Not true, my doctor informed me I either needed to step outside the farmer's market and go to the grocery store or get to a local butcher I could trust.

I don't believe that a lion has malice when rounding up dinner. Do you?

If you had chosen properly, the exclusion of meat would not have caused malnourishment.

It wasn't true for me either. My body lacks certain key protiens that prevent me from absorbing iron properly. Had I continued on a vegitarian diet, I would have died, as it is I was mearly hospitalised. I can now live on a vegitarian diet, because I know what is wrong with me now and there is medication I can take. But, it has side effects that can be verry unplesant. Meat on the other hand, dose not have the side effects and will keep me alive.

I'm pretty positive that no one on this thread has suggested that someone with a relevant medical issue shouldn't eat what is necessary to be healthy.

I'm not sure what the point is, though... we all know that vegetarianism (or really any modern dietary choices) is a luxury... if you don't have that luxury then the issue clearly doesn't apply.

I will also object to the suggestion that practising vegetarianism is a luxury, because the term 'luxury' implies that it is done for pleasure or entertainment. I, for one, am not a vegan because it is enjoyable as such, I am a vegan because I believe it to be the moral way to live. I am motivated by duty and compassion, not by a desire for pleasure or enjoyment.

Object to whatever you want. Infer whatever you want from whatever term you want. Be a vampire if you want.

A luxury is a non-essential. If we were living in a society where we were unable to live on non-animal products (due to lack of availability) then we would not be vegetarians or vegans. Simple as that.

Morality is a false belief of what is right - it something only the human animal contends with.

Humans ARE animals and will always be animals, species in the family Hominidae

Wonderfully mature and intellectual opening there, but even accepting your definition of luxury you are assuming that vegetarianism/veganism is non-essential. I contend otherwise, as I believe that moral choices and practices are essential for a human to have a good and meaningful existence. If one can not live on non-animal products, then one does not live. Simple as that.

The fact that choice even enters into it (in your words) brings it to the status of luxury.

So your way of avoiding an issue is to take everything to a ridiculous extreme? You seem intelligent; join us!

Now, are we going to continue this silly exchange, are you going to offer a counter-argument, or are we going to agree to disagree?

Firstly, I find your asertion that it is more desirable to die than to live at the cost of other lives, personally offensive. I happen to value my life, just as I value your life and all the lives that are lost to keep me alive.

It took me many years and serious clinical depresion to come to terms with my situation. I struggled for a long time with my morals and had to reasess my views on dharma and my veda.

It is how we treat the living that matters, not the dead.

I belive that eating vegtables is just as bad as eating meat, because vegetables are living things as well.

To me, eating ethically means ensuring that all your food is well treated and lives a safe and secure life, free from suffering. For me, that means that chickens should be free range and stunned before being killed, so they feel no pain and are not aware of whats coming.

Saying that it is wrong to eat animals yet still eating plants makes no sense as the line between animal and plant is completely arbitrary.

Coeur, this is a forum for more than 2 people. You have made it clear that you disagree with me ... You don't need my permission to disagree with me.

Morality is extremely simple to break down for the ordinary common lay person
- acceptance
- compliance

As I said earlier, this makes perfect sense and the line is not at all arbitrary.

Many plants can and do survive after their edible portions are removed,

How can you possibly claim to be giving the animal a "safe and secure life" when you are planning to slaughter it for food? In so doing, you have immediately stripped it of a safe and secure life because you yourself are becoming a threat to that safety and security.

As I see it, the plants are not animate in the way that every animal is and this makes them objects to begin with in a way that animals simply are not.

Whilst I think that there are proper ways to show respect for the dead, treatment of the living is precisely my problem.

The line is indead arbitrary. There are no rules that you can apply to all animals that can not be applied to some plants as well. ... By your own admition, some plants are still killed by harvesting them. And even those that are not killed are still harmed, certain snakes can regenerate thier livers, dose that therfore mean that this would be an excetable food source because the animal is not killed? ... And I belive that you are completely wrong in this repect. Plants are not objects, they are living, breathing, sentient entities.

I disagrea. For the time that it is alive, the animals feels secure and protected and lives a happy worry free existance due to your protection. The animal knows nothing of your intentions and feels no fear. For the time the animal is under your care it is as safe as it can possibly be.

I personaly do not think what happens after you are dead matters at all. Once life has deprted the shell, there is nothing eft but an asortment of inanimate matter.

I have another question for you. Would you object to eating meat, if it was scavanaged? If I found a dead rabbit in the woods, would it be wrong to eat it, despite having nothing to do with its life or its death in any way?

My, it sure is lucky your morality grants you this broad distinction- especially considering plants are not inanimate(is that a double negative? Or does it work in this context?)- plants do not exist the same as objects- as rocks, or as a peice of plastic- they have the ability to reproduce and replicate- whether or not you wish to acknowledge it, plant life IS life- so your entire argument to do no harm to any living organism, but harming plants is A-OK because you don't acknowledge it as life, is subjective, and the facts contradict your claims.

And thats fine- because morals and ethics are not absolutes- they are to be discussed, debated, and challenged- But you wish us to believe that, if I choose to continue my life at the cost of another animals life, it is immoral, no if and or buts about it- but if you choose to continue your life at the cost of plant life, it is moral. Its hypocracy. You wish to condemn people for not accepting your moral will, but the only reason you are alive long enough to dicate peoples morality to them is because you act in, by your standard, immorally.

You condemn us for causing death. But the only way to reach morality by your standard is to worship and hope for death.

Because its well fed, taken care of, received numerous medical treatments that wouldn't exist in the wild.....just because, some years down the line, yes, it is slated to be slaughtered, doesn't mean we mistreat the animals. They live longer, safer lives, often devoid of the suffering they could very likely endure in the wild.

If we are discussing respect, then yes, we are saying we should treat livestock with respect- no torture, no mistreatment, ect- but if we are discussing whether or not it is morally justifiable to take a life to continue your own, then whether or not the life is capible of thought or feelings is irrelivant- because, if we are to say life is sacred, and should never be harmed, we can't then turn around and claim that, no, only the life that thinks and acts like us is sacred- all others are our fodder- you are being a hypocrite.