Vegetarians, If you could outlaw the killing of animals would you do so?

Question

I know many animal rights activists who equate animals with humans yet many balk at the idea of outlawing the killing of animals. How long did it take to outlaw pedophilia? In the past children were routinely married at 13 years of age and younger. Now we see this as child rape. When a society becomes more enlightened and paradigms shift so do the laws or lack of them that bound those old paradigms. If 80 percent of America was vegetarian this idea would not seem so radical. If we would imprison a person for killing other person why not do the same when a person kills an animal. I could understand if the person was in a fight for survival but let's face it, the vast majority of us do not need meat to survive but instead use it as more of a luxury.

kelly k, cook with an iron skillet. You will get all the iron you need from this source, no kidding.

mom_of_4, Acutally I am both vegetarian and pro-life. I consider this to be an issue of consistent life ethics.

John C, how postmodern of you. The only ones who have "rights" are the ones strong enough to take them. hmmmmm, how convenient.

Kal-el, interesting but I think the idea of a replicator like in Star Trek is a more likely scenario.

michael p, your parents issue sounds more like it was about the politics of money than it was animal rights activists.

AmusedOne, I think it is quite debatable that slaughter houses are more inhumane than hunting.

Answer 1

I agree with your points 100%. We are supposed to be the higher evolved beings.


What gives any of us the right to decide that one life is more important than another? Why is a humans life more valuable than a cows?

Why is your pets life more important than a chicken?

If you believe in a higher being, then I cannot understand how anyone can think it justifiable to take another life. I ask myself, who am I to decide what life matters more than another?

Meateaters will argue, that is what is done in nature, at least for the carivorous animals. But isnt that what MAKES us more evolved being? The ability to realize that all life is vauable? We do NOT need to eat meat to live. Nature provides all of the nutrients to we need to survive in the form of fruits and vegetables.

Another argument would be to look at other countries, India, or China perhaps? Their children routinely outperform ours, they have less diseases than americans, and they tend to out live us. YET, they have largely, if not completely, vegetarian diets.

Answer 2

Animals are feed growth hormones and take up a lot of space. Those hormones do not leave the body of the animal and remain in the body of the animal even after it is slaughtered.

In some instances, like horses, the animals is slaughtered for food in the U.S. and is shipped to other parts of the world. A racehorse never excretes all of the additives it is given to make the horse run faster. When you eat any animal you are injesting and digesting the meat as well as the everything else inside of the animal.

For health reasons, I would eliminate the taboo of eating meat as purely a health issue.

Also, a man could live off an acre of land for his entire life. A cow needs at least an acre and a half...And, at least 25% of the meat we swallow, rots before it gets injested into your system.

What is that red liquid in the meat package. If it is supposed to be blood, wouldn't it have coagulated by the time it got to the supermarket?...So, it's not blood...

Answer 3

No. I find it upsetting personally to eat dead flesh, but I can't impose my beliefs or practices on everyone else I come into contact with. Just as I would not want someone else to force their religious belief upon me, I would not force my choice on someone else.
Aside from that, there are certainly some humane reasons to kill animals, if they are terribly sick and dying, or over populated. After all, it's not as if we can remind animals to take birth control! :-) If we allowed the populations to remain unchecked, crops and humans could be seriously harmed. Just think of the recent spinach problem -- the e-coli bacteria is one commonly found in wild animals. If we cannot protect our food sources, we will be harmed in turn.
Some countries that are not as well off as others cannot afford to produce proper vegetarian nutrition for all of their citizens and inhabitants, so it is realistic to use animals in their diets as well. While it is unfortunate, it is necessary for the time being.
Certainly in the US, where we are overconsumptive of everything, I can see encouraging everyone to reduce the use of animal products whenever possible. But the humane slaughter of some animals at some times does serve a purpose.

Answer 4

I'm with you. I wonder if meat eaters actually knew what they were eating, would they reconcider their chosen diet?
Animal slaughter for man's benefit is archaic, demonic and criminal.
Enlightenment is the answer. Allow meat eaters to visit slaughter houses, educate them on the additives to their food and perhaps show them the cruelty and needless suffering involved.
I am a firm believer that every animal on the planet has rights, we do not have the right to mass slaughter when meat is not necessary in the diet.
Sadly the thought process is that we are the master species and top of the food chain. I'd like to see cows in that position. The world would be a much nicer place to live in.

Answer 5

This reminds me of the arguments used to pass the Prohibition amendment. (Please don't take that as condemnatory, either. It's not meant to be.)

As the government quickly found out, people could and did find a way to get around the banning of alcohol -- speakeasies, home brew (some of which was fatal to the drinker,) smuggling, etc. The ban was eventually repealed because it was impossible to enforce.

If it was up to me, all living creatures would die of advanced old age. But as Prohibition proved, you can't legislate morality -- you can only penalize someone for breaking the law. I think if meat-eating was outlawed, outlaws would still be eating meat.

Answer 6

If people want to hunt animals, it's there right. My dad was a hunter, but I would never go hunting with him.

He almost gave me up for adoption when he found out I became a vegetarian. I suppose being a tree hugger, animal lover did not help our bonding either...lol.

Personally, i dont see any reason why people have to hunt in this day and age. I get the fact that in olden times, it was all about sustenance, living off the land.

But today, there's a McDonalds & Taco Bell on every corner, even in podunk little towns in West. Va.

Blowing the head off a squirrel with a shotgun is not fun by my stanadard!

Answer 7

It amazes me that you animal rights idiots can feed yourself. You weak gutless unintelligent judgmental scum try to legislate your evil new age agenda on NORMAL people. I would feel less guilt wringing your necks than a chickens.Animals are property to be used as the owner sees fit. That is a fact. And dont you idiots start comparing slavery of humans to animals. I know that you are that dumb. But its not an argument. The discussion from your point of view is animals are more deserving than humans. You all have a very sick mind.

Answer 8

No I would not.
But I would make very stiff penalties for animal abuse. Strong guidelines for the treatment of food animals. I think our present system is why many people are ill, the sickness of the animals being passed on through they flesh.
I do not believe I have the right to tell anyone what to eat. An animal is not a Human & God does not look upon them as he does us.

Answer 9

i think all we have to do is treat them humanely. That would be a stupid idea and i dont think that would go in America im sure that law would somehow violate the constitution. Dont you think how about this people just cut back some on eating meat that would help or is that not enough for you. you think animals should have the same rights as humans?

Answer 10

Hell yeah i would! but since people love the taste so much i'd invent and create some kind of food that tastes good like meat but is not actually meat.