Vegans - B12

[tracysaboe]

livefreeNHgirl:

For the record, I'm glad to have you on the forum. This discussion is largely accedemic. As long as you don't lobby the government to pass laws making it illegal to or regulating the use of Animals that live on my property or other peoples property, we'll get allong fine. I enjoy disccussing these sorts of things.

Tracy

[livefreeNHgirl]

I said I was against zoos, circuses, racing (and let me add rodeos to that list). HUGE difference.

For the record I think Matradoring is a very cruel sport too.

But you didn't answer my question about Zoos from my previous post.

Namely zoos, are the large part of the reason we're able to save as many endangered species as we are. Most of those animals would be dead if they weren't in zoos. How can you be against them. Or am I buying into environmentalist propaganda.

Exactly where to do draw the line between healthy relationship (pet, working dog, training, etc. and slavery. That's what I don't understand. Many times a pet is both a working animals AND companionship. Yet eyou seem to think that in working they're being made slaves.

You also never answered my question about plants. Why do animals have rights, if plants don't. They're living things too.

So are bacteria for that matter. Don't they have rights? Am I committing mass murder when I use Lysole? You know I'm always very kind to animals. I'll take an insect outside before I'll let my wife step on it. But insects are part of the animal kingdom. To be consistant, are you anti-bug killing? Is it wrong to slap a fly?

Tracy

These are good questions. Yes, bullfighting is also extremely cruel and unfair. Bulls are drugged and even stabbed/injured BEFORE being sent out into the ring, so they come out at a disadvantage. A bloodsport to promote the ego of a coward matador pretending to be brave. It makes my blood boil!

I will concede that there are a few major zoos that are actively working to prevent extinction of some species. I respect that. And many zoos are improving the living accommodations for their animals. But most zoos are just animal-prisons for the profit of humans, in my opinion. Another difficult "fine-line" issue.

I don't know always exactly where the line is from companionship to imprisonment. As I said, this whole topic is very complex and subjective, so I do not claim to have all the answers, or even have a firm stance on each sub-topic. I just believe that when the primary reason for an animal's existence is to serve human's desire for entertainment, gambling, fashion or taste, it is wrong.

When a dog is raised to live with a loving individual or family to be a therapeutic or service animal, I think that can be fine, as long as the animal is well treated and loved.

I am no scientist, but I of course believe plants and animals are different on many levels. Trying to draw
comparisons between plants and animals is a flawed argument. Humans and animals are more closely related to each other than plants and animals. In fact, humans are animals.  Like humans, animals have a central nervous system and can feel and think, and yes, many are evolved enough to love. (I am pretty sure my dog loves me more than any human in my life does!) Cows bellow in sadness when their newborn calves are pulled away from them. Elephants have been known to mourn the loss of a family member for years...etc etc etc.

I do not believe plants have that level of consciousness. Therefore they cannot feel pain or loss. And humans do have to eat something to survive!  However, I believe there is a group of people who will only eat from plants that do not have to be "killed" to be eaten, for instance, removing the fruit from a tree, or tomatoes from a tomato plant does not kill the living plant. I am sure I will never go that far.

I will be brutally honest here and admit that I am not so loving when it comes to insects. I will swat a fly that is trying to land on my food, or kill a parasite (mosquito, tick) that is sucking my blood, yes. When they start threatening my health, yes, I will kill them.

[livefreeNHgirl]

livefreeNHgirl:

For the record, I'm glad to have you on the forum. This discussion is largely accedemic. As long as you don't lobby the government to pass laws making it illegal to or regulating the use of Animals that live on my property or other peoples property, we'll get allong fine. I enjoy disccussing these sorts of things.

Tracy

Thanks, Tracy. I am glad to be here too, and I look forward to exploring other topics on this web site! In fact, I probably have a lot more to learn about being a Libertarian. I know I embrace most of the Libertarian philosophy, but I probably do not fit into the box perfectly. I probably should not CALL myself a Libertarian yet, since I have already gotten into trouble with trying to label myself  .

I have a lot of questions and am doing my research and evolving as a political being. (I used to be a liberal in the early 90's and have been evolving ever since).

