The Animal Rights Q and A List

This section sums up the most basic questions that animal activists are asked about the AR philosophy.

The Irrefutable Argument List. This section provides brief, "to the point" paragraph arguments covering basic concepts in animal rights philosophy.

Questions-attacks/Responses have been divided into these sub-categories for easier use. It is recommended, however, to check multiple sections to find a particular variety of argument. For example, many of the same arguments used for Hunting can also be used for Fishing or for the Wildlife Management sections after a little rewording. Most topical arguments rely on a variation of the "human supremacy myth" as a foundation to their beliefs. These arguments can be found under Human Supremacy, but various aspects of this approach can be found in other sections as well. Some of the more generic arguments can be located under Misc.

ANIMAL RIGHTSANIMAL RESEARCHBULLFIGHTSCOMPANION ANIMALSEQUALITYFISHINGHUMAN SUPREMACYHUNTINGMEAT EATINGMISCELLANEOUSPLANTS AND VEGETABLESRELIGIONSPECIES UNITYSURVIVAL OF THE FITTESTWILDLIFE MANAGEMENTZOOS

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Question: "If we give respect or rights to animals we will diminish our own rights and respect for humans."

a) Sumer, one of the earliest and most powerful of the ancient Mesopotamian city-states, managed its slaves the same way it managed its livestock. The Sumerians castrated the males and put them to work like domesticated animals, and they put the females in work and breeding camps. The Sumerian word for castrated slave boys--amar-kud--is the same word the Sumerians used for young castrated donkeys, horses, and oxen."
--from Chapter 1 Charles Patterson's Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust http://www.powerfulbook.com/excerpts.html

b) "Although the purpose of the German killing centers was the extermination of human beings, they operated in the larger context of society's exploitation and slaughter of animals, which to some extent they mirrored. The Germans did not stop slaughtering animals when they took up slaughtering people. Auschwitz, which its commandant Rudolf Hoss called "the largest human slaughterhouse that history had ever known," had its own slaughterhouse and butcher's shop. The other death camps likewise kept their personnel well supplied with animal flesh. Sobibor had a cow shed, pigpen, and henhouse, which were next to the entrance to the tube that took Jews to the gas chambers, while Treblinka had a stable, pigpen, and henhouse located near the camp barracks of the Ukrainian auxiliaries.-from Charles Patterson's Eternal Treblinka: Our Treatment of Animals and the Holocaust Chapter 5 http://www.powerfulbook.com/excerpts.html

Question: "You support animal rights, therefore you must support blowing up buildings."

a) it appears you are in need of taking a logic class.

b) you support human rights? therefore you must support the actions of John Brown, slavery abolitionist who killed pro-slavery people.

c) Last I checked, it is the people who support wars against unarmed civilians who support blowing up buildings.

Question: "If animals have rights, then they must be able to have the same rights as us, such as voting /If we give animals rights, we must give plants and all other organisms rights too"

a) Sure--and if we can do that then fine. But if we are unable to give rights to all life forms--it doesn't mean we should just give up and not give rights to any. If we say that--then one could decide they only care about people within their own race/religion/gender/age group/economic status. Some people already do it anyway....

Question: "Only humans can form moral contracts with other humans'since we cannot make social/moral contracts with other species, we should not care about how we treat them."

a)Why does a moral contract have to be reciprocal? We make special arrangements for infants, and humans that are mentally challenged'without requiring that they 'return the favor.' Why should other species be treated to a different standard?

b) We can and do have social and moral contracts with other species. We know that if an animal, its offspring, or its territory is threatened, or it is hungry, we can expect it to react accordingly. That is a social contract. By contrast, there are humans who make moral and social contracts with other humans'and then break them. And yet we do not turn them into laboratory fodder.

a) No one is perfect. A lot of humans were killed through wars to build one's country--whether you live in Europe or North America or Asia. No one tells a human rights activist he must rocket himself to a desert island in order to be against human exploitation -- therefore the same is true for animal activists.

b) Thousands of people are killed by automobiles each year. If you are in favor of human rights--do you refrain from driving?

