MortalWombat

Really? What to you constitutes an animal? Is it OK to eat insects and use sponges (both of which belong to the kingdom Animalia), but not to eat cows and chickens? Is the line drawn at the ability to feel pain? If so, would it be OK to eat animals if we could genetically engineer them so they could be raised in incubators with just a brainstem and without pain receptors so they would be unconscious and unfeeling? For me, simple answers to complex questions are almost always incorrect.

brighid

Vegetable by themselves are not COMPLETE proteins and lack all the 8 essential amino acids necessary for the building blocks of life. Most have only 6 of the 8 essential amino acids and must be combined with either whole grains or nuts to obtain this. That means one can’t eat a bowl of white rice with veggies on top and get the protein and amino acids, it must be combined with either nuts or a soy products. Meat sources have all 8 essential amino acids present without combining other foods to achieve this. And yes, in comparison 3 oz of steak is a better protein source (and amino acids) then 3 oz of vegetables. Fatty fishes, such as salmon and tuna are excellent sources of omega 3 & 6 essential fatty acids, and are a necessary part of a healthy diet. One can obtain these omegas from hemp seed, pumpkin seed, olive oil and flax seed oil – although hemp, pumpkin and olive oil require up to a cup to get the necessary requirements of omegas, where as flax seed oil is far less.

The hemoglobin which is part of the meat tissue contains iron that your body absorbs 2 to 10 times more efficiently than the iron from any other source. 22% of Up to 22% of the iron in meat is absorbed, while only 1-8% is absorbed from eggs and plant foods. If the body stores fall, the rate of iron absorption rises. About 40% of the iron in animal foods is in a form called haem iron, while the remainder, and all the iron in plant foods, is in the less well absorbed non-haem form. Iron absorption can also be reduced by tannins (e.g. in tea) and phytates (found in nuts, grain and seeds), as well as high calcium foods such as milk and cheese. If you are eating a vegetarian diet you must supplement it with a synthetic source of iron, as well as Vitamin C or else your caloric intake will be high and cause obesity. Men and women have different requirements for iron – 8-10 mg for men and 14-15 mg for women, pregnant women need 3 mg and active women between 14-19 mg. Good source of info on iron absorption: <a href="http://www.mostproject.org/ISTD9.htm" target="_blank">http://www.mostproject.org/ISTD9.htm</a>

Red meats are the best source of zinc. Grains have small amounts of zinc, but it is not well absorbed because we have to separate it out from the plant structure. B Vitamins: (Riboflavin, thiamine, niacin) These have a role in helping our muscle tissue utilize the energy from food; so it's not surprising that animal muscle should be a good source. Whole grains are also important sources of B vitamins.

Vitamin B-12: Its role is essential for our body cells, particularly red blood cells, to divide and grow. There are NO plant sources of vitamin B-12; so those not consuming animal proteins must take a supplement.

Also – the standard daily requirements are for people who are SEDENTARY and designed to prevent certain diseases due to poor nutrition, but aren’t designed for optimal health of for that of active men and women! The requirements for an active person or an athlete are different. A 125 lb sedentary female is going to have drastically different nutritional requirements then at 225 lb athletic male that engages in strenuous activity.

Examples of amounts of vegetarian foods providing 2mg iron
Type of food (Quantity)
· Pistachios (14g)
· Cashews (roasted) (32g)
· Whole lentils (57g)
· Chick peas (boiled) (95g)
· Wholemeal bread (74g)
· Sesame seeds or tahini (19g)
· Black molasses (22g)
· Apricots (dried) (59g)
· Spinach (boiled) (125g)

Meat sources:

Based on 90 g (3 oz) of cooked meat
Clams 25 mg
Pork Liver 16mg
Oysters 8 mg
Chicken Liver 7.5 mg
Beef Liver 5.5 mg
Beef 3.0 mg
Fish 1.0 mg


Brighid

brighid

Humans need to eat meat, otherwise they cannot get ALL the proper nutrients needed for survival, unless they are able to eat fortified vegetarian foods AND supplements! Getting it strictly from nature is NOT possible, unless it is doctored.