I will tell you that because I have strong beliefs about animal rights, I do believe we should have laws pertaining to animal cruelty, just as we should have laws pertaining to cruelty to humans. Does that make me a socialist? 

[Pat K]

This thread has made me hungry, think I will cook a steak. 

[tracysaboe]

I do believe we should have laws pertaining to animal cruelty, just as we should have laws pertaining to cruelty to humans. Does that make me a socialist?

In the particular service of preventing animal cruelty, it does. It means that you're willing to agress against the owners of said animals because they treat them differently form what you believe they should, and it also means that you think government should agress against taxpayers to fund this -- somes of which probably disagree that such a law should exist or even if they don't, they disagree with your particular definitions of what animal cruelty is.

Libertarianism, is about trying to solve these social problems with-out violence. And I think their are numerous non-violent methods of helping animals in said grievous situaitons with-out resorting to taxation and government violence -- or even violence.

I'm sure others on this forum will have even better suggestions then I have, but if you know of somebody that owns animals and is cruel to them, you could offer to buy it, or start a collection to help them, or offer to take care of it. Perhaps simply talking to the person and explaining why you think their behavior is wrong would even be enough.

Worst case senario, if, after confrontation, and trying more amicable solutions, you're still getting nowhere, you could publacise his/her inhuman treatments to friends, neighbors, the press, etc. If he's a a business owner, you could try to organize a boy-cott. People could ostracise him and refuse to transact with him.

Etc.

Protecting animals, IMNSHO, does not justify violence to prosecute, kid-nap, fine, whatever said owner of animal; nor does it justify the violence of taxation to fund it. Howeer, there are numerous non-violent solutions to any given problem, and usually given some time for the competitive process of the marketplace (from both charitable and for-profit methods) they develope to be much more effective as well.

Tracy

[Kat Kanning]

THE VITAMIN B12 ISSUE

by Dr Gina Shaw, D.Sc, M.A., Dip NH, AIYS (Dip. Irid.)

The subject of vitamin B12 is not new to most vegans, vegetarians or raw fooders.  The supplement companies have many people running to their local health (drug) stores in an effort to make themselves deficiency-free, but is this a good idea?   A number of issues will be raised in this article and I will attempt to piece together some information from many different and reliable (non-financially-oriented) sources.

A vitamin B12 deficiency is a serious disorder and indications of a deficiency of vitamin B12, when they do reach a stage where they have shown up, can be quite severe.  Fatigue, paleness, anorexia, mental confusion, delusions, paranoia, weight loss, respiratory problems, etc. are just some indications that a person may have a B12-deficiency.  In my opinion, ME is often a B12-deficiency disorder.  If you do think you may have a B12-deficiency, it would be wise for you to seek the advice of a health practitioner (such as myself) who is knowledgeable about B12-deficiencies, for immediate advice.  I would strongly recommend that you do something to remedy the situation, as this deficiency can eventually lead to death if left unchecked.

UK official recommendations have decreased in recent years, the body's needs having been previously over-estimated. Indeed, the Department of Health recognises that some people have lower than average requirements of B12. A whole lifetime's requirement of B12 add up to a 40 milligram speck of red crystals, about one-seventh the size of an average tablet of aspirin!

Vitamin B12 is excreted in the bile and is effectively reabsorbed. This is known as enterohepatic circulation. The amount of B12 excreted in the bile can vary from 1 to 10ug (micrograms) a day. People on diets low in B12, including vegans and some vegetarians, may be obtaining more B12 from reabsorption than from dietary sources. Reabsorption is the reason it can take over 20 years for a deficiency disease to develop.   In comparison, if B12 deficiency is due to a failure in absorption, it can take only three years for a deficiency disease to occur. Since vitamin B12 is recycled in a healthy body, in principle, internal B12 synthesis could fulfil our needs without any B12 being provided in the diet, but there are other factors to be taken into consideration such as whether there is sufficient cobalt, calcium and protein in our diet to ensure a stable vitamin B2 level and the condition of our intestines.

