While I certainly don't condone Bea's comparison of meat consumption with rape and pedophilia, I must admit that I do take issue with some of comments made here.
Yes, the human body is certainly able to effectively metabolise meat products - although one could reasonably argue, not in the quantities typically found in a Western diet.
However, with a little due attention, most people are able to subsist entirely on a non-meat diet. The difference between humans and other animals is that we have the ability to freely and rationally exercise our conscience. Speaking for myself, in view of the fact that I can choose to live without meat, I believe it follows that I should do so.
There are two key moral factors behind my decision. Firstly, it prevents unnecessary animal suffering. Comparisons with what occurs in the wild are, in my view, irrelevant, as the human animal is thoroughly domesticated and can obtain all the nutrients it requires from the shelves of the local supermarket. Secondly are the environmental concerns - it is a far more efficient means of food production to grow crops for direct human consumption rather than for livestock feed. The environmental impact of Western dietary habits is significant, particularly in terms of water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
I recognise that meat consumption remains the norm in our society, and I am certainly not one to start pontificating at the dinner table. On the contrary, on more than a few occasions I have found myself being asked to justify my vegetarianism. This does get rather tiresome after a while. Can't we just agree to respect each other's decision, even if we don't agree with it?
Incidentally, it would appear that I need to point out that vegetarianism and veganism are merely dietary practices. Nothing more. They are not, in themselves, religious or political movements. In fact, they do not even necessarily indicate a concern for animal welfare (although, of course, this is usually the case).
