molars) but also a pair of sharp canine teeth designed for tearing which would be useless in a purely herbiverous animal.

The intestines of predators are relatively short compared with those of plant-eating animals. This allows meat eaten by predators to pass more quickly though the intestines. Since meat rots much faster than vegetables, it is necessary for predators to have short intestines to prevent meat rotting inside the body that could harm the creature. Herbivores, however, need a much longer intestine to allow sufficient time for the digestion of vegetable fibres.

According to The Straight Dope,<23> humans have evolved to be omnivores. Human intestinal length is, taken as a ratio, half way between carnivores (such as cats and dogs) and herbivores (such as cows and horses)."

[bee]

135. excellent information. Thanks for the links.

Ive read similar studies myself re: fish. The consensus does seem to be that a veg + fish diet is optimal for health. I wont lie. If theres a plate of sushi in front of me you can be sure Im going to have some. Sometimes, I even feel as though I need it. When that happens, I eat it and feel better. mmmm... miso soup.. yum.

The evolutionary info is very interesting & seems totally logical to me. Ive often wondered if pre-humans evolved into carnivores due to a lack of food and now, are slowing going back in the other direction. I saw a show on the science channel not too long ago that seems to suggest that very thing. As vegetation waned, pre-humans were forced to eat animals to survive. I wish I could remember the name of the show... it was really interesting. Ill definitely look more into the info you mentioned. thanks again.

[aikoaiko]

129. by your definition, eatingmeat is healthy because it sustains.

back to the drawing boar for you.

[MazeRat7]

Better yet... how about you explain why they do

Silly me, but I don't see where "meat" is a requirement to keep humans alive. Please inform us all what proteins, amino acids, fatty compounds, etc are the exclusive domain of meat. Or more simply put, name one nutritional "thing" that the human body needs can only be found in "meat" ?

Here is a clue before you make a bigger fool of yourself: There are none.

MZr7

[Guaranteed]

57. Oh yes, there are. There a millions upon millions of proteins out there.

And you know damned well that the DNA of a plants do not produce the same proteins that the DNA of an animal does.

Again, the species Homo sapiens has been built on meat-eating, evolutionarily. Has it not?

Has it not been in the BEST INTEREST of humanity to eat meat over the past hundreds of millenia?

How can you say that it is as healthy, or, as audacious as it is, MORE healthy to change a diet that has so evolved over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and to cut out an ENTIRE CLASS of food- not just a particular food- and become HERBIVORES?

No, sir. We are omnivores. You are WRONG. PERIOD. You should have paid attention in school.

Ask a goddamned biologist.

[MazeRat7]

65. I am not asking a biologist, I am asking you. What are they ?

Seriously, if you are going to make such statements, please provide some evidence other than your own world view. Again, and for the last time, I ask...

What one molecular substance does "meat" provide that is required for human nutrition that is not available from some other source ?

Just give us one ? How hard can that be if we humans are so dependent on eating meat to survive ?

MZr7

[nonconformist]

84. He didn't say it was dependant on survival

In fact, he said he wasn't. He said "healthy". I happen to agree with that, because I don't know a single vegetarian that doesn't take vitamin supplements to make up for their lack of meat and dairy.

[MazeRat7]

87. So you concur that "meat" is not necessary.. since there are supplements

BTW: Not sure where the "survival" mime got included since I specifically said "nutrition". But that is beside the point. What I was hoping to to illuminate was that in later posts the OP is trying to state that meat is "required" by humans for nutritional balance and believes we are carnivores when in fact we are omnivores.

All in all, it was really just an silly exercise to point out the lack of information the OP brought to the table and how myth is often spouted as fact. Kind of like the pugs... but I would never ever call another DU'er a pug. (seriously).

MZr7

edit: BTW: Vegetarians dont eat meat but do eat dairy... Vegans however dont eat meat or dairy (or anything with animal products included) just a minor detail since you were talking about vegans (taking supplements) but calling them vegetarians.

[nonconformist]

89. Yes, I do concur that with supplements it is not necessary. nt

[Guaranteed]

90. You sure you want to concur with even that?

Do we have the confidence in our nutritionists and biologists that we can find each and every nutritional advantage given to us by eating ANY KIND OF meat- this is a WHOLE FOOD GROUP, mind you- and replace it, in a pill form?

[nonconformist]

95. I've read conflicting studies on the wisdom of depending on supplements

But overall, the consensus seems to be that if a vegetarian (or vegan) eats a carefully planned diet and takes supplements, they are getting a healthy diet. Conversely, too much red meat in particular can be bad for you.