Among the many controversies surrounding vitamin B12, there is the argument that, although Intrinsic Factor is produced in our stomachs and that our intestines are known to produce vitamin B12, the bacteria is produced too low down in the intestines and cannot be absorbed by our bodies. This argument is still hanging around, however, according to Dr Vetrano it was disproved by research over 20 years ago and is nothing more than an obsolete scientific theory.  Indeed, in a 1999 version of 'Human Anatomy and Physiology' by Marieb, it states quite clearly that we do indeed absorb vitamin B12 through our intestines.

Many people say that the only foods which contain vitamin B12 are animal-derived foods.  This also is untrue.  No foods naturally contain vitamin B12 - neither animal or plant foods.  Vitamin B12 is a microbe - a bacteria - it is produced by microorganisms. Vitamin B12 is the only vitamin that contains a trace element - cobalt - which gives this vitamin its chemical name - cobalamin - which is at the centre of its molecular structure.  Humans and all vertebrates require cobalt, although it is assimilated only in the form of vitamin B12.

B12 synthesis is known to occur naturally in the human small intestine (in the ileum), which is the primary site of B12 absorption.  As long as gut bacteria have cobalt and certain other nutrients, they produce vitamin B12. Dr Michael Klaper argues that vitamin B12 is present in the mouth as well and intestines.  Furthermore, Dr Virginia Vetrano states that active Vitamin B12 coenzymes are found in bacteria in the mouth, around the teeth, in the nasopharynx, around the tonsils and in the  tonsilar crypts, in  the folds at the base of the tongue, and in the upper bronchial   tree. Absorption of the natural B12 coenzymes can take place in  the mouth, throat, oesophagus, bronchial tubes and even in the upper small  intestines, as well as all along the intestinal tract. This does not involve the complex enzyme mechanism for absorption (Intrinsic Factor) in the small intestine as required by cyanocobalamin. The coenzymes are absorbed by diffusion from  mucous membranes (11).

External B12 coming into the body must be combined with a mucoprotein enzyme named Intrinsic Factor, which is normally present in gastric secretions, to be properly assimilated.   If the Intrinsic Factor is impaired or absent, B12 synthesis will not take place, no matter how much is present in the diet.    A B12 deficiency can be caused by antibiotics (from the drugs themselves and contained in milk and meat), alcohol (alcohol damages the liver, so drinkers need more B12) and smoking (and all high temp cooked food is smoky) and stress also raises B12 needs).

Many nutritional analyses of foodstuffs were carried out such a long time ago, and, as such, have not taken account of more up-to-date technology.  According to Dr Vetrano, current books on nutrition in the U.S. now state that there is B12 in any food that contains quantities of the B vitamin complex, but previously they were just not able to assay the amounts.  Nowadays, more modern technology has allowed them to discover that there is B12 in those foods rich in the B complex.

The author does not believe that a vitamin B12 deficiency is more widespread in vegans or vegetarians - this is probably just another marketing lie!  In fact, many so-called studies 'showing vegans deficient' have to be carefully studied themselves - many of them do not prove vegans to be deficient at all!  In fact, contrary to meat and dairy industry propaganda, meat-eaters are known to be more likely to have a vitamin B12 deficiency - this has been known since 1959!!(1)

Having said this, we must bear in mind that many vegetarians and vegans still take antibiotics or consume antibiotic-containing foods such as onions, garlic, strong radishes and other foods rich in mustard oil, which are lethal to intestinal flora.   The trouble is that once we have damaged our intestinal flora, it is difficult to correct without proper and knowledgeable healthcare and dietary advice.   It is of far greater importance to correct intestinal flora problems than to spend our lives relying on so-called supplements. People who have a physical problem because they think they are not getting enough vitamin B12, are in fact often not digesting, absorbing or assimilating their foods properly because of the condition of their gastrointestinal tract.  When their intestines are healed, vitamin B12 can be utilized and produced once again

Indeed, Dr Vetrano argues that the real problem in so-called B12 deficiency   is a failure of digestion and absorption of foods, rather than a deficiency of   the vitamin itself.  She further argues that vitamin  B12 coenzymes are found in nuts and seeds as well as in many common greens, fruits, and  many vegetables. If we ate 100 grams of green beans, beets, carrots, and  peas we   would have half of our so-called daily minimum requirement of  Vitamin B12 coenzymes providing our digestion and absorption are normal. From  Rodale's The Complete Book of Vitamins, page 236 we find the following  clarification:   "As you know, the B complex of vitamins is called  a  'complex' because, instead of being one vitamin, it has turned out to be a  large number of related vitamins, which appear generally in the same foods." (11)

   

The cause of malabsorption is commonly a gastrointestinal disorder and this was known by pathologists way back in the l800s. In this case, one's lifestyle must be assessed and brought into unison with the needs of the living organism.

