I'm pro-life for humans not animals. Not hard to understand. There are around 3,000 surgical abortions per day in America, that's outrageous. It's a religious aspect, if the unborn die without first being baptised after birth they are sent to Limbo where they will be alone, lost in between worlds. Animals were put on Earth for humans to use as food, it says so in the Bible whether you personally believe it or not that's why conservatives think this way. The Pro-Choice are also hypocritical as they like to rant on about how they support the "my body my choice" yet they are the same one's who shame people for not getting the Covid vaccination. Suddenly the "my body my choice" rule doesn't apply. It just doesn't surprise me though that a pro-choice believer is trying to outweigh the life of an animal over the life of a human.
"I'm pro-life for humans not animals. Not hard to understand." No one said it's hard to understand; it's just hypocritical because you're not "pro-life." Just anti-abortion. The fate of that child after birth means nothing to you (hypothetically). And like I said to someone else, if "humans are superior," then that would not/could not also apply within humanity, since humans are just animals, as well. In other words, if you believe "humans are superior" (for some unknown reasons), then you also have to accept that "some humans are also superior to other humans."
Also, religion isn't real. You can't make a logical argument out of fairy tales with talking snakes and magic fruit in it.
And I'm not here to talk about COVID vaccines, but I agree, that is even bigger hypocrisy.
I am not emotionally invested in abortions/being pro-life, by the way. I am merely asking why being pro-life for humans, but pro-choice for animals, isn't hypocritical.
What? Animals kill their own all the time! Including their own offspring. Especially birds, spiders, bears, most felines, and so on. Infanticide is "naturally biological" in the extreme.
a murderer is a murderer and it is really all about selfishness. It is all about I , me, I am. Abortion has nothing to do with eating meat. God allows us to eat meat and God sees no comparison between humans and animals. We are far and above superior to animals. Animals can't be saved , only humans can.
"We are far and above superior to animals." What about the human beings who see some other human beings as "less than human?" I won't name specific groups, but I think you know what kind of "less than human" people I mean. But anyone could make this same argument.
"I don't like gays. They're less than human. It's okay to kill animals that engage in anal sex. God says so." (And I only chose gays as a random example; it could be any group of people; whites, men, Christians, etc.)
It is very flawed logic to just say "God lets me do whatever I want."
@marish01 I don't agree with your point at all, because murder is the premeditated action of killing another living human being. A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being, let alone a "living" human being. If it was murder, it wouldn't be legal to begin with. Also, by your same logic, anyone can be killed if you simply deem them to be "less than human" or "an animal." Even though humans are just animals, to begin with.
In other words, none of that makes any sense.
I took a break on this question, because 40 responses in a row was too much for an issue I'm not even that passionate about.
Tbh I didn't even want to start a conversation with you but since you wasted your time to write such a long comment I feel obligated to reply
"A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being, let alone a "living" human being." By your logic the 9 month old unborn becomes a human being right at the second it comes out from their mother's womb. And how is unborn not living? It can die. But before dying it is alive. "Even though humans are just animals, to begin with." Then to kill a cow and murder a human being are the same to you. To YOU Not to ME "I took a break on this question, because 40 responses in a row was too much for an issue I'm not even that passionate about." So you decided to reply here just to talk only to me?
"By your logic the 9 month old unborn becomes a human being right at the second it comes out from their mother's womb." No, I never said that, so that is a strawman. In fact, I specifically implied in the post that anything that's in the third trimester would be best to birth and that aborting that late would be a tragedy. But either way, it doesn't matter. If you are "pro-choice," then it means you can decide whether an abortion is the right call or not. You have CHOICE. If you are pro-life, then you don't have choice, and it's often said that fetuses are "babies" and human life, by pro-life people. So the time frame would be irrelevant, on that side of the argument. On my side, I am saying, yes, the time frame matters.