Personally, I've been trying to cut back on my family's red meat intake. But I can't give it up altogether, it's fucking delicious.

[Guaranteed]

97. Ahhh...quality of life.

;)

[LeftyMom]

103. I don't.

There, now you know one.

[flvegan]

59. *crickets*

I expected nothing less.

Nice post. Factual, unlike others.

[Guaranteed]

61. LOL a little late.

What would Darwin say about your opinion?

Who owns the faith-based opinion in this argument?

That's right. Hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. Eat it. So to speak.

[flvegan]

66. Read and enjoy

http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/hunter_gatherer.htm

That's gotta hurt. Eat it, indeed.

[Guaranteed]

70. ROFLMAO. He "goes against the prevailing opinion," yes?

Isn't that what your article says?

What kind of bullshit science are you trying to pass off, here, at VEGSOURCE.COM???

Yes, my friend, according to this man, we were PREY, in early times. ROFL!! Yes, the article says that. We were the prey. And we, apparently, did NOT eat meat.

"The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman..." Yes. Then he blames that all on religion. LOL. Blame that idea on Jesus. Before Jesus, we never ate meat- sure!

Tell that to the CHINESE. OOooooooo.....ownzed.

We were the prey. We never ate meat! And the Bush Administration never lied to take us to war.

PLEASE.

[flvegan]

71. I'll take the word of a PhD in the field

over whatever the fuck you THINK you are.

Debunk it...have at it.

Hey...that whole "invention of fire" must've really rubbed your nads the wrong way, too huh?

JOKE.

[Guaranteed]

72. What did the Chinese think about this Judeo-Christian idea?

What's your explanation for their eating meat?

Or the Africans, who have probably been hunting animals non-stop for the past million years?

Oh yeah, what about the rest of the PhD's in the field who apparently comprise the prevailing opinion on this topic?

[flvegan]

73. I fail to see

any new facts here.

I posted newly discovered information. You got angry.

Like I said...debunk it. C'mon...you're all over this topic this evening. PROVE it wrong.

I'd wait, but I don't have that kind of time.

Ha!

[Guaranteed]

76. I just did. Don't the Chinese eat meat?

Or is their meat-eating a Judeo-Christian conspiracy?

How about the African tribesmen with a significant-to-large part of their diet being comprised of meat?

Is this all Jesus' doing?

You know, there are plenty of other Asian cultures, as well, that eat meat- but no Jesus.

I think your PhD buddy might just be wrong on this.

[flvegan]

78. Well,

post a study, complete with the backing of your PhD and other credentials, and then I'll listen.

You "think" someone might be wrong...I beg to differ...on a specific part of this (think).

[Guaranteed]

79. You know, I think I'll just use your article, which states that....

"The idea of 'Man the Hunter' is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution...," according to the very man putting forth the opinion that you're advocating.

I'm fine with that, as it is.

Do you need anything else?

On edit: You know, it's amazing that I- a commoner!- was talking about evolution showing the meat-eating tendencies of humanity, well before I even saw your article.

I'm either DAMNED smart, or I just believe the obvious.

Or, hell- I might have just paid attention in biology class.

[flvegan]

82. Wow.

You took "generally accepted" as fact.

Good one.

[Guaranteed]

81. One other point. And this is non-hostile.

It could be that, at this point in humanity's evolution, it is in our best interest to go vegetarian or vegan.

If that is your opinion, say so. I WOULD expect evidence to support such a position, but it isn't ridiculous.

It DOES sound radical to remove an entire food group from our diet. But- prove me wrong. I can be persuaded.

[flvegan]

83. I can't prove it.

C'mon...if I could prove it, I'd have done so.

I do believe that in our times, it is in the best interest of this planet to reduce our use of animals as food (as I also do suggest reducing the use of fossil fuels, increasing the use of alternatives, etc).

20 years ago, it probably, to the masses, sounded radical to suggest a hybrid vehicle.

I appreciate your non-hostile post, and I hope you appreciate my non-hostile response. Problem is, animals aren't a food group. They're animals. I think that the term "radical" is a little out of sorts here. One person's radical is another's 8 am appointment.

As far as evidence goes, I've seen many of your posts. I don't need to suggest evidence. You're smart, and although we might spar here, you, if you look, will find it. You'll also find contradictory evidence, but I think you'll sort through it. I'll leave that to you. I could post 100 pro-veg articles, and someone else could post 100 pro-eating animal articles.

If you really want to know, you'll find it.