Unless ones has the availablity to ALL of these things one MUST eat the proper amount of meat to get those nutrients!!

If we need to eat it (which we DO), it is not immoral when done HUMANELY!!

Here what happens when you don't get your B12, which CANNOT be found in non-meat products:

Introduction
Laboratory tests for folate and vitamin B12 are essential for the diagnosis of a deficiency of these vitamins, and for the investigation of some forms of anaemia. Untreated, deficiency of folate or B12 may lead to severe anaemia, and in B12 deficiency, crippling neurological disease. The clinical indications for testing are broad (Table 1). Often the indication for testing is an abnormality found in a full blood examination, such as unexplained anaemia or macrocytosis. Neurological conditions associated with B12 deficiency include peripheral neuropathy and subacute combined degeneration of the spinal cord. Deterioration in cognitive ability may also occur. Serum B12 should therefore be checked, even in the absence of haematological abnormality, in patients with some unexplained neurological or neuropsychiatric abnormalities.

<a href="http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazines/vol22no1/folate.htm" target="_blank">http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazines/vol22no1/folate.htm</a>

Edited to ADD:
Indications for which testing for folate and B12 deficiency might be considered

Unexplained anaemia

Macrocytosis

Suspected malabsorption

Some neurological diseases e.g. peripheral neuropathy

Some psychiatric disorders e.g. unexplained memory loss or dementia

Malnutrition including subjects on restrictive diets e.g. vegetarians

Haematological disease associated with increased cell turnover

Alcohol abuse

Drug therapy e.g. anticonvulsants

Family history of pernicious anaemia

Infertility





Brighid

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

shamon

Isn’t this obvious? Of course it would be justified. I never said we should never eat meat, only that to eat it when it ISN’T required (unlike the above example) is immoral/wrong/murder.
Were those stranded soccer players immoral b/c they ate humans. Of course not. But they also didn’t kill them to eat them either.
Killing if it’s your life or theirs and stealing in order not to starve or die isn’t immoral. Your statement is 100% correct, “Killing & stealing aren't wrong on their own, they're only wrong if you don't need to kill and steal”. This is also consistent with the vegetarianism stance.
We mass-produce mammals. I’m focusing on mammals b/c that’s what in our diet that’s unneeded. We also don’t need insects but we’re not mass producing them.
What do you specifically disagree with? What word is ambiguous? Killing animals without need is murder.
Killing = Well, killing them
Animals = Anything other than a plant
Without = Not present
Need = Required
Murder = Killing in other than in self-defense
“Killing anything other than a plant without requiring it is killing in other than self defense”
Or
“Killing animals without need is murder”
What do you disagree with?

shamon

No, it would not be OK to eat them b/c it would be wrong to “genetically engineer them so they could be raised in incubators with just a brainstem and without pain receptors so they would be unconscious and unfeeling”.

It doesn’t matter about pain and I didn’t address this. Animals aren’t needed in humans’ diet; therefore to kill an animal is murder. The line to draw the line is whether or not something is required/needed. This IS what I said.

You are correct but the QUESTION isn’t complex and neither is the answer.

Rational Ag

Since the majority of the people on this board will likely agree that "morality" is a subjective set of ideals and values held by a society, I think we can come to the conclusion that in our society (the US), eating meat is not immoral.

To you sir, it might be immoral, just as homosexuality is immoral to the religious right. However, one person does not decide morality. It's decided by our society at-large. Our society (as a group) has decided that it's moral to eat meat, drink beer on Sunday, and pick our noses if we like. It is not moral to kill someone or to rape your children. You may personally think certain things our society do are immoral, whereas there are probably things we consider immoral that you think are perfectly moral. For example, if you think it’s perfectly moral to kill your neighbor and eat him over a hunting dispute, I am sure there is a tribe in Papua New Guinea that you would get along with great.

Your personal morality has nothing to do with the morality of the majority. You can complain and cry about it all you want, start petitions, and lobby in congress. However, unless you get the majority of your society to buy in to your position, your claim of immoral acts will fall on deaf ears.

