Reply to counter-argument: 'Humans are omnivores and thus it is moral to consume meat'

An omnivore does not get health problems from consuming animal foods.
Humans do.
Please study the research behind this movie: www.adelicatebalance.com.au/
Some of it:
http://www.thechinastudy.com/the-china-study/about/


Animal Foods are unhealthy (includes References to peer-reviewed studies):
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/uprooting-the-leading-causes-of-death/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/more-than-an-apple-a-day-preventing-our-most-common-diseases/




And even if we could consume animal foods without getting health problems, so what???

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)


We can live and thrive on a vegan diet, so killing and harming animals for food in our society is completely unnecessary. The only "justification" is that it tastes good/convenience -- and pleasure is no moral justification for hurting and killing an animal. I recommend you to study this article : http://articles.philly.com/2009-08-14/news/24986151_1_atlanta-falcons-quarterback-vick-illegal-dog-dog-fights

More answers to common Counter-arguments you will find here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/faqs/#.UfTXK237aQI

and http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/

-----

Do you think it’s wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on animals?  Of course you do.

Here’s the problem:  at least 99.99% of animal use, which results in the suffering and death of animals, is unnecessary!  At least 99.99% of  animal use is for food, but humans can easily get their nutrition from plants.

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.” — Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (formerly the American Dietetic Association)

We kill 56 billion land-animals per year, more than 1000 billion marine animals mostly for food. And, as you can imagine, the process of turning living, breathing, feeling animals into “products” is horrifically violent.

Typically, people think the way to respect animals is to adopt a vegetarian diet (no flesh/meat) because they think animals used for eggs and dairy products are not killed.  Or they think they should purchase “humane” animal products like cage-free eggs.  But those are misconceptions because they still cause unnecessary suffering and death.http://abolitionistvegansociety.org/tavs-initiatives/tavs-articles/why-veganism/#.UfTCjm37aQI

" I just wanna know what's gonna happen to cows,sheep and chikens after we stopped eating and using their products.?"

This is a reply to:
" I just wanna know what's gonna happen to cows,sheep and chikens after we stopped eating and using their products.?"

This is a good respone to your question:
“But… What would happen to all of those animals if we did not eat them? This is an easy one: If we stop consuming animal foods, we would stop bringing domesticated animals into existence. Period. What would we do with the animals we have here now? (..) It is not an option to just release these animals into the wild. The cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc. that we see today are not wild animals. They were domesticated by us to be “food” animals.”

Quote: http://www.eatlikeyoucarebook.com/
Francione, Gary; Charlton, Anna (2013-06-24). Eat Like You Care: An Examination of the Morality of Eating Animals (Kindle Location 748). Exempla Press. Kindle Edition.

We should take care of the animals that are here now until they die a natural death and just not bring more into existence. We should stop bringing domesticated animals into existence. This is a good article with the ethical problems of domestication: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/

Should non-human animals be vegan?? Is it immoral for carnivores to eat animals?

Stephanie,

You wrote: “Why are you holding other species to human-invented standards, as if we are "better" than they are?”

I believe ‘“all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.” is a universal moral principle, not a ‘human-invented standard’. ‘Human-invented standard’ sounds like postmodernism (i.e. morals are relative, not absolute), and I know you don’t adhere to this.

But if we believe in an absolute moral, why would we think that this moral would follow arbitrary taxonomic concepts?

Why would we think that that a universal moral principle wouldn’t apply on some species that evolved to become carnivores? If humans would evolve to become carnivores, then suddenly the universal moral principle would be invalid just because of a change in DNA? Why would it??

You wrote: “That's one of the causes of domestication, trying to make other species into what we would have them be.”

The cause of domestication is violence – using violence to exploit and enslave other sentient beings. I am not advocating universal moral principles using violence. The cause of domestication is the use of violence, instead of love, compassion and nonviolence. I am not using violence towards anyone to act according to the above belief of nonviolence.The end doesn’t justify the means.

“and start doing things YOUR WAY.”

I argue what I believe is a universal principle of not inflicting harm upon others. I believe we are all consciousness. I think that claiming that the non-human animals don’t have any ethical standard to keep is underestimating who they are, their purpose, and that is focusing on their body and DNA instead of their spiritual consciousness.

[Part 1 of 2]

Cannibalism among the primates is a social behavior, as is eating other animal products. Gorillas and many vegan humans are leading the way – showing how to eat in an ethical way.

One quote: "The one historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals. We have moved from viewing animals as instinct-driven stimulus-response machines to seeing them as sophisticated decision makers. "

Another quote:
"Dale Peterson, one of the world’s leading chimpanzee researchers, once mentioned to me that he believes chimps given the opportunity to satisfy their hunger with plant sources may very well ponder the morality of eating other animals. Could they be evolving ethically, just as we humans are?"
From an interesting article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html

Another quote: ”Primatologist Jane Goodall became the first to describe such behavior when she witnesses a mother-daughter duo of chimpanzees kill and eat three chimpanzee infants in 1976 and since, it has been described by a number of other researchers. There are a number of possible explanations for such behavior. Due to human encroachment, food is becoming scarcer and more chimpanzees are being cramped into a smaller and smaller area which is a recipe for disaster. As this happens, different groups of primates will be forced into conflict with one another and are fighting territorial debates. Interestingly enough, a study of one group of chimpanzees found that only the aggressive females were involved in the cannibalism of chimpanzee infants. Male chimps were even spotted trying to separate the females from the infants, males that researchers believed to have fathered the infants in question which suggests that chimpanzees have more highly developed social and familial ties than once believed.”
[Related to this article: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Female-Chimps-Practice-Heavily-Infanticide-and-Cannibalism-54687.shtml ]

Who is doing the right thing??: The chimpanzee trying to save the baby, or the chimpanzee trying to kill the baby? Or does a moral universal principle not apply at all?? If so – why not?