[bee]

106. U.S. Physicians Say Meat Not Necessary, Actually Harmful

U.S. Physicians Say Meat Not Necessary, Actually Harmful
Posted by Dr. Jai Maharaj

Recent Nutritional Research Affirms
Superiority of the Vegetarian Diet for Humans

(snip)
On April 9, 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a prestigious non-profit organization active in health and research policy and based in Washington, D.C., said basing our diet on those groups not only will not ensure adequate nutrition, consumption of meat, fish, poultry and dairy products actually causes disease.

Instead PCRM recommends a "New Four Food Groups." They are: 1. fruits; 2. grains; 3. vegetables; and 4. legumes.

(snip)
Though others have made similar recommendations to revise the American diet, none have done so with quite the authority of the 4,000-plus member PCRM. The committee's president, Dr. Neal D. Barnard -- himself a vegetarian -- is a director of Behavioral Studies at the Institute for Disease Prevention at George Washington University.

PCRM members instrumental in formulating the new food groups include Dr. T. Colin Campbell, Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University and Director of the massive China Health Project. Collaborator Dr. Oliver Alabaster is Director of the Institute for Disease Prevention at the George Washington University.
(snip)

Third, states the PCRM, "The old four food groups serve to misinform consumers about some aspects of nutrition. Two of the four food groups -- meats and dairy products -- are clearly not necessary for health and, in fact, may be detrimental to health.... Populations with the lowest rates of heart disease, colon and breast cancer, and obesity consume very little meat or no meat at all."

http://www.flex.com/~jai/articles/nomeatht.html

http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/food_groups.html

[Guaranteed]

107. See my post #102. nt

[mondo joe]

121. That's good info. If you're a Puritan.

Some of us enjoy even things that aren't necessary - like sex for pleasure, food for taste, and art.

[bee]

124. the debate was only whether or not meat was necessary to health

I never said I advocated eliminating it (or anything else). Hell, MOST of what I enjoy is unnecessary. :evilgrin:

[The Stranger]

122. Humans aren't like "many, many other animals."

Humans control their environment, and are in the process of destroying it on a level unprecedented.

Humans have a moral obligation to do the things that preserve their environment and the environment they share with the myriad of "many, many other animals" whom are now under our care and are our responsibility.

One of those things is eating lower on the food chain and preventing the deforestation of the planet that is required for grazing and to feed 8 billion humans meat.

And I'm just getting started here.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

137. Many many animals also vomit and then eat it.

Do you do that as well?

Look, if you want to eat meat, fine. Go for it. But just admit the real reason. "I want to eat meat because I like the taste, I'm not overly concerned with the welfare of livestock, I enjoy the social aspect...etc. etc. etc." Don't try and blame it on health reasons. As many other posters already pointed out, vegetarians and vegans are at LEAST as healthy as meat-eaters, often more healthy.

[LeftyMom]

3. Does the animal have a choice?

A human fetus can't have interests separate of the mother because it isn't a wholly distinct entity prior to birth. An animal has it's own interests to live it's life and avoid pain.

[mondo joe]

Why wouldn't a fetus have the very same "interests"?

[Guaranteed]

8. The fetus doesn't have a choice because it is wholly dependent on the

woman who is pregnant.

But if you believe what you are saying, you would disagree with the argument that people who don't believe in abortion just shouldn't have them, and leave everyone else alone.

[BlooInBloo]

10. Power to the animals!

It's because of THE MAN that the ANIMAL is held down!

[MazeRat7]

41. Exactly.... comparing an animal to a developing fetus is just stupid

And is rather telling about anyone that would try to make such a comparison.


MZr7

[Guaranteed]

52. LOL WHY??

We're dealing with Homo sapiens and creatures of a much lesser cognitive potential.

In any case, what we're talking about is two different ACTIONS- eating meat and having an abortion. ***I'm not comparing a fetus and an animal directly.*** That's a straw man- and, I'd have to say, not even a very good one. I'd actually think you'd lose that straw-man argument.

I'm comparing ARGUMENTS made against and for meat-eating and the choice of abortion, respectively. I'm pointing out the moral relativism that doesn't work for either argument.

[mondo joe]

5. If only you could have worked in immigration, smoking and Cynthia

McKinney this might have been the greatest thread in the history of DU.

[Neil Lisst]

6. there's Vegans, there's Vegetarians, there's macro biotics ...

Oy, don't get me started with the food and the adult kids!


