Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
Please provide your sources that state the thought process of plants and animals not wanting to be eaten. I'm just curious how we know the thoughts of animals and plants.3. Plants don't want to die any more than animals do, and have a surprising variety of defense mechanisms to avoid being eaten/alert other plants to danger.0 -
As far as ethics go, parents can explain their positions and let the kids choose, vegan or otherwise. As far as health goes, I think all parents can do is the best they can and hope they're right...even though they won't be from time to time.
Are you saying ALL children should be given the choice of a vegan or meat-inclusive diet? Or, are you saying only children in families eating a minority diet (veganism in the US, for instance) should be offered a choice? Should Hindu children of vegetarian parents be offered a choice in India where vegetarianism is a majority diet? Does the dominant diet mean it should be accepted as the default?
I'm saying that parents should do what they think is right and best for the child with the understanding that their kids are going to do whatever it is they want to do past a certain age. Additionally, the parents decision about what's right should be informed and reasoned; that's where the debate comes in when we talk about specific diets. Whether or not a parent should expose their child to all their options is sort of irrelevant to me because I don't think it *necessarily* affects the health of the child one way or the other, though it certainly could.
Given the proper composition, there's nothing inherently unhealthy about a vegetarian diet. The same can be said for a one that includes meat.
I disagree. While it is possible to have a healthy diet that includes meat, virtually all the studies show that eating meat is correlated with chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. A british study shows that while it is possible to have a healthy diet eating meat, the amount of meat in that diet must not be more than 70 grams per week, that is one quarter pounder every week and a half maximum. Few Americans who eat meat eat that little.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8335986/Eat-less-red-meat-Government-scientists-warn.html
Yes, but does this research take into account that we are not eating the lean meats of our ancestors, rather the bulk processed meats and mass produced fatty beef of today's society. Lean turkey, beef, and fish are surely not as likely to give you chronic dieseases as McDonald's beef patties, or a I wrong?
I know of no research that addresses that point. I have seen research that says the so-called Paleo diet is not particularly healthy, if that is where you are going. But I am not sure what ancestors you are referring to.
No, not paleo. I have heard pros and cons for it, but I think they are on the right track not eating processed foods. I was just wondering if anyone had done a study like that. Obviously a person who eats things like ground turkey instead of fatty beefs is going to be healthier. And a lot of asian cultures eat fish and do not have the health problems associated with the standard american diet. That is where I was going. Of course a diet consisting of Big Macs, Prime Rib, and such is going to have problems. But in moderation?0 -
Please provide your sources that state the thought process of plants and animals not wanting to be eaten. I'm just curious how we know the thoughts of animals and plants.3. Plants don't want to die any more than animals do, and have a surprising variety of defense mechanisms to avoid being eaten/alert other plants to danger.
If only science fiction could be real: http://www.veganise.me/hitchhiker0 -
As far as ethics go, parents can explain their positions and let the kids choose, vegan or otherwise. As far as health goes, I think all parents can do is the best they can and hope they're right...even though they won't be from time to time.
Are you saying ALL children should be given the choice of a vegan or meat-inclusive diet? Or, are you saying only children in families eating a minority diet (veganism in the US, for instance) should be offered a choice? Should Hindu children of vegetarian parents be offered a choice in India where vegetarianism is a majority diet? Does the dominant diet mean it should be accepted as the default?
I'm saying that parents should do what they think is right and best for the child with the understanding that their kids are going to do whatever it is they want to do past a certain age. Additionally, the parents decision about what's right should be informed and reasoned; that's where the debate comes in when we talk about specific diets. Whether or not a parent should expose their child to all their options is sort of irrelevant to me because I don't think it *necessarily* affects the health of the child one way or the other, though it certainly could.
Given the proper composition, there's nothing inherently unhealthy about a vegetarian diet. The same can be said for a one that includes meat.
I disagree. While it is possible to have a healthy diet that includes meat, virtually all the studies show that eating meat is correlated with chronic diseases such as heart disease and cancer. A british study shows that while it is possible to have a healthy diet eating meat, the amount of meat in that diet must not be more than 70 grams per week, that is one quarter pounder every week and a half maximum. Few Americans who eat meat eat that little.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8335986/Eat-less-red-meat-Government-scientists-warn.html
Yes, but does this research take into account that we are not eating the lean meats of our ancestors, rather the bulk processed meats and mass produced fatty beef of today's society. Lean turkey, beef, and fish are surely not as likely to give you chronic dieseases as McDonald's beef patties, or a I wrong?
I know of no research that addresses that point. I have seen research that says the so-called Paleo diet is not particularly healthy, if that is where you are going. But I am not sure what ancestors you are referring to.
