I choose to be a vegetarian because I want to. I am rather “silent” on the issue and I don’t force my lifestyle upon anyone else. In fact, since I am a lacto-ovo, it would make no sense to force my lifestyle upon someone else. It is purely a subjective truth, as I can’t say that it is universally right to be a vegetarian and that there are many individuals in this world, who would disagree, however; I can state my reasons for being one.

I believe that it is clearly unethical to create life for the sole purpose of killing it. Over two billion animals are killed on a daily basis annually. Even if the entire planet would become vegetarian, it would not accumulate the amount of animals being slaughtered. Sacrificing the complexity to save another life form to increase my own would be selfish to me. If you were a chicken, a calf, a pig, or any other animal, would you want to be raised to be eaten later on? Knowing there are other sources of food that exist, would you want to be chosen to be the one eaten?

The vegetarian lifestyle has become more “pro” as of late and has a lot of benefits. In fact, the positive exceeds the negative regarding the lifestyle. As most individuals who are vegetarian follow that particular lifestyle, most do it for ethical reasons, others do it for nutritional reasons, others do it because they don’t like meat, and others do it because they just want to.

I believe that our ancestors probably did get by without eating meat. Real predators have reduced digestive channels, which humans do NOT have. It can be argued on physiological and psychological wavelengths, that eating meat is not natural, as our stomachs possess inadequate pH levels. I think once someone had the opportunity to taste meat, they just couldn’t leave it alone. This has developed into a “meat eating persuasion” and therefore; created objections towards the vegetarian lifestyle.

Excess consumption of red meat is linked to a number of age-related disorders, especially atherosclerosis. Red meat’s detrimental health effects out weight the anti-glycation benefits, that are used in any con vegetarian argument. Although, individuals who choose the vegetarian lifestyle are said to be lacking “carnosine” (which is found in meat) they are said to achieve a higher life expectancy than individuals who eat meat. This expectancy varies upon individual, but can achieve a range of up to 80%. According to Dr. William Castelli, M.D. “vegetarians live three to six years longer than meat eaters”. Animal products are high in sodium, which causes the blood to retain water and also causes plaque to build up in the arteries, lowering blood flow, which are major causes of high blood pressure, one of the biggest killers in the world. Although, individuals who are “con” towards vegetarianism elaborate that individuals who choose the lifestyle will lack certain nutrients that are found in “meat” they seem to also forget that vitamins exist for that reason. Also, don’t forget that tofu and spinach, along with nuts, and other foods possess a lot of key nutrients that are found in meat, i.e. Animals who are killed for food sources, eat vegetables. Humans who choose to eat meat, are not eating pasture animals. They are eating animals that feed on crops. Most individuals who object the vegetarian, vegan, and fruitarian lifestyles seem to debate that eating crops is unhealthy; but what do they think they are eating?

I believe in respecting all living things, regardless of how they treat me. It’s not really trivial, it’s just an ethical way of being. I can understand if you need an animal to save your life or you are being attacked and the only way to save yourself is to react, but to kill a living thing, a life form, purposely for a food source, that has feelings, emotions, and most importantly, a life, is unethical. Eating meat effects not only animals, but the environment in which we live. Should an animal be subjected to such pain afflictions? There are numerous studies that prove animals do, in fact, feel pain. Should the environment? Although, it is radically debated, animals do you have freewill, as well. The concept that in order for a living thing to have a right, they must take on responsibilities is a fallacy. Rights and responsibilities apply to everyone, including animals.

The only argument would be eating plants, as they are considered to be “living things” and if you object to such a lifestyle, you wouldn’t be objecting vegetarianism or veganism, you would be objecting fruitarianism. Animals are capable of feeling. They have strong emotions. Animals respond because they can not just feel, but they can see, hear, etc and possess the same senses as humans do. Plants have no nerve tissue. This makes them ethical to eat. I say this because they are physically incapable of feeling anything. (Along with milk, eggs, cheese, etc.) I don’t think “milking” a cow, will murder a cow. Do you? Do you believe that disrupting the natural ecosystem is ethical? Ecologically speaking, vegetarianism is valid and introduces positive awareness in mono culture.

Wild animals that must kill another animal to live is part of the ecosystem, the circle of life. Just because it is natural, does NOT make it moral. Of course, that animal must kill to survive, but as a human we don’t have to “kill” to survive, when there are alternatives. Do you have to kill to eat tofu, grains, soybeans, etc? Several species of animals are constantly being driven into extinction because of human actions. A vegetarian diet is said to decrease species. Are there divine ethics of eating? Does one believe that if an individual chooses the vegetarian lifestyle, that the vegetarian is wasting food? Does one who objects vegetarianism believe this creates a major imbalance to the world, in which we live? The same can be said to those who eat meat or over-eat, in general.

Vegetarianism, as well as, veganism and fruitarianism is only unethical, if the lifestyle is forced upon another individual who eats meat on a daily basis. This can be said about meat-eaters, as well. Keep in mind, not all vegetarians, vegans, and fruitarians force their lifestyle upon anyone, let alone use cognitive dissonance to prove a point. In fact, a majority of individuals who choose the vegetarian lifestyle are rather “silent” on the issue and are often referred to as “silent vegetarians”. There is absolutely no justification for individuals who eat meat and to attack the industry is wrong. It has been stated that because meat can be produced without factory farms, becoming a vegetarian is a logical fallacy of guilty by association. If this true, what about the suffering and overall welfare of the animal being sacrificed? That is like saying “just because Adolf Hitler was evil and Adolf was a vegetarian, that all vegetarians are evil”. I suppose that one who believes vegetarianism is guilty by association, also believes that just because the entire KKK make up is Caucasian/white, that every person who is Caucasian/white is racist.

If eating meat and objecting the vegetarian lifestyle is unethical, explain murder? Does that make murder ethical?

Does eating meat and objecting the vegetarian lifestyle actually contribute to the world’s balance of good and of evil? Is it required to interact with such distinction? It does not mean it is appeals to tradition.

If GOD were to be a vegetarian, does eating meat make the meat-eater a barbarian? If “meat eating” was created in evolution, does it make it natural? Just because it is natural, does it make it ok? Does this affect the appeal to nature? If so, then everyone must believe in one, universal ordinary.

Must the world be a food chain?

The morals and ethics of a vegetarianism, whether pro or con are not universal. They are tied to personal decisions and other influences in our lives. As sad as it sounds, the rules of physics don’t care about suffering. If vegetarianism, veganism, and fruitarianism were unethical, explain why energy hasn’t stopped because of suffering. Arguing that the chemistry of meat is superior is a rather lifeless argument.