Question: "You may think you avoid all unnecessary suffering, but how many animals died in the fields to grow your plants for food?"

a) Don't know--but it is a lot less than the number that were killed in the fields to grow the food used to feed the cattle you eat.

b) That's an ad homonym attack. Instead of addressing the issue you are attacking me for any faults I may have. It is a separate issue but you cite it to divert attention from your own wrongdoing.

c) There are ways to provide food without causing as much harm to other life --- eating meat is far more destructive.

d) So what are you saying? We should eat raw minerals? You start. Here's a rock--bite it.

e) Oh I see--so since we cannot avoid all suffering we should just let people eat meat, hunt, fish, use animals in rodeos, research etc. But why stop there? Why not let people kill each other, enslave other humans, abuse children. They are doing it anyway and since suffering cannot be avoided completely why bother to try at all? RIGHT?

Question: "What if you were attacked by a bear? Would you let the bear kill you? If you wouldn't-and you kill the bear--then you can't be for animal rights."

a) If i enter known bear territory than it is up to me to know better. But assuming it was unavoidable, defending yourself is a matter of self interest. If you commit an act in self interest it does not mean you are against the rights of others.

b) If a civil/human rights activist is attacked by a thief--and he defends himself, does that mean he is against civil/human rights?

a) This hypothetical argument is intended as a catch 22. If the activist chooses the life of their child over that of a rat---then they are endorsing the principle behind vivisection whether they admit it or not. If it would be okay for an animal rights activist to use an animal to save their own child, then how could he or she object to the animal research industry? If they say no, then they are deemed as not loving their child and are a terrible parent. The first error with this is the unrealistic nature of the hypothetical situation. Can a cure for an illness be attained by killing one rat, without any human clinical trials? Of course not. Such a scenario is an oversimplification intended to force the validity of animal research and portray the vivisector as someone capable of making miraculous treatments if only he/she is allowed to exploit animals as they wish. It also perverts the nature of altruism and compassion by suggesting that one must prioritize the recipients of such altruism and compassion.

b) If your child was sick, would you sacrifice the life of your neighbor's child in medical research to save it?" If you say no, then you obviously don't love your child as much as you may claim to, especially since you know that the chances for a treatment are greatly increased by using humans--and wouldn't you want only the best for your child? If you say yes, then surely you are going to focus on getting humans used for research so you can offer your child the best possible treatment.

c) If it is wrong for me to exploit my neighbor's child in order to aid my own, then it would be wrong for me to do the same if my neighbor happened to have four legs instead of two. Exploiting others in violation of consistent ethical beliefs is wrong.

Question: "If we weren't using animals in research we wouldn't be able to find cures for diseases and cancers./Animal research is necessary if we hope to cure diseases and help sick children."

a) Saying animal research is necessary in order to cure human diseases makes as much sense as saying that one needs to conduct research on humans in order to cure rat diseases (there would almost seem to be a Neo-Darwinian myth at work, that by testing onso called "simpler" animals one can move up the "Evolutionary ladder" until you reach the complexity of human beings). You can remove the animal from medical research but you still need humans in research. If you wanted to cure leukemia in cats--working on dogs would not help much.

b) if that's the case why haven't we cured the common cold? Humans have been experimenting on animals non stop for at least 150 years and yet we are still plagued by diseases. new ones surface and old ones become drug resistant. So much for success through animal research.

c) Animals used in experiments become so stressed that their blood chemistry changes, invalidating the science.

Question: "Would you accept a medical treatment that had been tested on animals if you got sick?"

a)This attack is flawed because it implies that if an animal activist would use a medical treatment that had been tested on animals then the activist is guilty of hypocrisy: contradicting his/her argument, and must either refuse any future medical treatment, or abandon the animal rights cause. The activist is pressured to be a moral perfectionist before endorsing animal rights---and since perfection is not possible--then it alleged the animal rights agenda is a false one. This attack draws an unrealistic connection between the present act of vivisection, and the already existing products of that vivisection. In order for the animal activist to be guilty of hypocrisy, he or she would have to consciously participate in or endorse the present and future activities of vivisectors, not the medical treatments that resulted (in part) from policies that included animal experimentation (i.e. saying they are against vivisection, then paying a researcher to do it). The activist could counter-argue that since the research was already done, it might as well be utilized so the animals did not "die in vain." It also makes an unrealistic demand upon the activist--to remove him/herself from a world where all governments engage in some form of exploitation (or have connections to those that do) before beginning to make protests and arguments that seek change.