"And how is unborn not living?" It's inbetween life. It hasn't been born yet and it isn't a completed child prior to a certain stage (usually the third trimester). To put it another way, it's like baking a cake. Some flour and icing doesn't make it a cake. But by your argument, flour and icing is a cake, but probably not yet a cake if it's still at the store. Which would be another thing I don't get. The "sperm isn't life, but a fetus is" inconsistency. It'd be like saying "it's not a cake until you take it home first, but if it's not yet baked and the flour hasn't risen yet, it's still a cake anyway."
It would make more sense if you said, "It WILL become a baby and a human being, once it's born." Or "after six to seven months, it's developed enough to be considered a baby ready to be C-sectioned, if need be." But no, the argument of pro-life people is the same as claiming flour and icing makes a cake, a "cake."
"Then to kill a cow and murder a human being are the same to you." The only difference between the two are laws. And humans kill each other literally all the time. Legally too; it's called war. Or being a sworn-in police officer. (Not that I'm BLM or anything.) All I'm saying is, killing is killing, especially with the case of mammals. There's little distinction between them, other than some people having this in-tribe mentality that "humans are special." Which is illogical thinking, to me.
"So you decided to reply here just to talk only to me?" If you looked on here, you would've seen this is clearly not the case. But it's Friday night over here and I have the weekend ahead of me, so I came back to deal with the 40 or so responses on here that were basically either "God made us special" or "humans are superior because reasons."
And to reiterate again, I'm not even a vegan or a passionate pro-choicer. I have little emotional investment involved, here.
You said "A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being" Your words. I didn't strawman you. You clearly saud it is not born this isn't a human being. A 9 month old unborn is not born yet so it is not a baby according to your logic.
The example you brought up could be used for debunking pro choice argument that if fetus is a human being so is sperm or periods. Sperm and zygote are not the same thing. Do you know the difference?
It becomes a human being, and not a human fetus or unborn child, the day it is BORN. That's my opinion on the matter. Otherwise, we're back to the cake analogy, where flour and icing makes a cake. I did say that it is unethical - again, in MY opinion - for a child to be terminated in the third trimester, as it is fully developed enough to be C-sectioned and "birthed" early, if need be. But even medical doctors and professionals don't have a clear consensus on when a feus is developed enough to be a fully formed human baby. What makes you think two GAGers are going to solve the issue? We can share our opinions on the matter, but as I said, I'm not that emotionally invested, unlike most on here. So I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
"I don't agree with your point at all, because murder is the premeditated action of killing another living human being." - MC No, that's not the definition at all. Murder is the deliberate taking of another HUMAN life. Animals don't come into it.
@marish01 No, it is not. It is a human fetus or embryo. I asked this question before on this site regarding sperm and pro-life people also said how they don't consider that human life either, which to me, seems hypocritical to feel so strongly about an embryo, which is "valuable life that could one day become a man or woman," but to disregard sperm as "valuable life that could one day become a man or woman." That is the double standard and lack of logic.
Not to mention the cake analogy I brought up, that you did not respond to. When does flour, sugar, and icing "become a cake?"
And I said the day is irrelevant to you, and sometime within the third trimester, *in my opinion.* What specific day that could be, is unknown. Not that it matters.
@Rachelspiks "Murder is the deliberate taking of another HUMAN life."
That's objectively and legally wrong. There's a reason murder isn't homicide, manslaughter, or accidental death (like the case with Alec Baldwin this week). Besides I said the word "human" before anyway, so what are you talking about?
I won't even get into what you called me and said about me in PM's, but I don't believe you value all human life, to begin with. Certainly not mine. After what you implied me to be. But that's neither here or there.
@Rachelspiks Oh, I get it. It's semantics. We pretty much are in agreement and saying the same thing. Murder is deliberate killing of another living human being. We're using different words, but mean the same thing.
Oh and also, adoption isn't that hard for Hispanic and Caucasian children in the USA. Contact family law attorneys in your area and you can likely find a family to adopt who will even pay your medical bills and cover your expenses.