Here's a cartoon memorializing the time a few years ago when I was becoming accustomed to having adult kids who are vegan, vegetarian, or macro biotic:

[Atman]

14. The difference between you and me, Neil...

...is that I would have gone for the cheap laugh and captioned it "Dinner time had become unbearable..."

But that's me, just a whore for laughs.

[Neil Lisst]

19. that's a good one!

might be time for me to get some animals out for the spring time

I've got one coming online in less than two hours, and it's a new look for us. More like a Tom Tomorrow 8 frame look.

We'll see how it goes.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

7. Firstly, Yes, They Don't Like It, They Don't Have To Eat It.

I however, will enjoy the hell out of my steak sans guilt.

On your latter point, I think for any other reasons than immediate life threatening danger to the mother or a child that will die upon birth or is already deceased, the concept of abortion in the 9th month is simply the condonation of infanticide. (or any time after the 4th or 5th month for that matter, but most definitely the 7th or after. And yes, my opinion, but one hell of a strong moral one.)

On edit: Just re-read your OP. Still not sure what to make of it, but I did just realize you were talking about the forced illegality of it. Illegality is tricky to pull off because it might make it too complicated for legitimate needs of late term abortion, so I can't say I support that option regardless of how strongly I feel. I just have to hold on to hope that no doctor would do something so barbaric as to perform a third trimester abortion outside of the two scenarios I mentioned above.

[Critters2]

13. Condonation?!

Is that a word?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Yes. Sorry If It Was Too Big Of One For You. I'm A Helpful Guy Though,

and I don't mind being of assistance:

con·do·na·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (knd-nshn, -d-)
n.
The act of condoning, especially the implied forgiveness of an offense by ignoring it

[Critters2]

22. Wow, what's with the attitude?

I deserve to be insulted because you used a word with which I was not familiar? Interesting.

Since you seem to think I'm an uneducated moran, and therefore worthy of your contempt, you might be interested to know that I hold a BA in European history and French, an MDiv in Pastoral Theology, and a DMin in Rural Ministry.

All from schools that cater to the intellectually challenged, I guess.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Didn't Come Off As Sincere Inquiry, With All Due Respect

And if it was, my apologies. But it came off to me as a mockery, not an inquiry. My bad if that wasn't the case.

[Critters2]

30. Just a simple question

Nothing more. Someone's a bit touchy

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

34. Maybe I Defaulted To The Inaccurate Perception Because Of Your

self righteous replies to me in the other thread this evening. So when I saw this obscure post, I perceived it as sarcasm and mockery. That may very well have not been the case, in which I apologize, or the case may be that you're being insincere. I really don't know for sure. But I always give the benefit of the doubt, so I will go with the former. My apologies.

[Critters2]

43. Well, okay

But I still don't get why you assume I'm being insincere. I just asked a question.

Sheesh!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. LOL

I'm not assuming. I said I was going with the former option, the one saying I perceived it wrong.

[cynatnite]

29. Please, let's not have a degree war

:P

[Guaranteed]

25. The manner of abortion, I believe, is a matter of debate, once the fetus

becomes viable. It seems needlessly destructive to abort the fetus in such a manner as to terminate it's "life functions" if they can feasibly be maintained.

But, as our technology increases, what does it mean that the fetus' "life functions" can "feasibly be maintained?" This is one point of the debate.

***HOWEVER*** WHETHER the woman can abort the pregnancy at ANY time is not, though, debatable. She can remove that fetus from her body at any time she damned well pleases.

If the fetus is viable, how she can be "allowed" to do it- shit. I don't fucking know. Convince me one way or the other.

Shit, though! I'm a man. I have an opinion. What to do, what to do.

[MazeRat7]

45. I gather compassion for all life forms is not your strong suit. *grin.

Sorry... but thats really similar to something you once said about me. Figured I would point out the inconsistency. *wink

MZr7

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. Of Course I Have Compassion

But food is food, and dammit, steak tastes great. If you'd like, I could chomp into one while teary eyed over its demise, like when Homer had his pet lobster Pinchy that died, and then he wept as he ate him :rofl:

As far as your obscure reference to some comment made god knows when, wish I had any idea what you were talking about. No biggie though, I never carry one day's battles to the next. It's all good. :)

[MazeRat7]

69. No prob... and at least you are being honest...

that is "tasting great" vs "being required".... as some have stated.

Oh and as for that other thing... well it was only a week or so ago... like Homers lobster... "Did it wiggle and jiggle and tickle inside her" ? :rofl:

MZr7

[Guaranteed]

99. Well, in my opinion "health" doesn't always necessarily

mean even- and this is damned sophisticated- biologically required.