No, not paleo. I have heard pros and cons for it, but I think they are on the right track not eating processed foods. I was just wondering if anyone had done a study like that. Obviously a person who eats things like ground turkey instead of fatty beefs is going to be healthier. And a lot of asian cultures eat fish and do not have the health problems associated with the standard american diet. That is where I was going. Of course a diet consisting of Big Macs, Prime Rib, and such is going to have problems. But in moderation?
Extreme moderation, I would think. I think your conclusions above are correct, but I am not sure looking at what our ancestors ate makes much sense. Their lifestyle was totally different, and they spent a great deal of time either avoiding danger or searching for or trying to produce food. As it was early neolithic man only lived to 35 or 40, so we have no idea what effect his diet had on diseases that generally present later, such as heart disease or cancer. In fact we have little idea what the diet was other than in specific locations where sites have been excavated.0 -
If you're doing it at all, I think you need to take some growth and development and nutrition courses. After that, sure, your kid, your rules. See how that works out when the kid is a teenager, though. :laugh:
My oldest is 20, going into his 2nd year of law school. He is a lifelong vegetarian who is 6 ft tall and weight proportionate. He also has a black belt in karate, which I mention to let you know he is neither pale nor wane. :laugh:
Edit: Oh yeah, and all this was done without a single nutrition or growth & development course.
You might not have needed one, but if I'd decided my son should be vegetarian like I was, I would have needed those classes for sure. I wasn't the healthiest vegetarian eater in the world. And I've seen other vegetarians eat almost as bad as I did. I wouldn't wish that on a kid.
A lot of kids--vegetarian or not--are picky eaters who live on a few foods like pizza, mac & cheese, chicken nuggets and fruit juice. I'm not advocating this, by the way. But, kids are amazingly flexible creatures, who look like they survive by consuming air alone at times. I think kids that eat enough calories generally balance out over time. One of my children is a picky eater--one day I entered her largely monotonous diet into my food dairy to see how it balanced out. Darn if the macros and micros weren't impressive! I wasn't expecting that at all.
That's good to know. I often wonder if I'm not a bit shorter and dumber than I should have been thanks to being a picky eater who would literally rather starve sometimes than eat something like cottage cheese. Maybe I was okay, after all.
As for my kid, he's a much healthier eater than I ever was. Hardly ever eats junk, likes fish, veggies, and when his allergies don't give him a sore throat, he doesn't even drink soda that often. But if I'd turned him vegetarian, he would have been eating way too many processed frozen veggie meals and junk because that's mostly what I ate.0 -
As far as ethics go, parents can explain their positions and let the kids choose, vegan or otherwise. As far as health goes, I think all parents can do is the best they can and hope they're right...even though they won't be from time to time.
Personally, I don't happen to believe there's anything wrong with eating dead animals as a generalization, though I'm sure there would complications and exceptions to that. Being part of the society I'm in, I still think it's taboo to eat other people, for example. Other people obviously think there's a problem with eating "animals" and that's fine. At some point it just boils down to people holding different values as "Truths."
I do think there are ethical problems with the way we raise the animals that we do generally consider to be acceptable food options. I'm against torture, though not killing. I think animals can be killed humanely. There's definitely contention on that point, I realize.
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
-Debra0 -
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
Although I can understand, I think, where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Humans are fundamentally different from other animals and the evidence of that is that we are having this discussion. I don't see anything like this discussion going on in the animal world (beyond humans). Human life is different from animal life insofar as we are capable of activities and understanding and choosing that go beyond mere animal existence. If you can show me that animal life other than human life is able to be concerned about their existence, the morality of taking their lives, questions of meaning, etc., then we can make a reasonable comparison. I don't see any evidence of that. Having said that, I don't think animal life should be treated as "nothing." We should be grateful for the human benefits derived from the use of other animals and plants. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that in mind as part of our overall attitude of gratitude as we receive the food (and other things) necessary for our own lives in this world.0 -
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
Although I can understand, I think, where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Humans are fundamentally different from other animals and the evidence of that is that we are having this discussion. I don't see anything like this discussion going on in the animal world (beyond humans). Human life is different from animal life insofar as we are capable of activities and understanding and choosing that go beyond mere animal existence. If you can show me that animal life other than human life is able to be concerned about their existence, the morality of taking their lives, questions of meaning, etc., then we can make a reasonable comparison. I don't see any evidence of that. Having said that, I don't think animal life should be treated as "nothing." We should be grateful for the human benefits derived from the use of other animals and plants. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that in mind as part of our overall attitude of gratitude as we receive the food (and other things) necessary for our own lives in this world.