b) This argument reveals how vivisectors attempt to make the recipient of their works feel guilty because he/she benefited from their research. It perverts the altruism of the medical profession by tainting the recipient with the tag of a conspirator!

c) If this "moral perfection first" approach is applied fairly and equally to human-related issues-it has the following consequences for the animal research proponent: Any patient who benefits from a procedure that was based upon the human experiments of the Nazis, effectively endorses those atrocities committed, and cannot declare otherwise (In 1989 concentration camp survivors attempted to get Nazi research destroyed--but were rebuked by the medical establishment which argued the research could be employed for the greater good). An organ recipient, who receives a transplant from a victim of a car wreck, or shooting, cannot claim to be against such tragedies, since he/she benefited from such incidents. Furthermore, a Chinese student living in Beijing, could not protest for democratic reforms since he receives his food, shelter, and financial support through agencies of the government he is attacking. And someone in North America could not claim to be for Indian rights--unless they remove themselves from their present dwelling and let aboriginals move in. No one could protest, or seek to make reforms for any social cause unless they first removed themselves from all imperfections. Since it is impossible--all attempts to make the world a better place would have to be abandoned. In trying to portray the animal activist as a hypocrite, the animal research defender puts forth an ethical standard which they do not apply fairly and equally to themselves--thus revealing who the actual hypocrites are.

Question: "Animal research is justified because of the benefits (to human health, happiness, knowledge, progress, science, companion animals, wildlife, etc)."

a) Its basic problem is that it is stating the INTENT of the Animal research, not a moral /ethical DEFENSE of it. 'Why are you torturing animals to death?' Answer: 'Because we hope to benefit from it.' A casual observer would hope that they benefit from it, or why else would they be doing it? This argument is nothing more than an appeal to Selfishness.

b) A thief steals because of the benefits to him or others. A rapist rapes because of the benefits. If the rapist defended his act by pointing out that others could benefit by taking items from the unconscious victim's house, would that justify the rape? If one accepts "benefits" as a justification for animal research, and applies it fairly and equally to human relationships, then it allows anyone to commit an act on the basis of the perceived benefits to the perpetrator or others--whether the victim is human or not.

Question: "vivisection is justified because humans can subdue and control other creatures for whatever purpose we wish."

a) This approach would attempt to suggest that humans are following the "law of Nature." The act of vivisection is seen as being no different than a lion chasing down a gazelle. The proponent may even concede that if an alien race were to do the same thing to humans it would be justifiable. The first problem with this approach is that it suggests vivisection serves a natural purpose, similar to the act of killing for food. Yet the act of killing for food is a primordial instinctive need shared by all life, while only a small number of modern humans engage in the practice of vivisection. It also conveniently ignores the harsh reality of life and death. One could counter-argue that disease exists to control population'a thoroughly natural process--and that the vivisectionist is deliberately obstructing that process by attempting to prolong human life-spans. What about the impact on food and natural resources? A vivisector would probably answer that the solution lies in more research, colonizing space, etc. Nevertheless, the claim that vivisection is a natural process in harmony with the realities of life can be strongly protested.

b) Despite the concession made for extraterrestrial exploitation, one does not need to go so far out to discover the consequences of such a philosophical position. By "survival of the fittest," one could then justify killing or enslaving his/her next door neighbor. The philosophy ordains that if they can do it, then they are justified. A thief, murderer, rapist, --practitioners of any of these professions would find the vivisector's reasoning to be very useful.