Does happiness factor into health, in your opinion?

[KitchenWitch]

9. You sure do have a set, don't you!

and pass the popcorn.

[MazeRat7]

49. Hey Lady.. LTNS... can I have some of that corn ?

[KitchenWitch]

111. Of course, but only if you tell me

what LTNS means.

:popcorn:

[populistdriven]

11. this veg agrees, BUT why should my taxes subsidize the Beef industry?

[Guaranteed]

32. I'm not sure, but

probably for the same reason that any other food industry would be subsidized.

Or, for the same reason that abortion should be payable by our government.

[BlooInBloo]

50. Yah! Why should ANYONE'S taxes go to ANYTHING they don't like?

I think everyone should be able to PICK and CHOOSE every single thing their tax dollars get spent for!

Yah! That makes PERFECT sense!

[SPKrazy]

15. Excuse me?

abortion should be legal through the 9th month?


Wow

That is truly amazing

I've never seen a post stating anything so repulsive before

why not murder for the first 5 years of life?

a 9th month BABY can live outside the mother

why not just take it out and let it live at that point?

[kahleefornia]

58. you'll have to make the judgements then

I happen to agree that as long as a fetus is attached to the mother, it's her body and hers alone to do with as she sees fit. Because - once you try to make a distinction based on the fetus' viability outside the womb, it gets very very fuzzy. Currently - heroic medical efforts can sustain a premature baby from a certain stage. As time goes on, technology will progress. So that would mean that you'd be changing the terms of acceptable abortion every year? Well, today, abortions past 5 months are unacceptable, but tomorrow, it will be 4 months and 12 days...

[Nederland]

133. There is little difference

...between a fetus inside and outside the womb. Both are completely helpless and completely dependent on someone else for sustainence. In fact, my wife and I have had a child I think it's actually quite a bit less work when the kids is still neatly tucked inside that womb than after they get out. Sure, there is a healthy does of male bias there, but I think most women that have had children would agree. It's a lot less work to care for a fetus than it is an infant.

[SPKrazy]

138. 9 Months!

not 5 mos

9 mos isn't a fetus

IT'S A BABY

[Warpy]

16. Good argument, but don't expect it to win any friends

I've been a veg head since about 1968 mostly because I've never been fond of meat and partly because I feel better when I don't eat it. I've also tried pointing out there is no moral diet, everything we eat depends on the death of another creature, plant or animal or its offspring.

Only the dead are truly moral because they have no more opportunity to err.

I have enough trouble living up to my own standards, takes all my time. I just don't have the time, energy or inclination to police the rest of the world.

[cynatnite]

20. If you're a vegan, you're not allowed to discuss eating meat

:P

I admit to getting completely pissed at the RW males dominating this country who are trying to legislate my body. My brain keeps saying, 'if you don't have a uterus, sit down and shutup'.

But my heart knows this is wrong.

[Rude Horner]

21. I'm confused

Are we debating abortion or meat eating? :wtf:

[populistdriven]

23. soylent green is this thread

[sutz12]

38. Yes....

he's using a rather loose moral corollary about having a certain belief (and considering it a moral tenet) about something and then discussing the moral stance of forcing that opinion on others.

[Crowdance]

26. Difference between moralizing and legislating

There is a real difference between arguing that people shouldn't eat meat and legislating that people not eat meat. Eat the dead animals all you wish, but don't impinge on my right to point out to you that, in my opinion, it's gross.

There is also a difference in the abortion debate between advocating that abortion be outlawed, and pointing out that, in some people's opinion, it is wrong. Talk all you want about how much you don't like abortion; just don't impose that opinion on others.

Oh, wait, there's another difference: even if legislation were passed to make eating meat illegal, people wouldn't die because of that legislation. (Except for the occassional very tragic case of back-alley cattle rustling by the inexperienced and unprepared.) Outlawing abortion would kill women.

[Guaranteed]

31. I don't believe in legislating either.

Of course, legislating one or the other implies moralizing- right?

[Crowdance]

37. Not necessarily

Legislation often (and perhaps, even, typically) represents advantage, rather than morals. Financial advantage, political advantage, social advantage. Meat-eating would only be outlawed, IMHO, if it served somebody's financial purpose. Currently, quite the opposite is true. Your meat-eating rights are well-protected. Wish I could say the same for women's reproductive rights; those rights are pawns in the hands of folks looking to make a buck, gain politcial advantage, and wage "culture" wars for the bolstering of their own small minds. Morality doesn't even enter into it.