But they're literally not human babies. They're fetuses. And the question isn't about whether you value them or not. The question is about it being hypocritical or not. And if you were to make the argument of "different values for different lifeforms," couldn't the same apply for human beings? You more than likely value your own social bubble than you do some random family in Africa or the Middle East somewhere. And if so, how could one then make the case that abortions should not be allowed if different lives have different values (as you so put it). In other words, if you don't value all lives (animal or human), how can you concern yourself with the lives that don't affect you; as in, other people's pre-born fetuses. (This isn't making the argument of being against abortion towards your own child, which I am not making the argument for, here.)
By your logic, if I don't do something to stop kittens from being killed and eaten in China, I would not have the moral right to stop someone from throwing a bag of kittens in the local lake.
And because I don't value chicken lives or cow lives, it would be hypocritical of me to intervene if I saw someone chucking a bag of kittens into the lake.
Also interestingly by your logic, if I don't give a damn about afghans or Haitians for instance, then it would be hypocritical/immoral of me to intervene if I saw a random White girl in Atlanta about to be kidnapped or killed.
@RationalMale It's not "my logic." It's about consistency. Nothing more than that. But I've already discussed the same idea with others on here, and they basically implied that "humans are superior and all that matter." Which I'm claiming, isn't pro-life, at all. It's anti-abortion. Especially, since as I said, the life of the child after it's been born into the world becomes irrelevant to the pro-life person, after that. Also discussed how people die all the time; actual children and adults, and that is less of an issue to some than the fate of an unborn fetus.
So again, it's about consistency. Claiming to care about an unborn fetus without a heartbeat, while ignoring living people right now across the world, or being for the death of creatures, is not "pro life." Or consistent, in my opinion.
And yes, I 100% do think it's hypocritical to "selectively" choose who to help save. But that metaphor makes no sense, since in this case, the topic at hand is about abortions in general, not specific abortions of your close peers or family. So the analogy would be more like you not caring about White girl in Atlanta about to be raped in front of you, but telling other people halfway across the world that they need to "do better," regardless how little it affects your own life. Not a good comparison.
Then you are not "pro-life," just anti-abortion. Also, you cannot possibly value human life equally if you would deem humans as superior to animals, even though humans ARE animals. If you view us in terms of superiority, you'd have to view some humans in term of being superior as well (possibly even more deserving of life than others), and if you don't, then your logic of "humans are superior" completely falls apart and you'd end up being even more hypocritical, if you don't abide by the same rules within humanity as you do with humans vs chimps or gorillas, for example.
That's literally not pro-life. That's just anti-abortion. Once the baby is born, that same person won't give a damn about what happens to it, including the future psychological abuse that kid will have to suffer through for the next 18 years. Assuming they don't commit suicide, first.
Ok so we’re talking location of 6-9 inches you don’t have the right to kill anyone regardless if it’s been born or not, there a reason why if someone kills a pregnant women we prosecute the killer for 2 homicides
Not to steelman the vegan position too much, because I disagree, but having equipment to shred meat in case its necessary is not really a moral justification to kill even if you don't have to to survive. We just happen to have evolved to survive in this way. I have the equipment to eat you, after all. Should I?
@PAcc92 That is simply wrong. Supplements are necessary because we drink purified water and we clean the vegetables instead of eating them slightly contaminated from the ground where the bacteria producing B12 exist. That is the same place the animals you eat get them. If they are fed artificially instead of simply grazing, they will be given the same supplement so that their flesh will then contain enough for you to absorb, otherwise they would be just as deficient as we are without the supplement. In a modern society it is infinitely preferable to take supplements and prevent infections you would historically get from water sources. If a vegan in modern society fails to supplement B12, they will risk a lot more than just clots. Historically we have evidence of ancient societies surviving on almost exclusively carnivore diets, same as evidence of almost exclusively plant eating ones. Both flourished without modern technology. Overall, deficiencies of key nutrients are much less common in vegans then in the average population. Enthusiastic carnivores can also structure their diet to not be too deficient, but it is not an automatic result of eating variety. Specifically vitamin D, also sometimes problematic in vegans, tends to be a giant issue in majority of people regardless of their nutrition. Do not try to play the nutrition game with me, you would only force me to spend extra time to bury you with evidence, of which there are mountains out there. That's however not the point. My question remains, just because you have the option of doing something, does that mean you should, or even that you must?
