Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Options
Replies
-
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.0 -
The OP's original questions seem to assume that meat-eating is a birthright that even vegetarian/vegan families should respect. I wonder how many people here feel that way.0
-
Aw, everyone is being so respectful here. Let me stir the pot a bit.
How are your opinions affected by the following facts?
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.
Okay, you've stirred the pot.
1. Vegetarians as a whole are healthier and live longer than meat eaters, DESPITE the fact that some vegetarians make poor diet choices.
http://newsinhealth.nih.gov/issue/Jul2012/Feature1
2.I have been a vegetarian since 1979, and I have never had a problem with balanced diet. What exactly are you saying? Are you saying all or most vegetarians are incapable of maintaining a balanced diet. If so, that is just wrong. We have an epidemic of obesity and diabetes in this country and it is NOT due to vegetarians.
3. Plants have neither brains nor nervous systems. They cannot feel pain, nor can they "want" anything. What you are saying is utter nonsense,
4. More nonsense. Kindly give me a link to this "research."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.0 -
The ethics of eating meat go beyond the family. It is more than a "personal choice." It is a choice that affects the whole planet.Eating meat is causing global warming:
It appears that what you're arguing against with your sources--and I admit I didn't read them all because I assumed they were there to reinforce some sort of hyperbolic rhetoric--is the system by which we eat meat now as a society. There may be some validity to that, but I think your statement "the ethics of eating meat go beyond the family." might rightly be rephrased to "the ethics of the way our meat eating habits affect our planet go beyond the family." The distinction there is that if I happened to raise my own chickens (I assume I would feed them with food I grow and only raise enough for my own family) or hunted pheasants and deer, etc, my carbon footprint is somewhat less than it is if I purchase a steak from a cattle ranching conglomerate. Now, not everyone has that option and even when people do have that option they don't exercise it. That's different than saying that eating meat is unethical. I guess I'm just more comfortable saying that our meat industry and habits may be unethical.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 think as parents, we all offer the best of our experience. I became a vegetarian in my teens, and was always queasy about cooking meat before that. Consequently, my culinary talents and knowledge of nutrition reflects that experience. Similarly, I would expect a meat-eating parent facing a 4 year-old who doesn't want to eat meat would be at a disadvantage.
Then there are the ethical issues. As parents, we try to instill our values into our children. We do this both consciously and unconsciously. Ultimately, the kids choose which ones they will adopt into adulthood, but it doesn't mean we don't try to influence them on points which we feel strongly about.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.html0 -
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?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.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.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.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