I have to disagree here - I don't think that just because other animals don't possess the same intellect gives us carte blanche to slaughter them. To make a bit of an extreme comparison, there are humans who lack the mental capacity to ponder their own existence, question the meaning of life, etc - but that doesn't give us permission to eat them.
I don't believe it's the question of "can they think" or "can they reason" rather than "can they suffer". In 2012, the consumption of meat is completely unnecessary for human survival - we can thrive on a meatless diet. Any consumption of animal flesh or secretion is done out of pure greed and gustatory pleasure, no matter how much "gratitude" we show.0 -
I have to disagree here - I don't think that just because other animals don't possess the same intellect gives us carte blanche to slaughter them. To make a bit of an extreme comparison, there are humans who lack the mental capacity to ponder their own existence, question the meaning of life, etc - but that doesn't give us permission to eat them.
I don't believe it's the question of "can they think" or "can they reason" rather than "can they suffer". In 2012, the consumption of meat is completely unnecessary for human survival - we can thrive on a meatless diet. Any consumption of animal flesh or secretion is done out of pure greed and gustatory pleasure, no matter how much "gratitude" we show
No, we can't eat humans that lack the capacity to think, ponder their own existence, etc. I am not arguing that humans are valuable only when they are using the powers of rationality, freedom, etc. I'm arguing that humans are intrinsically valuable because they are the sort of creatures who can exercise such powers (under the right conditions). Consequently, infants, young children, the mentally retarded, the comatose and those who sleep (and any I left out) are still intrinsically valuable because, again, of the kind of creatures they are, not merely because of what they happen to be do doing at the moment. I suppose the question I have for you is: What is it that makes animal life intrinsically valuable and what makes it morally wrong to take the life of an animal? I've explained why I think it is wrong to take human life: We are capable of transcending our material existence in rational thought, free actions, love, hope, and, I believe, unending happiness in union with God. I don't see evidence for any of these in other animals. So, again, what basis do you have for saying it is morally wrong to take the life of an animal?0 -
In addition, I respect vegans and the dietary choices they make. I just find it interesting when the debate turns to animals having the same life value as human beings.
Again, if we were vegetarians, our children would be raised that way too.0 -
My kids eat what my wife and I provide for them. If they don't like it they can choose not to eat. What we eat is not really relevant.0
-
In addition, I respect vegans and the dietary choices they make. I just find it interesting when the debate turns to animals having the same life value as human beings.
Again, if we were vegetarians, our children would be raised that way too.
I find it interesting when humans try to elevate themselves to the top of or beyond the Animal Kingdoms. To do so, they rationalize their so-called intrinsic rights.
Parents - vegan or carnivores or somewhere inbetween - are imperfect. The best we can do is teach kids that we don't know everything and give them the tools of curiosity, strength, and kindness to go out into the world and learn better ways to live. Children are, after all, not possessions but gifts that we send.
-Debra0 -
I find it interesting when humans try to elevate themselves to the top of or beyond the Animal Kingdoms. To do so, they rationalize their so-called intrinsic rights
I don't think I "tried" to elevate humans to the top of the Animal Kingdom. It is an objective fact that we are at the top of the animal world. Last I looked, humans are the ones conquering, understanding, studying and mastering the animal world, not the other animals. I haven't read any books lately by lower animals explaining the nature of animal life, why they are superior to humans, etc. Humans are only ones, as far as I have evidence to examine, who even ponder whether or not humans are above the other animals. The power to contemplate our place in the world, what it all means, etc., is a power not possessed by the other animals (by all evidences). Plants are lower than animals because animals not only live (like plants) but also have sensory powers and powers of self-motion (among other things). Humans are higher than plants because we live (like plants do) but have the higher powers of animals. By the same logic, humans are higher than lower animals because we possess powers of reason and freedom (giving rise to the countless things we have they don't have: sense of history, poetry, religion, science, culture, etc, etc.).
Further, are you claiming that claims to "intrinsic rights" are an illusion and not grounded in reality? If so, are you saying that all value-judgments are subjective and merely opinion? If so, how can you criticize anyone else's opinion or judgment?0 -
Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
0 -
Another article making my point that plants are people, too, who engage in typical people activities like napalming, moving, hunting, and killing freeloaders of species that they live with symbiotically. This one admittedly from a comedy website:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19456_8-things-you-wont-believe-plants-do-when-no-ones-looking.html0 -
Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
Plants dont have cute little faces,thats why its ok to eat them.0 -
Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
I am sorry, but the fact that plants have genetic defenses against environmental stress and pathogens does not mean that they "want" to survive, in the sense that they are "thinking." This is akin to white blood cells in humans. The white blood cells do not have mentation ability any more than plants do, and do not feel pain, any more than plants do. It is basic biology that only the higher animals, i.e., those with nervous systems and brains can think, fear or feel pain.