@Shizunk I'm all for civil discussion, but that one guy was a complete piece of crap and I frankly didn't have the patience to put up with such an obnoxious person. He's been kicked.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
38Opinion
Imagine thinking humans are animals... That is the only way to logically get to this nonsensical conclusion.
Thinking like this will ensure a future "Nuremberg 2.0" trials.
I'm pro-life for humans not animals. Not hard to understand. There are around 3,000 surgical abortions per day in America, that's outrageous. It's a religious aspect, if the unborn die without first being baptised after birth they are sent to Limbo where they will be alone, lost in between worlds. Animals were put on Earth for humans to use as food, it says so in the Bible whether you personally believe it or not that's why conservatives think this way. The Pro-Choice are also hypocritical as they like to rant on about how they support the "my body my choice" yet they are the same one's who shame people for not getting the Covid vaccination. Suddenly the "my body my choice" rule doesn't apply. It just doesn't surprise me though that a pro-choice believer is trying to outweigh the life of an animal over the life of a human.
"I'm pro-life for humans not animals. Not hard to understand."
No one said it's hard to understand; it's just hypocritical because you're not "pro-life." Just anti-abortion. The fate of that child after birth means nothing to you (hypothetically). And like I said to someone else, if "humans are superior," then that would not/could not also apply within humanity, since humans are just animals, as well. In other words, if you believe "humans are superior" (for some unknown reasons), then you also have to accept that "some humans are also superior to other humans."
Also, religion isn't real. You can't make a logical argument out of fairy tales with talking snakes and magic fruit in it.
And I'm not here to talk about COVID vaccines, but I agree, that is even bigger hypocrisy.
I am not emotionally invested in abortions/being pro-life, by the way. I am merely asking why being pro-life for humans, but pro-choice for animals, isn't hypocritical.
Based purely on the biological hierarchy, some animals are on the top of food chain so eating meat is a natural thing.
Needless killing of ones own specie is not in the natural biological scheme of things.
What? Animals kill their own all the time! Including their own offspring. Especially birds, spiders, bears, most felines, and so on. Infanticide is "naturally biological" in the extreme.
www.newscientist.com/.../
www.sciencefocus.com/.../
www.nationalgeographic.com/.../140328-sloth-bear-zoo-infanticide-chimps-bonobos-animals
www.bbcearth.com/.../the-animal-mothers-who-kill-for-power
Pro-life is only said in context of abortion so yes.
I do not care who gets an abortion but one thing does not have anything to do with the other in this question.
a murderer is a murderer and it is really all about selfishness. It is all about I , me, I am. Abortion has nothing to do with eating meat. God allows us to eat meat and God sees no comparison between humans and animals. We are far and above superior to animals. Animals can't be saved , only humans can.
"We are far and above superior to animals."
What about the human beings who see some other human beings as "less than human?" I won't name specific groups, but I think you know what kind of "less than human" people I mean. But anyone could make this same argument.
"I don't like gays. They're less than human. It's okay to kill animals that engage in anal sex. God says so." (And I only chose gays as a random example; it could be any group of people; whites, men, Christians, etc.)
It is very flawed logic to just say "God lets me do whatever I want."
God said directly Man has authority over the animals
I am against abortion because it is murder.
Killing animals is not murder.
I don't fully agree but I'm jus glad someone around here is smart enough to see animals are suppose to be eaten.