[Guaranteed]

40. Moralizing ending in legislation implies advantage- not morals.

:)

[Crowdance]

42. Ya' lost me....

:shrug:

[Guaranteed]

47. Legislation in either of these areas implies moralizing,

(although not necessarily correctly) as I originally stated.

You said that legislation implies advantage.

I agreed, saying that moralizing ending in legislation implies advantage.

I.E., those that moralize, with an advantage, end their moralizing with legislation.

We basically agree- except that your original post doesn't recognize that I've already made the point that abortion isn't immoral.

My post attacks moral relativism, and states instead that these two actions- eating meat and having abortions- are not immoral.

[sutz12]

35. That's the important part to me...

Moralize all you want, but remember that I have a right to feel irritated if you preach to me too much about the morality of eating meat. :)

But don't force your moral opinions on me, or on anyone else for that matter, in the form of legislation. IMO, that is the immoral position.

BTW, not aimed at YOU personally. Just using the rhetorical 'you' in my reasoning.

[Crowdance]

39. Got it. We agree. n/t

[Katherine Brengle]

44. Most of us don't "moralize"

We just share our opinions when the subject is broached.

Why start yet another veg-bashing thread?

[LeftyMom]

108. Guilt.

Making people think and challenging thier assumptions about diet and nutrition- simply by existing- gets some people defensive.

[Guaranteed]

110. Nuh-uh. Telling people that they're horrible human beings for eating

meat makes them defensive, surely. It's also simply wrong.

And I know that you don't like the point that I made. If it made YOU defensive, well....give your positions more thought.

[LeftyMom]

113. Actually, I just now saw your response.

The fact of the matter is that arguing with defensive omnivores is not the highlight of my evening, so I wandered off and did something more fun for a while.

Give my positions more thought? :rofl: You must not know me very well. I think about this stuff a lot, I read about animal issues all the time, I ask questions and seek advice when I need it, I bounce ideas off of people who know more than I. My commitment to ethical veganism isn't something I picked up a few weeks ago because it made for interesting flame wars.

[Guaranteed]

114. But, do you push it onto others?

Is this something you believe in just for yourself, or do you try to make others who don't believe and act as you do feel- oh, you used the word "Guilt," right?- guilty.

Is that what you do?

What do you think of those who have an opinion that differs from yours on the issue of abortion and do exactly the same thing?

I do applaud your extensive introspection and meditation regarding these issues, though.

[KittyWampus]

51. Abortions are NOT legal up til the 9th month unless there's a medical

reason necessitating it.

I agree, people who eat meat have every right to do so. However, I DO think there needs to be some morality involved in HOW the animals to be eaten are breed, raised, slaughtered and delivered to the table.

[Guaranteed]

54. Abortions ought to be. Whatever legislation was passed against it,

in my opinion, is unconstitutional. You can't force a woman to bring a fetus to term.

I DO agree with your latter point. I think that when animals are killed, it had better be well-justified.

If an animal is being killed SIMPLY for its fleece/hide/fur, and the rest is left unused, I believe that is wrong, and I'm against it. Yes, I would support LEGISLATION against it.

But, that is because it is wasteful, and, in fact, disrespectful to the animal.

[RB TexLa]

56. and roaches, bugs that destroy crops, termites?

is it wasteful to kill them and disrespectful?

[Guaranteed]

86. No. I'm saying the reasoning has to be sufficiently justified.

Further, I'll go ahead and say that it's much easier to justify the killing a being that has virtually no cognitive abilities- insects would be encompassed within this category.

That's NOT to say that insects (or spiders, the "bug" I'm about to refer to) can MORALLY killed for NO reason at all. When I find spiders within my house, I take the time to scoop them up and put them outside.

I am not willing to have too many spiders in my house- so many that I notice them, at least. However, it isn't impossible for me to TAKE THE TIME to solve the problem WITHOUT KILLING. I actually LIKE spiders, although my wife hates them. I know how important of a role they play in our ecosystem. I'd even go so far as to say that they are beautiful creatures.

But, a mosquito? Some little piece of shit animal that's attempting to suck my blood, which will, in turn, create an itch for me that will last a few days? That thing is dead on sight. It does not get a second chance. I'm not worried about wiping it out as a species, nor am I about making it suffer. Quick, painless...and justified- to me. I know it's nothing personal, in its mind. It's not personal in mine, either. But, goodbye.

[RB TexLa]

92. OK

[flvegan]

60. Defensive much?

Seriously...

If you don't think it's moral to abuse animals, then don't eat them.

Your answer?