Your analogy between plants and animals does not hold.0 -
I feed my daughter all kinds of food, including meat. If later in life she decides she wants to go vegan or whatever new name people come up with, then she can feel free to do so.
I know a couple of people who ate meat/variety of foods then switched to becoming vegans only to switch back later to trying to incorporate meats/all foods into their diets only to find that they could no longer eat meat or other foods because it made them sick.
I think that if this can be the case, I don't want to risk the health of my daughter because of my habits. I will let her choose down the line, when she is not 2 whether or not she wants to eat meat.0 -
All this discussion about plants having 'feelings' too is moot. If you care so much about plants, then why don't you care about animals?0
-
Did you know that it was only in the past few years that scientists could prove that animals feel pain, and that it's not just a genetic defense against harm? So I'm not entirely sure why you think that not having a nervous system in the same sense animals do means that plants can't feel. Furthermore, there are a number of animal species that do effectively function as a single organism, including getting smarter in proportion to the number of individuals in the hive, in which case, the individual animal is analogous to your white blood cell example.Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
I am sorry, but the fact that plants have genetic defenses against environmental stress and pathogens does not mean that they "want" to survive, in the sense that they are "thinking." This is akin to white blood cells in humans. The white blood cells do not have mentation ability any more than plants do, and do not feel pain, any more than plants do. It is basic biology that only the higher animals, i.e., those with nervous systems and brains can think, fear or feel pain.
Your analogy between plants and animals does not hold.0 -
I feed my daughter all kinds of food, including meat. If later in life she decides she wants to go vegan or whatever new name people come up with, then she can feel free to do so.
I know a couple of people who ate meat/variety of foods then switched to becoming vegans only to switch back later to trying to incorporate meats/all foods into their diets only to find that they could no longer eat meat or other foods because it made them sick.
I think that if this can be the case, I don't want to risk the health of my daughter because of my habits. I will let her choose down the line, when she is not 2 whether or not she wants to eat meat.
I am trying to understand your reasoning. Are you saying you want to expose your daughter to the broadest range of foods possible? I ask, because when it comes right down to it, we only eat a few animal species. Looking globally and historically, people ate more insects than mammals. Even, the Army survival manual encourages a...erm...broader diet when clinging to life in the wilderness. So, why only expose your daughter to the flesh of chickens, cows, pigs and sheep?0 -
Who said I don't care about animals? Or that I do care about plants? I'm just saying that I disagree with the ethical argument for vegetarianism on the basis that, no matter what I eat, something will suffer and die.All this discussion about plants having 'feelings' too is moot. If you care so much about plants, then why don't you care about animals?
I am not advocating that humans become carnivorous because plants are people, too. :flowerforyou:
Actually, not :flowerforyou: because :flowerforyou: is a filthy plant-murderer.0 -
Who said I don't care about animals? Or that I do care about plants? I'm just saying that I disagree with the ethical argument for vegetarianism on the basis that, no matter what I eat, something will suffer and die.All this discussion about plants having 'feelings' too is moot. If you care so much about plants, then why don't you care about animals?
I am not advocating that humans become carnivorous because plants are people, too. :flowerforyou:
Actually, not :flowerforyou: because :flowerforyou: is a filthy plant-murderer.
I am not seriously implying that you are a cruel plant-murderer. LOLZ.
I am talking about your argument. Are you saying that both plants and animals feel pain, so it really doesn't matter what we eat because the result is the same? Do you believe that, or is this for rhetorical effect? I find it hard that anyone would truly equate the two in terms of net suffering.
All the people here who have argued that we should have deep compassion for plants, seem so sensitive to the tender 'souls'. So why do they mow their lawns? That's merely cosmetic, and yet they subject millions of grass plants to amputation several times each summer.0 -
Who said I don't care about animals? Or that I do care about plants? I'm just saying that I disagree with the ethical argument for vegetarianism on the basis that, no matter what I eat, something will suffer and die.All this discussion about plants having 'feelings' too is moot. If you care so much about plants, then why don't you care about animals?
I am not advocating that humans become carnivorous because plants are people, too. :flowerforyou:
Actually, not :flowerforyou: because :flowerforyou: is a filthy plant-murderer.
A person after my own heart
0 -
I would really like to get back to the question at hand: 'Forcing your child to be vegan/vegetarian.'