@marish01
I don't agree with your point at all, because murder is the premeditated action of killing another living human being. A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being, let alone a "living" human being. If it was murder, it wouldn't be legal to begin with. Also, by your same logic, anyone can be killed if you simply deem them to be "less than human" or "an animal." Even though humans are just animals, to begin with.
In other words, none of that makes any sense.
I took a break on this question, because 40 responses in a row was too much for an issue I'm not even that passionate about.
Tbh I didn't even want to start a conversation with you but since you wasted your time to write such a long comment I feel obligated to reply
"A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being, let alone a "living" human being."
By your logic the 9 month old unborn becomes a human being right at the second it comes out from their mother's womb.
And how is unborn not living? It can die. But before dying it is alive.
"Even though humans are just animals, to begin with."
Then to kill a cow and murder a human being are the same to you.
To YOU
Not to ME
"I took a break on this question, because 40 responses in a row was too much for an issue I'm not even that passionate about."
So you decided to reply here just to talk only to me?
"By your logic the 9 month old unborn becomes a human being right at the second it comes out from their mother's womb."
No, I never said that, so that is a strawman. In fact, I specifically implied in the post that anything that's in the third trimester would be best to birth and that aborting that late would be a tragedy.
But either way, it doesn't matter. If you are "pro-choice," then it means you can decide whether an abortion is the right call or not. You have CHOICE. If you are pro-life, then you don't have choice, and it's often said that fetuses are "babies" and human life, by pro-life people. So the time frame would be irrelevant, on that side of the argument. On my side, I am saying, yes, the time frame matters.
"And how is unborn not living?"
It's inbetween life. It hasn't been born yet and it isn't a completed child prior to a certain stage (usually the third trimester). To put it another way, it's like baking a cake. Some flour and icing doesn't make it a cake. But by your argument, flour and icing is a cake, but probably not yet a cake if it's still at the store. Which would be another thing I don't get. The "sperm isn't life, but a fetus is" inconsistency. It'd be like saying "it's not a cake until you take it home first, but if it's not yet baked and the flour hasn't risen yet, it's still a cake anyway."
It would make more sense if you said, "It WILL become a baby and a human being, once it's born." Or "after six to seven months, it's developed enough to be considered a baby ready to be C-sectioned, if need be." But no, the argument of pro-life people is the same as claiming flour and icing makes a cake, a "cake."
"Then to kill a cow and murder a human being are the same to you."
The only difference between the two are laws. And humans kill each other literally all the time. Legally too; it's called war. Or being a sworn-in police officer. (Not that I'm BLM or anything.) All I'm saying is, killing is killing, especially with the case of mammals. There's little distinction between them, other than some people having this in-tribe mentality that "humans are special." Which is illogical thinking, to me.
"So you decided to reply here just to talk only to me?"
If you looked on here, you would've seen this is clearly not the case. But it's Friday night over here and I have the weekend ahead of me, so I came back to deal with the 40 or so responses on here that were basically either "God made us special" or "humans are superior because reasons."
And to reiterate again, I'm not even a vegan or a passionate pro-choicer. I have little emotional investment involved, here.
You said
"A fetus isn't even born yet, thus, isn't a human being"
Your words. I didn't strawman you. You clearly saud it is not born this isn't a human being. A 9 month old unborn is not born yet so it is not a baby according to your logic.
The example you brought up could be used for debunking pro choice argument that if fetus is a human being so is sperm or periods.
Sperm and zygote are not the same thing. Do you know the difference?
So if time frane matters to you then when does the unborn become a human being?
Tell me the DAY. Not trimesters
It becomes a human being, and not a human fetus or unborn child, the day it is BORN.
That's my opinion on the matter.
Otherwise, we're back to the cake analogy, where flour and icing makes a cake.
I did say that it is unethical - again, in MY opinion - for a child to be terminated in the third trimester, as it is fully developed enough to be C-sectioned and "birthed" early, if need be.
But even medical doctors and professionals don't have a clear consensus on when a feus is developed enough to be a fully formed human baby. What makes you think two GAGers are going to solve the issue?