[Guaranteed]

62. Are you equating eating animals with abuse? nt

[flvegan]

68. That's largely how it's done here.

Factory farming, intensive confinement, etc, etc.

Granted, there are locals, small farmers/farms that aren't that way. But again, largely, that's how it's done.

[Guaranteed]

74. How is different than whether.

A common mistake.

[flvegan]

75. When

you start making sense again, and can offer a response to the original post, you let me know, k?

[Guaranteed]

77. You're offering an objection to how meat is raised.

The original issue addressed was whether or not it is right to eat meat- at all.

Or- I believe. Have I been misinterpreting all these objections?

[flvegan]

80. Since you asked

Considering the fact that the human body doesn't need meat to survive, then no, in the modern world it's not right. Granted, the Inuit and native persons, as well as those that have NO alternative don't fit into this category, and also those that are medically disposed to needing an animal source for food/meat/protein are also not subject to this...I'd say that it's not right.

Nothing against those that eat meat and don't know better, or have conflicting thoughts and opinions.

If you have an alternative, and have the facts behind where meat comes from, yet you still choose to eat meat, then yes, it's wrong.

Selfish, actually.

Flame away.

[tritsofme]

85. Abortion at the ninth month is murder.

When modern science can allow the fetus to live outside of the womb, it is not about a choice to carry the baby to term, it is about ending a life unnecessarily, for no good reason, because medicine says that baby doesn't have to die.

There is no choice when the fetus is no longer completely dependent on the mother to survive.

That's why such abortions are illegal now, and rightly so.

I don't see what any of this has to do with eating meat.

[Guaranteed]

88. The abortion itself is not.

I said this above, but the manner of abortion is debatable. I'm not interested in that right now, although I think it would actually be a fascinating subject once most people come to realize why abortion itself- the ending of the pregnancy- is always morally, and legally, justified.

I guess I would call what you're referring to "advanced" biomedical ethics.

BTW, if the ONLY manner of abortion in the 9th month is one that would "kill" the fetus- and I use the word "kill" loosely- the act itself is most DEFINITELY still justified.

No one can force a woman to carry a pregnancy even one moment longer than she desires to. It is HER body, and HER uterus. The fetus does not own her uterus. Morally, she is justified at all times in removing a fetus from her body.

[wtmusic]

127. agree

the "logic" suggesting a 9-month fetus is nothing but an unliving extension of the mother's body is absurd.

If she wants an abortion she can figure it out just fine before the second trimester and have it done.

Holy shit. And these are some of the same people who are crying about slaughtering baby seals? :silly:

[Skip Intro]

91. what are you smoking?

the two subjects are unrelated.

being for or against some or all abortion has nothing to do with any possible moral consideration of eating dead animals.

[Guaranteed]

93. I'm just talking about particular, prevalent arguments.

The morally relativistic arguments you see in these two, and many other, issues.

I thought the comparison of the two arguments, which are common, was insightful. You can disagree, if you like.

[cherokeeprogressive]

98. Abortion should be legal through the 9th month of pregnancy

Abortion, YES. Any time you want one. For ANY reason.

"Abortion should be legal through the 9th month of pregnancy- but not because of any kind of moral relativism."

It's because it's the woman's body. You can't force someone to bring a pregnancy to term. Period. That's why abortion can not be outlawed. It is entirely up to the woman what she does with her uterus."

My ONLY nephew, Austin John, is one of the most awesome people I've ever met. He was born prematurely. 24 weeks to be exact. He weighed 17.5 ounces at birth. I held him in my hand. HAND.

He stayed in the hospital for nine months because of respiratory problems.

Then he came home. A year later he was hardly larger than a skateboard.

He's about to graduate from sixth grade in two months. HE'S NEVER MISSED A DAY OF SCHOOL.

How do you reconcile that with the notion that A WOMAN IS RIGHT TO TERMINATE HER PREGNANCY UP UNTIL 37 WEEKS?

[Guaranteed]

100. So, you're saying that you disagree with that idea. Nice camouflage.

It's a woman's right to remove a fetus from her uterus whenever she damned well pleases. At any moment.

Again, in the third term, and you bring in viability, you have a different debate entirely. But that doesn't change the fact that you can't force her to maintain the pregnancy.

She has every MORAL right to do with her uterus what she wants.

A woman lending her uterus to a fetus, to grow, is a FAVOR she is doing to the fetus. She has no moral obligation to do so- the fetus does not own her uterus. It is her choice, at all times.

[Nederland]

132. Question

After a child is born, does a women (and the father if he is present in her life) have a moral obligation to provide for the child?