At the heart of this question, there seems to be a basic tenet and that is: Children have the right to live mainstream lives, even within families with minority opinions. I would even go so far to say that the question implies that people are born with a right to eat meat, and that vegetarian parents are ignoring this basic right to choose.
I would really like to explore that idea.0 -
I feed my daughter all kinds of food, including meat. If later in life she decides she wants to go vegan or whatever new name people come up with, then she can feel free to do so.
I know a couple of people who ate meat/variety of foods then switched to becoming vegans only to switch back later to trying to incorporate meats/all foods into their diets only to find that they could no longer eat meat or other foods because it made them sick.
I think that if this can be the case, I don't want to risk the health of my daughter because of my habits. I will let her choose down the line, when she is not 2 whether or not she wants to eat meat.
I am trying to understand your reasoning. Are you saying you want to expose your daughter to the broadest range of foods possible? I ask, because when it comes right down to it, we only eat a few animal species. Looking globally and historically, people ate more insects than mammals. Even, the Army survival manual encourages a...erm...broader diet when clinging to life in the wilderness. So, why only expose your daughter to the flesh of chickens, cows, pigs and sheep?
No, I am not "exposing" my daughter to anything out of the ordinary. She just eats a balanced diet like I do which consists of grains, meat, fish, vegetables, breads, diary, you know the way it has been for centuries. If when she is 18, 40, 60, 80 she decides she wants to cut out whatever from her diet, go for it but I am not going to restrict her at the age of 2 to eating nuts and berries or fake imitations of bacon or any kind of food that is modeled to imitate meat. You know for being vegans and vegetarians, you sure do obsess a lot over meat.0 -
You know for being vegans and vegetarians, you sure do obsess a lot over meat.
What do you mean by this? Why wouldn't this question be of interest to vegetarians?0 -
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
Indeed, plants have an internal dynamism to live, just like all living things. Consequently, they adapt to their environment and “find” ways to survive. I do not see evidence, however, that they possess consciousness and therefore their not “wanting” die is not the same as humans “not wanting” to die. In other words, I think some amount of anthropomorphism is taking place when you compare the plant unconscious striving for life with human longing for life (In other words, you are transferring human experience to plants because of some measure of similarity in their material processes). Additionally, I don’t see evidence that either plants or lower animals see death the same way we do. Humans see death, among other things, as contrary to their longing to live forever. I don’t see that plants or other animals have the slightest notion of such things. As a result, I don’t feel any moral guilt when I kill an ant, mosquito or the weeds in my yard.0 -
I will raise my child as a vegan or, at the very least, vegetarian. I will not force them, but I will teach them and show them.
Habits are easily formed in early life.
To the people who posted R.E growth and development. Do some research.0 -
1. Many vegetarians do not eat a healthy diet, relying on high-fat and high-carbohydrate items for calories.
2. It is very difficult to get balanced nutrition on a vegan diet, and many vegans take multivitamins in order to get nutrients that most people get without problem from meat.
3. Plants don't want to die any more than animals do, and have a surprising variety of defense mechanisms to avoid being eaten/alert other plants to danger.
4. Research shows that certain people are physically unable to keep to a vegetarian diet, and physicians often advocate vegetarian patients who feel unwell to add fish once a week to their diet.
1. Why does high-fat and high-carb automatically equal unhealthy? Avocados and peanut butters are high in fat, rice and pasta are all high carb, but each of these can have a place in a healthy diet.
2. Balanced nutrition isn't an issue strictly limited to vegan diets - there are plenty of omnivores out there who struggle to meet their dietary needs. With just a little planning, vegan nutrition is easy - we just get it from different sources. The only issue would be B12, which can be eaten through plant-based sources (after all, that's how cows and other animals get it), but in a lot of cases, it's simply easier to take a supplement.
3. Generally, at least from my own experience, vegetarians and vegans take issue with perpetuating the pain, suffering and slaughter of other sentient beings. Cows, pigs, chickens and other animals all have brains, nervous systems and are capable of suffering - at least for me, it's that issue that causes me to lead an animal-free lifestyle. If research comes that plants really are capable of feeling pain, suffering and loss like animals are, maybe I will reconsider my choices, but for now, I, and other vegans, are doing their best to reduce the amount of suffering in the world - we do, however, recognize that this does not mean we can necessarily eliminate suffering.
4. This isn't really a valid argument - you could state this for anything that requires above-average effort, say, running a marathon or getting into an Ivy-League university. Sure there are people who aren't "cut out for it" - but really that just means they don't want to put in the extra effort. The same can be said for people who turn to fast food and processed meals instead of cooking for themselves - it's not really a valid argument against a meatless lifestyle.
You rock.0
This discussion has been closed.