Question: "If you could save countless human lives by xenotransplantation (genetically engineering non-human animals to harvest their
organs for humans), isn't that for the greater good? I mean, people eat those species every day anyway."

a) Since eating meat is unnecessary--exploiting them for animal research and genetic engineering is compounding one injustice with another. It is like saying "well, since we are planning to kill this guy--there is nothing wrong with us torturing and robbing him first.

BULLFIGHTS

Question: "Bullfights are good because they give the meat of the bull to the poor."

a) Then why were matadors protesting that they couldn't SELL the meat after the Mad Cow/foot and mouth disease crisis?

b) Citing a positive benefit of an act does not cancel out the negative. Bullfights are cruel. To say they are good because they give the meat to the poor would be like justifying a murder/robbery by saying the bandits gave some of the spoils to the needy. Al Capone opened the first soup kitchens in Chicago--using the proceeds of crime, does this mean that loan sharking and murder used to finance that charity were good?

c) if bullfighters do it for the charity, then they should be growing veggies to give to the poor.

COMPANION ANIMALS

EQUALITY

Question: "One cannot say that humans and non humans are equal and also say that humans and non humans are not bound by the same rules and code of moral conduct. If humans have to respect the rights of deer then so should lions."

a) This is assumed to be a fallacy in Definition: Conflicting Conditions--that they cannot be equal and unequal at the same time. This confuses two different definitions of "equality." The first definition is that non humans and humans are equal regardless of their differences (the "Martin Luther King jr." sense of the word: "All men are created equal." ). The second definition is not a value judgment, but an observation of the fact that everyone has different attributes. The animal rights proponent stresses equality in value while acknowledging inequality in attribute. There is no conflicting conditions.Other species are equal to humans in value, but they do not possess the attributes to think and behave the way humans do--just as the mentally retarded or children do not have the same attributes but are afforded equal moral protection and ethical regard.

b) We say a man with arms and a man without arms are equal in worth, but we don't say because they have different abilities that the one with arms deserves more "rights" than the other.By the logic of this attack, in order for all humans to be granted equal rights and respect, they would have to possess the same attributes (mentally, physically etc).

Question: "But wasn't Christ a fisherman?"

a) he was a carpenter by trade. He referred to himself as a fisher of men.

b) Fish was a well known mythical symbol among early Christians. The Greek word for fish (Ichthys) was used as an acronym whose initials in Greek stood for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior." Given how the early Christians employed the term, there is therefore good historical evidence for the argument that all of the "fish stories" that managed to get into gospels were intended to be taken symbolically rather than literally.

HUMAN SUPREMACY

Question: "But they are just animals."

a) So? And you are just a human.

b) At one time it was common to say: "just a woman," "just a child," "just a black," "just a pagan," "just a Christian," "just a slave," etc etc etc.

c) Um--we are animals too-although considering the dismal record of human behavior I am sure most species would rather be a remote relative.

Question: "Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals.The reason we are superior is because we possess the capacity to reason." (variations: "When bears and ants can compose symphonies and fly airplanes, then I'll believe they have rights.\Humans have brains that can make computers and do math and build tall skyscrapers, therefore we have evolved beyond other species and are superior to them.")

a) not all humans possess reason as defined here (children, mentally retarded etc). Furthermore--why would reason be an absolute criteria? It is transitory. Arbitrary. Using reason as a criteria would be like saying "an apple is superior to a banana because its red. Red makes it superior." WHY? What is so great about red?It is just as relative and as arbitrary as talking about skin color. If you say reason is great because it allows us to build tall buildings--why is that of absolute importance? Reason is only important as a human value, just as skin color is only important as a racial value, or a certain interpretation of the Judeo-Christian Bible is only important to particular adherents of that religious group.

b) Human rights, like animal rights, are arbitrary, subjective, and non-absolute. They are both based on value that we as humans assign and administer. There is no demonstrable natural law which we base our ethics upon. The universe does not say: "Humans have special rights because they possess faculty x, y, z." A human does not have a universal right to life. If that were the case, it should be demonstrable in nature.We could walk safely through the path of an erupting volcano without so much as a blister. We wouldn't need police or courts if our "rights" were some universal truth. When one looks at it reasonably, humans are just as mortal as other species. All the fruits of our labors and intellect are also mortal. How can one truly say we as a species are superior to other species as an absolute objective truth? We can't. Just like a racist can't say his race is superior to others as an objective absolute truth, or a sexist, or a religious extremist etc etc. Therefore, to be consistent and fair, If human rights are good, then so are animal rights and one should strive to be as compassionate as possible.