We can share our opinions on the matter, but as I said, I'm not that emotionally invested, unlike most on here. So I'm happy to agree to disagree with you.
So unborn child is not a human being?
I asked you to mention the DAY it becomes a human being
"I don't agree with your point at all, because murder is the premeditated action of killing another living human being." - MC
No, that's not the definition at all. Murder is the deliberate taking of another HUMAN life. Animals don't come into it.
@marish01
No, it is not. It is a human fetus or embryo. I asked this question before on this site regarding sperm and pro-life people also said how they don't consider that human life either, which to me, seems hypocritical to feel so strongly about an embryo, which is "valuable life that could one day become a man or woman," but to disregard sperm as "valuable life that could one day become a man or woman." That is the double standard and lack of logic.
Not to mention the cake analogy I brought up, that you did not respond to. When does flour, sugar, and icing "become a cake?"
And I said the day is irrelevant to you, and sometime within the third trimester, *in my opinion.* What specific day that could be, is unknown. Not that it matters.
I don't know about other prolifers. I am speaking for myself.
Life begins at conception. This is the point when the life of a human being starts.
@Rachelspiks
"Murder is the deliberate taking of another HUMAN life."
That's objectively and legally wrong. There's a reason murder isn't homicide, manslaughter, or accidental death (like the case with Alec Baldwin this week). Besides I said the word "human" before anyway, so what are you talking about?
I won't even get into what you called me and said about me in PM's, but I don't believe you value all human life, to begin with. Certainly not mine. After what you implied me to be. But that's neither here or there.
Therefore killing a human being is murder.
Killing an animal is NOT murder.
What pm?
We never talked privately.
An abortion is not an accidental death. It is deliberate killing of the unborn
@Rachelspiks
Oh, I get it. It's semantics. We pretty much are in agreement and saying the same thing.
Murder is deliberate killing of another living human being.
We're using different words, but mean the same thing.
It's hypocritical to be Pro-Life and Vegan, on the basis plants are life.
Simple. Being pro life and opposing human babies being aborted doesn't mean you value animal life the same as human life.
Saying it's hypocritical is as idiotic as telling a dog lover that they can't be dog lovers and eat chicken.
Oh and also, adoption isn't that hard for Hispanic and Caucasian children in the USA. Contact family law attorneys in your area and you can likely find a family to adopt who will even pay your medical bills and cover your expenses.
But they're literally not human babies. They're fetuses.
And the question isn't about whether you value them or not. The question is about it being hypocritical or not.
And if you were to make the argument of "different values for different lifeforms," couldn't the same apply for human beings? You more than likely value your own social bubble than you do some random family in Africa or the Middle East somewhere. And if so, how could one then make the case that abortions should not be allowed if different lives have different values (as you so put it).
In other words, if you don't value all lives (animal or human), how can you concern yourself with the lives that don't affect you; as in, other people's pre-born fetuses. (This isn't making the argument of being against abortion towards your own child, which I am not making the argument for, here.)
By your logic, if I don't do something to stop kittens from being killed and eaten in China, I would not have the moral right to stop someone from throwing a bag of kittens in the local lake.
And because I don't value chicken lives or cow lives, it would be hypocritical of me to intervene if I saw someone chucking a bag of kittens into the lake.
Also interestingly by your logic, if I don't give a damn about afghans or Haitians for instance, then it would be hypocritical/immoral of me to intervene if I saw a random White girl in Atlanta about to be kidnapped or killed.
@RationalMale
It's not "my logic." It's about consistency. Nothing more than that.
But I've already discussed the same idea with others on here, and they basically implied that "humans are superior and all that matter." Which I'm claiming, isn't pro-life, at all. It's anti-abortion. Especially, since as I said, the life of the child after it's been born into the world becomes irrelevant to the pro-life person, after that. Also discussed how people die all the time; actual children and adults, and that is less of an issue to some than the fate of an unborn fetus.