According to Marieb's 'Human Anatomy and Physiology', vitamin B12 can be destroyed by highly alkaline and highly acid conditions.  This assumes that the B12 in meat would be easily destroyed because the hydrochloric acid in our stomachs during the digestion of meat is highly acidic. This may explain why meat-eaters are just as likely to have a B12 deficiency as vegans - even though their diet contains vitamin B12.  Also, as mentioned earlier, another problem for meat-eaters is that there are normally antiobiotics in meat plus the fact that many meat-eaters destroy their friendly bacteria in their intestines by constant putrefaction and the putrefactive bacteria naturally present in meat will give the body a hard time.  So, the damaged intestines may not function well enough to enable adequate vitamin B12 levels to be asborbed.

Another side to the equation is that low serum B12 levels do not necessarily equate to a B12 deficiency necessarily. Just because there is a low level of B12 in the bloodstream, this does not mean that there is a deficiency in the body as a whole, it may well be being utilised by the living cells (such as the central nervous system). More reliable tests appear to be that of homocysteine levels and Methyl Malonic Acid tests.

Commercially, vitamin B12 tablets are made from bacteria and the bacteria is deeply fermented.   A B12 supplement or injection may help in the short-term, should the levels fall low, but in the medium to long-term, I would recommend a B12-deficient person tries to get to the bottom of why they are continually becoming deficient, with the help of a Natural Hygienist.

According to Dr. John Potter PhD, of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, "Food's magic is based on thousands of complex interactions of dozens of different phytochemicals which are difficult to recreate in pills. While 190 solid studies prove that fruit and vegetables benefit, supplements have only a smattering of evidence".   Vitamins, minerals, hormones, etc. do not work in isolation, they work symbiotically.  They work with other nutrients in order for their work to be carried out.  When these highly complex substances are disturbed, their overall effectiveness can be reduced. However, too much of a nutrient is draining on our vital energy as the human (or non-human) organism may have to expel a nutrient overload.   Also, it is doubtful whether, even if you do have a B12 deficiency, you have only a B12 deficiency.    A healthier diet and living conditions, as well as a fast may be in order.

On the topic of supplements in general, Dr Douglas Graham, in his book 'Nutrition and Athletic Performance', argues that supplementation has proven to be an inadequate and incomplete method of supplying nutrients as scientists cannot match nature's refined balances.  He says that since an estimated ninety per cent of all nutrients are as yet undiscovered, why would we want to start adding nutrients into our diet one at a time rather than eating whole foods?  Most nutrients are known to interact symbiotically with at least eight other nutrients and considering this, the odds of healthfully supplying any nutrients in its necessary component package becomes 'infinitesimally minute'.  More to the point he adds, 'there has never been a successful attempt to keep an animal or human healthy, or even alive, on a diet composed strictly of nutritional supplements'.  So I would say that a reliance on supplements, without getting to the root of the problem isn't ideal.

Dan Reeter, at Bio-Systems Laboratories in Colorado is creating one of the world's most comprehensive computer facilities for soil biology testing.  He says that, from his extensive tests, plants grown in organically-managed soil make significantly higher levels of usable vitamin B12.  It has also been reported that vitamin B12 is present in wild fruits and wild and home-grown plant foods.

The author contends that animal and dairy produce is a poor source of Vitamin B12 since they are normally cooked and thereore the vitamin is contained in nutrient-deranged foodstuffs which will inevitably destroy the usability of the vitamin.   Studies show that those following a typical animal-based diet require more vitamin B12 than those who do not.  This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy.  Because B12 is peptide-bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakened gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B12 from external food.  Nevertheless, raw food vegans can actually get more B12 by reabsorption from bile than they do from external food. Wolfe argues that the natural soil microbes and bacteria found on wild plant foods and unwashed garden plants are typically adequate to supply our B12 requirements. The natural microbes in the soil need to be duplicated and to colonise in our digestive tract, without fermentation or putrefaction.