A further task you face is that most Americans don't realize morality is subjective. Unless it states that it's immoral to eat meat in the bible, you won't convince any of the fundies it's immoral. They think morality comes from stories made up by Hebrew goat herders.

-Rational Ag

shamon

Must YOU eat meat to get B12? If you don’t have to kill an animal to get B12 then it’s unneeded killing and therefore immoral.

It’s as simple as it’s immoral to kill when it’s not your life or theirs. Is it your life or theirs when you eat meat? Besides, you can get B12 from eggs so you don’t have to kill an animal to get it. Do we really need to cut/past content to prove our arguments? I know about B12 and most people here probably know about is also. I wouldn’t have brought this topic up if I hadn’t known about it – no one would.

Do you think most people that eat meat are aware of basic nutrition and are conscientiously eating meat so as to avoid dietary deficiencies? It’s not related but interesting.

DRFseven

Well, minor children, for instance, who are given mainly fast-food burgers, fries, soda, and sugary cereal for the bulk of their diet. They'd die if they didn't eat the meat. It's a terrible diet, but better than nothing.

Well, now, not EVERYONE, only most. Some people don't have control over the food provided to them. But, as I said before, yes, the vast majority of people reading these posts do not require meat; you are right about that.

I understand what you're saying about not needing meat. As far as a healthy diet goes, yes, people can have extraordinarily healthy diets without meat; can even improve preexisting health problems by cutting way down or eliminating it, while increasing the fruits and vegetables, but people don't care about being perfectly healthy. If they did, they'd all exercise every day, they'd avoid exposure to sunlight, avoid all kinds of environmental hazards, they'd never eat junk food, they'd quit adding table salt, and they wouldn't travel in automobiles. But no one, not even vegetarians, want to live their lives this way. What people want is just to be healthy enough to enjoy doing what they want to do. And you're right; almost all adults here can be quite healthy without eating meat and it's not hard at all; most vegetarians in this country get twice the protein they need. That's your point. You're saying 'why do the "bad" thing if you don't have to?' Only you haven't established that killing animals is bad. You say, I guess we don't; that's a very simple-minded attitude. If you can't talk to someone who challenges what you say, you're not worth talking to.

shamon

Although this isn’t related to unneeded killing I will address one of the ideas. The reason why vegetarianism is healthy is b/c of the food combining. You may be able to combine your whole day’s worth of nutrients into one nutrition bar, but it wouldn’t be healthy. Food combining doesn’t require a Ph.D. It doesn’t require any thought at all. You naturally do it as a vegetarian. All of the above nutrients can be gotten from non-animal sources therefore it’s unneeded killing. I understand that everyone cannot become a vegetarian, but YOU can, and therefore it’s immoral for you to kill an animal to eat. Supplements prove my point by providing a convenient means to not kill animals needlessly. Disagree?

shamon

The number of people that support something doesn’t make it right or wrong. Is the needless killing of animals OK? I know you think eating meat is OK but what about killing needlessly.

I’m not really arguing that it’s immoral to eat meat, only that it’s immoral to needlessly kill. Can we agree on this small idea? What do YOU consider immoral that I don’t?

It’s never moral to kill or rape, it doesn’t matter what society you’re in. When someone is raped it is ALWAYS wrong and immoral. When isn’t it?

I don’t think it’s moral to kill over a hunting dispute and neither do you, what’s your point? You’re not a New Guinea hunter and neither am I. We don’t require the killing of animals to live so it’s immoral for us to do it. If they could get nutrients using other means then it would be immoral for them to eat animals also. Although this is subjective, in the sense that it only applies to humans so far, it’s objective in the sense that it’s the same for all humans. Objective morality DOES exist FOR HUMANS.

I’m not trying to convince society. I’m asking YOU about YOUR morality. Is it OK to kill anything if you don’t have to? Yes or NO?

I’m not talking to them, I’m talking to YOU.

[ April 09, 2002: Message edited by: shamon ]</p>