c) Not all humans--most in fact, do not compose symphonies or build skyscrapers. Does that mean those people are inferior to the humans that do? BTW--when was the last time you built a skyscraper?

d) Why would reason/building skyscrapers/airplanes/computers etc make humans superior in value as a species to other species that are incapable of doing such acts? What makes skyscrapers so great and important? Buildings fall down, planes crash, computers break. Since all are subjective andtransitory--where is the superiority? Humans only think they are superior to justify their exploitation.

Question: "Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals.The reason we are superior is because we have a soul."

a) how do you prove humans have a soul and others don't? And even if we did--why would that make us superior? Its arbitrary and subjective. And a human of one race could say the same thing about another human of a different race. "Members of my race have a soul but members of yours don't."

Question: "Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals.The reason we are superior is because God tells us we are superior."

a) How do you prove that? And even if some deity in the sky said we were superior--why would it matter? Why would that being's judgment be absolute? Someone else can say "My god says my group is superior to this other group." How do you refute that with this "God says so" defense? How do you prove that your god is making the "true" commandment? How do you demonstrate this to others? The very same approach could be used to justify discriminating against OTHER HUMANS. To say humans are superior as a species to other life forms without being able to justify it as an absolute certainty--anyone can discriminate according to whatever religious belief they hold.

b) The greatest problem with spiritual humanism is the lack of certainty inherent in the belief. One can doubt the existence and nature of the deity, doubt the uniqueness and importance of the qualities cited as making one worthy of special treatment, and doubt human possession of them (and doubt the claim that other life forms do not possess them).

c) claiming that humans are superior according to a spiritual form of humanism is neither concrete nor conclusive. One is free to believe anything--and by this ideology one could modify the human superiority argument to assert with equal weight that some humans are superior to other HUMANS according to the dictates of their particular deity. The dispute is endless.

Question: "Humans can exploit animals because we are superior to animals.The reason we are superior is because Nature tells us we are superior." (variations: "We are highest on the food chain and always have been.")

a)Put a toddler in a room with an apple and a hamster. If the toddler eats the hamster and plays with the apple, then humans are natural predators. (Repeat experiment with young cat for comparison).

b) If we were the natural predators of deer we should be able to run down and catch and devour a deer with only our teeth and hands--just like a lion does. If we didn't use tools--we would be the prey!

Question: "Native peoples hunt and fish and trap, are you going to say it is wrong for them to do it?"

Question: "If everyone stopped eating meat, then what would we do with all the animals? We would be overrun by them."

a) Everyone wouldn't stop eating animals at once. As demand drops off, so will breeding and raising of animals intended for consumption. We are breeding them at this rate, this is not their natural rate of population growth.

Question:"If everyone stopped eating meat, then the species would go extinct without us breeding them for consumption."

a) people are not going to stop eating animals all at once, it will most likely be a gradual reduction. There will also probably be a few people who will still keep them as companion animals.

b) so? if they did go extinct it wouldn't hurt anything. They have been breed over the years to be something other than what their indigenous species originally was and all they are doing right now is causing erosion and pollution to the environment.

c)if the only way to keep your family lineage intact was to put you in extremely poor living conditions, force breed you, eat you, and then steal your children and put them through the same cycle, wouldn't you rather go extinct?

d) They existed in the wild before they were domesticated for human consumption..