[SPKrazy]

140. Thank You For A Rational Post

this eating babies, killing 9 month old babies stuff is BULLSHIT

[slybacon9]

104. Let's just eat 9 month old fetuses. That way we will be healthy.

mmmmmm healthy.

[Guaranteed]

105. Hmmmm...that's tempting. nt

[Neil Lisst]

109. Ever read A MODEST PROPOSAL, by Jonathan Swift?

[LaPera]

116. Occasionally...

I stopped eating meat years ago...no big loss...and no big deal...not religious about it, nor do I feel immoral about eating it, (sometimes, perhaps)...though, I'm never obsessed about not eating it...

However, I do love to cook, and I do create incredible meat dishes for all my meat eating friends & son... That's where "occasionally" comes into play...I sometimes, do indulge in my cooking of foods with (meats) that all would adore...However, if I do eat it, in a kind of barbarian manner, (I seem to be just getting it over with, with a bit of joy, I suppose). Still, I always wonder why I gave in ...no real reason that I can convince myself of, except I realize, that truly after many years I don't really miss the taste. So then why? Once ones has ignored it for a while it really just seems to pass one by, (though sometimes I've convinced myself otherwise).

And I must be honest and say...I sometimes think about a Big Mac, maybe some salami. (I'm Italian) and a pork chop now and again...However, I (think) if I really wanted it... I'd simply eat it...with only a little bit of wonder & bewilderment as to why I did...Truly, mostly, I just don't miss it...And I feel better physically when I continue my life without it...

But I'm too hardcore as to believe...I'm doing it for any other reason (not to suggest I don't miss it "ocassionally", but I also know I won't be seduced by it...rememeber, after years, I'm still a novice)... Though consciously I know I really don't want, nor need it in my life!

[In_The_Wind]

120. Can I bring my own steak?

I like to know where it has been and what it has been eating.

[Samurai_Writer]

126. I didn't know there was a law banning eating meat

"Moralizing" has nothing to do with the argument if you are trying to compare eating meat with abortion. Last time I checked, you are free to eat all the meat you want, there are no laws restricting it. There are laws banning abortion and restricting a woman's right to sovereignty over her own body.

[0007]

128. I agree!

[SOS]

130. Simple consistency

The Buddha gave sound advice on these topics 2,500 years ago:

The Five Precepts of Buddhism

Do not kill sentient beings (includes animals)
Do not take what is not given
Do not lie
Do not behave in a sexually irresponsible fashion, and
Do not drink alcohol.

These five precepts will lead to a happier, more peaceful life, while alleviating the suffering of all creatures.

(Disclaimer: Just a time tested suggestion, not to be interpreted as telling anyone what to do)

[AngryAmish]

134. Why doesn't anyone think about the suffering of the plants?

How would you feel if your children were ripped from you and messily devoured by another creature? Do they lack rights simply because we are not smart enough to communicate with plants?

[bee]

136. I do.

when I pull a weed, I feel bad. I know. me = :freak:

[Donald Ian Rankin]

139. I'm afraid I disagree.

I think that your reasoning is perfectly correct until the foetus becomes self-aware - I believe at around about the 6th month, although I'm far from confident.

After that, I think should have limited rights of its own - initially the same degree of rights as a lobster, graduating up through dog and chimpanzee to human - I think that a nine-month-old foetus should have the same rights as a baby (note: *not* the same thing as saying that late-term abortion is morally equivalent to killing a baby; the impostition to the foetus is the same, but the justification on the part of the mother is immeasurably greater) and that abortion should be available only in certain circumstances (e.g. disability, rape/incest, risk to mother's health, arguably late-discovered pregnancy but arguably not) after the 6th trimester.

The "it's the mother's body" argument doesn't strike me as sufficient in itself. It's also the foetus's body. The rights of the mother are clearly more important (on the grounds that she's a fully self-aware person, whereas the foetus is only vestigially so) but the rights of an eight or nine month old are not, I think, completely negligable.

I'd characterise it as an equation: imposition on mother of being forced to carry to term against her will vs imposition on foetus times proportion of the rights of a self-aware adult human that the foetus has.

The first term is clearly very large; the second clearly even larger. The third starts out at zero, but I think that that ceases to be the case when it starts to develop self-awareness (although even at birth it's still not 1, I think).

Even then, I don't think there's anything to gain by prosecuting mothers who have late-term abortions, but I do think that it should probably be illegal to perform an abortion on a pregnancy more than sixish months advanced without one of the above circumstances or something similar applying.