Another point worth considering is that vitamin B12 Recommended Daily Allowances (RDA's) are based upon the average cooked food (meat and two veg), smoking, drinking person.  Commercial interests have indeed grossly exaggerated our needs for many nutrients. These studies tell us nothing of the requirements for a healthy vegetarian.   It is very difficult to determine precise individual needs of any vitamin or nutrient, and an overload of any vitamin or other nutrient creates an unnecessary burden on our vital domain.  Factors such as rate of metabolism, stress, etc. can determine our differing and often changing needs.  Dr Victor Herbert reported in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1998, Volume 48) that only 0.00000035 ounces (1 microgram) of vitamin B12 is required per day.  These minimum vitamin requirements may be inadequate to explain the needs of a healthy raw food vegan, for example, who may require less B12 due to an improved gastric ability and a high ability to recycle vitamin B12.  (Cooking destroys microbes and a highly sterilised, cooked vegan diet may not provide the intestines with enough good quality flora). Absorption rates of B12 are inevitably higher in healthy individuals than in unhealthy individuals.  Studies, based on healthy Indian vegetarian villagers, showed that none of them exhibited symptoms of B12 deficiency, despite levels of .3-.5 micrograms of B12. 

I believe that Vitamin B12 deficiency is typically caused by lack of absorption in the intestinal tract rather than a lack of this vitamin in the diet.   Annie and Dr David Jubb argue that people have lived in such a sterile, antiseptic environment for so long that these necessary symbiotic organisms have been less than present in our diet.  They argue that by ingesting soil-born organisms you can maintain an enormous reservoir of uncoded antibodies ready to transform specific pathogens, the way nature intended - by eating a little dirt! 

If a person is healthy and on a healthy vegan, high-percentage raw food diet and does not habitually over-eat, wrongly combine their foods and abuse their bodies generally, and is able to obtain quality produce and utilise fasting quite regularly I would suggest that t is unlikely that they will develop B12 deficiency symptoms providing their intestinal flora was not previously deranged.  Vitamin B12 deficiency is usually symptomatic of a larger problem i.e. poor intestinal flora, poor absorption, gastric disorders , etc. and can also be attrributed to a lack of sunlight.  There are indeed many factors involved here since adequate B12 levels, as mentioned, are dependent upon sufficient calcium, vitamin B12, zinc, cobalt, protein, etc.

I would also suggest that just because a wild fruit or organic plant food contains only a small amount, this does not mean it is deficient.   It may just be because we only need a small amount anyhow.  The pill pushers are quick to say that our soil is deficient, but according to Diamond and others, if a seed does not receive the elements it needs IT WILL NOT GROW (OR WILL GROW POORLY - author).  Also, plants obtain nutrients from other sources in greater amounts: the sun, water and the air.   Plants actually obtain only about 1% of nutrients from the soil.

If you do develop a B12 deficiency, certain urgent dietary adjustments may need to be made, and there is a possibility that fasting is in order.  In any case, on switching to a healthier diet, be it vegetarian, vegan or raw food (for optimum health), we should go back to nature as much as possible and pay little attention to germ phobics who advise us to scrub our vegetables and fruits.  Buy organic and eat home-grown or wild foods and do not clean them too scrupulously!  Also it is important to ensure adequate nuts and seeds in the diet.

Please note that it is not recommended for anyone to go on a fast of longer duration than 1? days without competent supervision, as prolonged fasts must be monitored by a qualified fasting supervisor.

Dr Shaw is a Doctor of Science, her specialism being in Natural Hygiene and Complementary Medicine and she is not a medical doctor   She is available for health and nutritional consultations, fasting supervision, courses in natural health, emotional healing and iris analysis (iridology).  Her email address is: GinaShw@aol.com Visit her web site at http://vibrancy.homestead.com/pageone.html

1. 'Fit for Life', Diamond, H. and M., 1987       

2. 'The Life Science Institute Course in Natural Health' - 1986

3. 'Nutrition and Athletic Performance', Dr D. Graham, 1999

4.   'Female Balance' article 2001 - www.living-foods.com

5.   Human Anatomy and Physiology - Marieb - 1999

6.   Correspondence with Dr Vetrano and family 2001

7.   'The Sunfood Diet Success Story' by David Wolfe

8.    B12 article by the Vegan Society

9 .   B12 article by the Vegetarian Society

10. 1990 'Solstice Magazine' article

11. 'Rethinking B12' article by Dr V. V. Vetrano

[tracysaboe]

So.
Take a healthy dose of pro-biotics with your vitamin b-12 and your all set!