Question: "All the food charts, school cafeterias; our whole culture makes it appear that meat and dairy are natural and nutritious foods for you, why would everyone be wrong?"

a) have you ever looked at who sponsors those food charts? (psst!the meat and dairy industries)

b) The foods in the charts depict only the most common foods. TheUSDA likes to emphasize that their food guide pyramid is "well known". But on closer inspection, even mainstream organizationslike the USDA/FDA do not claim that meat and dairy are actually necessary for good health. Alternative food charts for vegetarians andvegans exist. On the other hand, evidence abounds that the current over consumption of meat and dairy is responsible at least in part forcommon health problems, like heart disease, obesity, diabetes.

c) Nutrition is not an easy science. The results of mass experimentation take a long time to become clear. Mass experimentation in the developed countries with over consumption of meat, fat and dairy has led to an epidemic of heart disease, obesity and other diseases. The
official recommendations are beginning to change. But both from a medical perspective and from an ethical perspective the change is too slow.

Question: "Humans are predators, if we were to eat veggies our eyes wouldn't be as such. We would be more like deer or turkeys with our eyes on the sides of our heads to watch for danger."

a) gorillas are vegetarians and they have 97.7% human DNA. Likewise, chimpanzees have 98.4% human DNA and are primarily vegetarian. (Humans and chimpanzees are more closely genetically related than an African elephant is to an Asian elephant).
Chimpanzee and gorilla's eyes are not on the sides of their heads.

b) when we have fangs, prehensile tails, and claws we can continue this conversation.

c) so, I have the means to kill you, but I am not going to.

d) set a toddler down next to an apple and a hamster. if he/she eats the hamster and ignores the apple, then we can talk.

e) my fists have the ability to punch people but that doesn't mean I should go around doing that.

f) so what does that make me?

g) Comparative anatomy of humans:by Milton R. Mills, M.D. In conclusion, we see that human beings have the gastrointestinal tract structure of a 'committed' herbivore. Humankind does not show the mixed structural features one expects and finds in anatomical omnivores such as bears and raccoons. Thus, from comparing the gastrointestinal tract of humans to that of carnivores, herbivores and omnivores we must conclude that humankind's GI tract is designed for a purely plant-food diet. Facial Muscles Carnivore: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape; Herbivore: Well-developed; Omnivore:Reduced; Human: Well-developed Jaw Type Carnivore: Angle not expanded; Herbivore: Expanded angle; Omnivore: Angle not expanded; Human: Expanded angleJaw Joint Location Carnivore: On same plane as molar teeth; Herbivore: Above the plane of the molars; Omnivore: On same plane as molar teeth; Human: Above the plane of the molars; * Jaw Motion Carnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion; Herbivore: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back; Omnivore: Shearing; minimal side-to-side; Human: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back Major Jaw Muscles Carnivore: Temporalis;Herbivore: Masseter and pterygoids;Omnivore: Temporalis;Human: Masseter and pterygoids Mouth Opening vs. Head Size Carnivore: Large; Herbivore: Small; Omnivore: Large; Human: Small; Teeth (Incisors) Carnivore: Short and pointed; Herbivore: Broad, flattened and spade shaped; Omnivore: Short and pointed;
Human: Broad, flattened and spade shaped; Teeth (Canines) Carnivore: Long, sharp and curved; Herbivore: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none; Omnivore: Long, sharp and curved; Human: Short and blunted; Teeth (Molars) Carnivore: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped; Herbivore: Flattened with cusps vs. complex surface; Omnivore: Sharp blades and/or flattened; Human: Flattened with nodular cusps; Chewing Carnivore: None; swallows food whole; Herbivore: Extensive chewing necessary; Omnivore: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing; Human: Extensive chewing necessary; Saliva Carnivore: No digestive enzymes; Herbivore: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes; Omnivore: No digestive enzymes; Human: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes; Stomach Type Carnivore: Simple; Herbivore: Simple or multiple chambers; Omnivore: Simple; Human: Simple; Stomach Acidity Carnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach; Herbivore: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach; Omnivore: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach; Human: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach; Stomach Capacity Carnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract; Herbivore: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract; Omnivore: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract; Human: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract;Length of Small Intestine Carnivore: 3 to 6 times body length; Herbivore: 10 to more than 12 times body length; Omnivore: 4 to 6 times body length; Human: 10 to 11 times body length; Colon Carnivore: Simple, short and smooth; Herbivore: Long, complex; may be sacculated; Omnivore: Simple, short and smooth; Human: Long, sacculated; Liver Carnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A; Herbivore: Cannot detoxify vitamin A; Omnivore: Can detoxify vitamin A; Human: Cannot detoxify vitamin A; Kidney Carnivore: Extremely concentrated urine Herbivore: Moderately concentrated urine; Omnivore: Extremely concentrated urine; Human: Moderately concentrated urine; Nails Carnivore: Sharp claws; Herbivore: Flattened nails or blunt hooves; Omnivore: Sharp claws; Human: Flattened nails; http://www.earthsave.bc.ca/materials/articles/ articles/health/comparative_p7.html

