Claims of "health benefits" of drinking probiotic milk or eating fish does not justify exploitation of animals

You wrote” That being said, I'm not sure if humans consuming a little animal products is blatantly immoral if it is what our bodies are conditioned to do, and in some instances, like eating fish and probiotic dairy, can benefit our bodies in ways that are difficult to synthesize.”

Even if there was any health benefit of consuming animal products this wouldn’t justify us to breed animals into slavery, to use them, to exploit them, to hurt them and to kill them, just in order to get the health benefits. Just as any potential health benefit of drinking human milk for human adults, wouldn’t justify us to exploit a human mother. To get cow milk you have to impregnate a cow without her approval, to breed a baby into an existence of slavery and to coerce the cow into milking. This is what is done in the cow milk industry. Most humans understand that doing the exact same thing to a human woman is unethical. Most people don’t understand that doing this to a woman of the species ‘cow’ is unethical. Our culture justifies the exploitation of a cow because of being vastly influenced by the erroneous and immoral ideology of speciecism – discrimination based on species.

Domestication of animals is violence, it is slavery, and it has also resulted in human slavery, oppression against women, and other forms of oppression that is rampant in our society. Learn more in this book: http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-15188-7/animal-oppression-and-human-violence#.UZAIageHrdk.facebook
Breeding an animal into captivity is morally wrong. Everyone understands this is the case with humans; however because of the vast influence of speciecism most people don’t understand it is wrong to breed an animal into captivity and to a life being controlled by a human. More of why domestication is wrong can be found here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/#.UZvJ45xYV8E

“Speciesism and human slavery are similar in that in all cases animals and enslaved humans have a basic interest in not being treated as things and yet are treated as things on the basis of morally irrelevant criteria. To deny animals this basic right simply because they are animals is like saying that we should not abolish race-based slavery because of the perceived inferiority of the slaves’ race. The argument used to support slavery and the argument used to support animal exploitation are structurally similar: we exclude beings with interests from the moral community because there is some supposed difference between ‘them’ and ‘us’ that has nothing to do with the inclusion of these beings in the moral community. The animal rights position maintains that if we believe that animals have moral significance, the principle of equal consideration requires that we stop treating them as things.” – Gary Francione [ https://www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach ]

As for the health benefits, I don’t believe in it. Fish is unhealthy: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2003nl/030200pufishisnothealthfood.htm ; dairy is also unhealthy: http://drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/mar/dairy.htm
Want health, eat a starch based diet: http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2008nl/jan/grains.htm

----
Further comments about speciecism:
Do you see the words on the truck -- "Livestock Auction"?

When else, in human history, did we auction off sentient beings? Oh yeah. When we had chattel slavery. And the only difference is species which is not an acceptable criteria to justify treating others as commodities, to justify exploiting and killing others.