We all agree that it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and death to animals. Causing animal suffering and death for "taste" is unnecessary

David and everyone else reading,

A cow, or a horse, or a dog, or a cat -- is there any difference? They are all sentient beings, they all have feelings, they all want to live and they all love their family!!!!!
We all agree that it is morally wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and death to animals -- and condemn people who for example enjoy and promote killing innocent dogs just because they got tired of them. However, we must also acknowledge that all animal products-eating is unnecessary and is done merely for "taste" and "enjoyment". So if we want to be moral we must also act upon what we acknowledge -that causing unnecessary suffering and death to animals is unnecessary.
The minimum requirement in order to accomplish this is to go vegan and inspire other people to become vegans.

The eating of a cow or drinking cow milk is directly causing the killing of cows, the splitting of families, parents losing their children and children losing the parents, immense suffering and death. All animal products are causing suffering to and killing animals.

I really recommend this lecture: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

The solution is to care of the animals we have, give them the best life we can get (since they can't survive in the wild because of our breeding) - including not killing them; and then to completely stop all domestication and breeding and the terrible suffering they are causing many animals.

Cancer breaking out in the body is caused by eating animal products. The cure is that we stop eating animal products and we will eliminate cancer from this earth:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DId_xJxbemQ
http://www.drmcdougall.com/

Utilitarianism isn't morally correct, doesn't defend animals, but are causing animals unnecessary suffering and death

I really don't understand this argument.
Most humans who are starving for example, and even dieing of starvation, would probably say they would have rather lived, than not living at all.
Many people living very good lives and then being murdered or dieing in war would say they same. However, by no means, does it morally justify that people are causing other people to starve or are murdering them.
I would want to live this life even if I suffered tremendously all life -- in order to inspire people to become vegan and to fulfill the purpose that I am here for.

But it does in no way state anything about the morality of any action.

Who said that an individual wouldn't live if he/she wasn't born as a cow or a human. It is an assumption. But even if an individual wasn't born - a not sentient, unborn individual (assuming that this was the case) has no interest to live, nor does she have a moral value - and thus one cannot say that it is more ethical to let an individual live a life of suffering and murder compared to not live at all.

Morality is not "subjective" or "utilitarian".
Morally, as we intuitively know it is: It is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering and death to another sentient being (e.g. murder or abuse).

According to 'utilitarianism' there is no such objective moral.
The utilitarian position fails in this regard, and fails to grant animals the rights they are granted in veganism (see e.g. this article: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/peter-singer-and-the-welfarist-position-on-the-lesser-value-of-nonhuman-life/#.UTr_6pfufpo ).

I recommend this book, "World Peace Diet" by Will Tuttle.

To repeat, an individual "not living at all" isn't harmed at all by "not living at all". Thus the reasoning is invalid.

In no way should this be used a justification for abusing cows by consuming dairy products; or abusing humans, or any other species.

They are suffering unnecessary and this is applicable 'The imposition of suffering on any sentient being requires an adequate moral justification and pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as adequate to justify imposing suffering on any sentient being'
All animals suffer at their death -regardless of slaughter method - and thus all murder by slaughter is immoral based on this premise: The imposition of suffering on any sentient being requires an adequate moral justification and pleasure, amusement, or convenience cannot suffice as adequate to justify imposing suffering on any sentient being

Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/moral-concern-moral-impulse-and-logical-argument-in-animal-rights-advocacy/#.USnI2lfA0Wk

Furthermore the most horrendous cases you can see of animal abuse is a consequence of animals being regarded as "property", which an individual preach each time he/she partake of animal products and endorse that animals are living confined.

I recommend this article: http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/

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 are having a huge environmental impact and is causing poverty and starvation:

"Globally, even with climate change issues and weather extremes, we are producing enough grain to feed two times as many people as there are in the world. In 2011, there was a record harvest of grain globally, with over 2.5 billion tons, but half of that was fed to animals in the meat and dairy industries. Seventy seven percent of all coarse grains (corn, oats, sorghum, barley, etc.) and over 90% of all soy grown in the world was fed to livestock. So clearly the difficulty is not how can we produce enough food to feed the hungry, but where all the food we produce globally is going, in addition to the other factors of pricing, policy making, and education. This will certainly become more of an issue as our planet’s human population extends beyond 9 billion before the year 2050."
http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/the-world-hunger-food-choice-connection-a-summary/
See also this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fws0f9s4Bas&feature=em-uploademail
[Thanks to Johan for the links]

Quote: "In fact, dairy cows likely live net-positive lives (better for them to have lived in a dairy farm than not lived at all)."