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.
 

Veganism is --eating with love and compassion and disregarding any "taste buds" that promote violence, suffering and death to animals

If we think this is unethical:

However e.g. to mention that there are 600 million vegetarian persons (and he includes those who are eating eggs and milk in this definition), fails to address the death and suffering eating animals products causes other sentient beings:

[For anyone that is unaware of this: ]
If we think this is unethical:

Cows to be raped (impregnated against their will) every year (because a cow produces milk for 'only' a year), heavily abused, having their milk stolen, having their calves stolen the same day or some days after they conceive them (so that humans can get their milk) EVERY year, having the cows drained of calcium that they need, having their male calves (who where stolen from them :(  ]slaughtered for "meat" being 6 months or 18 months old, having the "milk cows" being killed 5 years old because that they can't produce enough milk.

then we must stop causing this to occur by our dietary choices.
Animals life, purpose and health MUST be more important than our taste buds.
We can't just ignore this. Their life matters as much to them, as our life matters to us. They want to live as much as we want to live. They don't want to be abused as we don't want to be abused.

This is a wonderful movie with cows (non gory): http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vcQ6yBEE5N0
Animals have the right to be free and not to be enslaved. I really recommend this article: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/

If you research e.g. the website www.vegankit.com you will understand that any kind of animal use is wrong, and that it perpetuates the status of animals as "property", which is the cause of the most horrendous physical animal abuses. If you understand this you can in no way participate in any kind of use of animal, since you are both confining and exploiting an animal and are perpetuating the "property"-status of animals, with all of its negative consequences.

----

Growing plant-based foods in ones own land is a great idea!
Regarding the cows:
How could we take something from someone else that doesn't belong to us, e.g. milk?
How could we impregnate an individual against her will (regardless of species)l?
How could we drain someone on the calcium that she needs (regardless of species)?
How could we separate a mother from her calf - which is done in all milk operations? Furthermore, no one affords to feed all the cows (one more calf per year, because of making the cow pregnant, so that humans can get more milk), so male calves are sent to slaughter (or in a non-kill operation, which is extremely rare, they are used in other ways, perpetuating the "animal as property"-notion, which is the cause of all suffering humans impose on animals in this world.

Except for all of the suffering,pain, slavery and death that is inflicted on the animals -- which is never ethical and can never be justified by any means - ALL diary operations (and operations with other animal products) (and grass-fed cows are having a bigger environmental impact because of that they release more methane gas) are having a huge environmental impact and is causing poverty,starvation and huge global warming, which will cause a vast amounts of droughts and floods with many more people and other animals killed:
See also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas&feature=em-uploademail

The plant-based foods that the more than 56 billion land animals (who have the sadly misfortune to grow up to become someones food - and this include "milk cows") brutally slaughtered each year eats could feed more than 9 billion people.
6 million children are dieing of starvation in the world each year. Hundreds of millions don't get enough food. If we care of them we must let our eating habits reflect this. If everyone ate plant-based food, the food would suffice for everyone's need.
More information: http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/