Tracy

[livefreeNHgirl]

I do believe we should have laws pertaining to animal cruelty, just as we should have laws pertaining to cruelty to humans. Does that make me a socialist?

In the particular service of preventing animal cruelty, it does. It means that you're willing to agress against the owners of said animals because they treat them differently form what you believe they should, and it also means that you think government should agress against taxpayers to fund this -- somes of which probably disagree that such a law should exist or even if they don't, they disagree with your particular definitions of what animal cruelty is.

Libertarianism, is about trying to solve these social problems with-out violence.

OK, good lesson.

Now, what if said person attacked an animal that I own? Is that different?

And what if that person attacked/hurt/killed his own child?

I am not challenging you sarcastically, I really want to know what your view is...

[tracysaboe]

OK, good lesson.

Now, what if said person attacked an animal that I own? Is that different?

Yes. He initiated the agression against your property. Libertarians fully believe in the first to self defence. Largely because it reduses violence and criminal behavior because you don't have to wait around for cops which typicaly show up later and end up making things worse. There are some on this forum who are complete pacifists. I'm not one of them. Perhaps they have other ideas.
But basically if they're attacking your dog they're vandalizing your property. They're agressing on your property rights.

One point I want to make here is that in order for you to claim they really are aggressing on your property, you need to believe that property rights pertain to the animals. If you don't believe you have a right to own an animal (because you equate it with slavery, or whatever) you really don't have a leg to stand on philosophically when somebody agresses against it. It's not yours, Right? Now certainly you could still step up yourself and defend it in a vigilante manner. But because not everybody agrees that animals are persons, it wouldn't justify using government force to tax and come to the aid of said animal, because government would be stealing from people who don't agree with its activities.

Now if animals are property, and this particular animal is your property specifically, it solves all these problems because pretty much everybody does believe that stealing and vandalism are wrong. However, that ends up working both ways. Somebody elses animal is there property, even if they treat it in a manor you personally find objectionable.

And what if that person attacked/hurt/killed his own child?

Oh boy. I knew we were going to get into this This actually hits close to home, because I'm anti-abortion. I believe killing a child (born or unborn) is wrong. As such, IF we need to have the neccessary evil of government, abortion and infanticide should be illegal IMNSHO. Protecting people from being murdered is one of the few legitimate functions and reasons to have government. Minarchist libertarians, many times will take the easy way out on this issue and say, "well, since people don't agree, government should just stay out of the abortion issue." The problem with this very libertarian sounding responce is that it's impossible for government to be neutral on this issue. Even if there were no government subsidies and no regulations on malpractice and property insurence companies disalowing them to discriminate against the higher complication rates and higher vandalism rates on abortion places, I would still be being forced to pay taxes to support a legal and police system that defends the right of someone I consider a murderer, to continue practicing what I believe to be murder.

Thomas Jefferson said that to compell a man to furnish with funds that which he finds morally objectionable is tyranny. In other words being forced to pay for police and courts that protect the abortionist is tyranny. On the other hand, somebody that doesn't agree with me, would be forced to pay taxes to help prosecute somebody they don't view as a murderer if I had my way. Either way you do it, government is a tyrant on some part of society. You probably feel the same way about animal abuse that I feel about abortion.

The only real solution to this problem, (And I think probably in the animal abuse issue if you see animals as on morally the same level as human beings.)  is to have anarchy in these particular issues: No government court systems, or police for prosecution or protection for these issues.

Now, I don't neccessarily have a problem with that, as you can see in my profile.

I think in an anarchic society you'd have competing protection agencies, some of those agencies would have legal principles they follow that are staunchly pro-life. Some would have legal principles they follow that are staunchly anti-animal abuse and they'd be funded by people who believe animals are moral beings posessing personhood. You'd have others that believe their respective opposites.