So again, it's about consistency. Claiming to care about an unborn fetus without a heartbeat, while ignoring living people right now across the world, or being for the death of creatures, is not "pro life." Or consistent, in my opinion.
And yes, I 100% do think it's hypocritical to "selectively" choose who to help save. But that metaphor makes no sense, since in this case, the topic at hand is about abortions in general, not specific abortions of your close peers or family. So the analogy would be more like you not caring about White girl in Atlanta about to be raped in front of you, but telling other people halfway across the world that they need to "do better," regardless how little it affects your own life. Not a good comparison.
No, because taking care of your child comes first not taking care of some animal.
@Vigors is a hypocritical vegan
Get aborted
Maybe I will
Show me
I won't
Don't care
@Vigors Didn't ask
God gave humans dominion over animals. We have his consent to eat of them but we are to birth humans.
The answer is simple: I value human life over that of animal life.
Then you are not "pro-life," just anti-abortion.
Also, you cannot possibly value human life equally if you would deem humans as superior to animals, even though humans ARE animals. If you view us in terms of superiority, you'd have to view some humans in term of being superior as well (possibly even more deserving of life than others), and if you don't, then your logic of "humans are superior" completely falls apart and you'd end up being even more hypocritical, if you don't abide by the same rules within humanity as you do with humans vs chimps or gorillas, for example.
No. The principles usually don't value animals and humans at the same level. So it aligns with their principles.
That’s stupid. You can be pro life and still kill a cow. Also by that logic you can’t be pro life and eat anything plants are life to
That's literally not pro-life. That's just anti-abortion. Once the baby is born, that same person won't give a damn about what happens to it, including the future psychological abuse that kid will have to suffer through for the next 18 years. Assuming they don't commit suicide, first.
Ok so we’re talking location of 6-9 inches you don’t have the right to kill anyone regardless if it’s been born or not, there a reason why if someone kills a pregnant women we prosecute the killer for 2 homicides
I'm pretty sure the those who call themselves pro life are only refering to human life.
Kill babies and eat them, problem solved
Biblically, no. God created creatures for man to consume. Me personally, I believe a more vegan type diet is healthier, and I favor it in my own life.
Nope
Why not?
We are meant to eat meat look at our teeth vegans are a disgrace
Not to steelman the vegan position too much, because I disagree, but having equipment to shred meat in case its necessary is not really a moral justification to kill even if you don't have to to survive. We just happen to have evolved to survive in this way. I have the equipment to eat you, after all. Should I?
@PAcc92 That is simply wrong. Supplements are necessary because we drink purified water and we clean the vegetables instead of eating them slightly contaminated from the ground where the bacteria producing B12 exist. That is the same place the animals you eat get them. If they are fed artificially instead of simply grazing, they will be given the same supplement so that their flesh will then contain enough for you to absorb, otherwise they would be just as deficient as we are without the supplement. In a modern society it is infinitely preferable to take supplements and prevent infections you would historically get from water sources.
If a vegan in modern society fails to supplement B12, they will risk a lot more than just clots.
Historically we have evidence of ancient societies surviving on almost exclusively carnivore diets, same as evidence of almost exclusively plant eating ones. Both flourished without modern technology.
Overall, deficiencies of key nutrients are much less common in vegans then in the average population. Enthusiastic carnivores can also structure their diet to not be too deficient, but it is not an automatic result of eating variety.
Specifically vitamin D, also sometimes problematic in vegans, tends to be a giant issue in majority of people regardless of their nutrition.
Do not try to play the nutrition game with me, you would only force me to spend extra time to bury you with evidence, of which there are mountains out there. That's however not the point.
My question remains, just because you have the option of doing something, does that mean you should, or even that you must?
@Shizunk
I'm all for civil discussion, but that one guy was a complete piece of crap and I frankly didn't have the patience to put up with such an obnoxious person. He's been kicked.
Not really. I don’t think the two are related