h) Humans are predators because they choose to be not because they have to be.

i) From the Christian perspective God put our eyes just where he wants them and there they will stay.. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes
did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:14-16 14 )

Question:"If everyone stopped eating meat, then the food would be bland."

a) There are good meat substitutes on the market...

b) the food is really anything but bland. most people find that after switching to a veg diet their food options seem to expand because they are forced to try new things and their palate no longer revolves around the same foods in every meal. it's not just raw tasteless vegetables. you can still use herbs and spices and many sauces and pastas and breads....etc. Plus there are many great substitutes for all of your old favorites.

Question:"If everyone stopped eating meat, then you would suffer from calcium, iron, and protein deficiencies."

a) Certain fruits and vegetables are loaded with calcium.. Certain greens contain much iron. Soy products, and legumes provide ample protein plus fiber without the fat and cholesterol.....

b) any nutrients that you find in meat can easily be found in plant foods (and without all the fat and cholesterol). If you eat a variety, there is no need to worry about vitamin or mineral deficiencies. It has actually been found that Americans get 2-3 times the protein amount that is healthy for them, and this extra protein overloads the body with acid. to buffer the acid the body takes calcium out of your bones. Studies have also shown that vegetarians have stronger bones and lower cholesterol than meat eaters.

c) Soldiers in the Roman Army subsisted on a diet made up of very plain foods. Soldiers were required to pay up to one third of their wages for their food. They ate mostly bread, perhaps porridge, cheese or beans with cheap wine to wash it down (Marks, Tingay 16). Marks, Anthony, Tingay, Graham. The Romans. London. Usborne Publishing Ltd., 1990.

d) "Dupont says that a soldier's diet was even more extremely limited. She reports that Legionaries ate only bread and drank only water plus a little vinegar when the weather was hot. It was considered that "bread was the only food "fit for a soldier, hard food for hard
men" (Dupont 125). Dupont, Florence. Daily Life in Ancient Rome. Cambridge, USA. Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1992. Taken from: Social Position and Food in the Roman Empire -or- You Eat What You Are Jean Preston Roman Civilization Dr. Christine Renaud 2 December 1997

e) Roman soldiers carried their grain (high gluten wheat) and flour grindstones with them on the march. At night, after their 20 mile daily march they would have pasta and baked bread. They preferred this even over meat. When they did eat meat they considered it to be "barbarian food." http://www.bible-history.com/rome/RomeEarly_Roman_Society_Facts.htm

Question: "We have been killing and eating meat for centuries, why should we stop now?"

a) If you use tradition as your moral standard it allows that human slavery, the oppression of women, ethnocentricity and religious based discrimination would be tolerated. You would need to show why humans are deserving of an exemption from this ethical standard. Why a racist or a religious bigot could not discriminate on the basis of race or religion while others could discriminate on the basis of species.

b) According to spiritual and secular mythology/belief, at one point in human history we were essentially vegetarian. The world's oldest known monotheistic religion: Zoroasterism, was a vegetarian religion.Theories of biological evolution suggest that human ancestors were plant eaters before adopting an omnivorous diet. Also, our teeth and intestines are consistent with what is known to be a herbivore physiology.

c) There are many religions that do not adhere to such a principle and in fact propose a contrary perspective:.Jainism, Buddhism, etc. Compassion for all life is a matter of doctrine. One can ask'did God create surplus compassion'or was it the Devil? Can one be too compassionate?