People that want to kill their children or abuse their animals are going to have much higher protection insurence premiums -- AND have higher security costs in general, because of organizations that would be potecting the children and animals, respectively. This is one way in which being an abusing animal owner or child-rearer, would be much more expensive in a free society then in the current monopolistic one-size-fits all legal system.

Simularly abortionists would have to charge much higher fees then they do currently to pay for all the increases security and various increased insurence premiums since there's no socialized police system protecting them anymore. People that work in said industries would probably also have higher protection and insurence costs too. Simply put, they're in a violent field of work, which attracts violence, and insurence companies are going be to rating them based on that, and said individuals will need to take more costly security measures. I think simular things could be said for people who abuse their animals to a degree that a large part of the population believe it's wrong and thinks something should be done about it.

Well, that's my philosophy anyway.  I'm not expecting to turn you into an anarchist overnight. Their have been many articles on strike-the-root, and other market anarchist sites about how the issue of abortion would be dealt with in a completely free society. I think many of them would speak to this issue too, for people like you who believe many animals are on a morally equivelent level with humans.

Tracy

[Dreepa]

I just know my kiddos would say "eating eggs isn't vegan"..they've been vegan since birth

My son declared to me one day when he was 3 that he didn't want to eat anymore of his friends (animals).  So we let him become a vegatarian.  Then about 2 weeks in he said that he wanted to eat some chicken.  I reminded him that chickens were animals and he said 'that's ok they aren't my friends'.  Now he calls all meat chicken.

[Caleb]

I'm still undecided about what meat but I'm thinking something along the lines of rabbit

Have you considered fish?  Fish is easy to catch, available 12 months out of the year (I've never been ice fishing ... but I hear its a blast), and probably the most nutritious meat.  Those meat-based eskimos you talk about rely a lot on fish ...

That having been said, I don't really know how to address the greater ethical issue of how to justify eating animals. I watched the sheep video, and it was troubling to see animals treated that way.  There is no excuse for treating an animal in such unspeakably cruel ways.

But for me to give up meat would require an enormous change in my own personal lifestyle.  Forget about dairy. I love butter, yogurt, cheeses, ice cream, etc.  Honey (yum).  All my favorite foods are animal based ...

Still, I have to admit videos like that prick your conscience. Although animals aren't human, its hard to ignore the fact that eating animals brings harm and death to a being that didn't even attempt to harm me, even in its most humane form.   

[9thmoon]

What a fascinating thread.  Thank you, everybody, for the light reading.   

My two cents:  I am troubled at the way our culture has industrialized meat production.  I am also extremely anaemic and ferrous gluconate can only do so much for me.  I therefore choose to purchase free-range and organic meats whenever possible.  I eat meat about once a day (beef about twice a month) and rely on vegetables for the bulk of my calories.  I drink organic milk, eat organic eggs, and hope to have my own chickens and rabbits by next spring. 

I know I'm not as principled as some in this thread are, but everyone who is doing whatever they can to move toward self-sufficiency or at least reliance on local sources of well-trated, healthy, low-environmental-impact food should be encourage. 

So, when I get to NH, I'm going to have a bbq housewarming... natural free-range steaks, anyone? 

[tracysaboe]

I prefer venison myself.

Tracy

[livefreeNHgirl]

OK, good lesson.

Now, what if said person attacked an animal that I own? Is that different?

Yes. He initiated the agression against your property.... They're agressing on your property rights.

That's where my philosophy does differ. I do not believe that pets are property nor that we own them.

But because not everybody agrees that animals are persons, it wouldn't justify using government force to tax and come to the aid of said animal,

I doubt there is one issue that everybody does agree on.

And what if that person attacked/hurt/killed his own child?

Oh boy. I knew we were going to get into this This actually hits close to home, because I'm anti-abortion. I believe killing a child (born or unborn) is wrong.

I believe abortion is murder too. I also believe killing animals is murder. I just don't see the difference.

I think in an anarchic society you'd have competing protection agencies, some of those agencies would have legal principles they follow that are staunchly pro-life. Some would have legal principles they follow that are staunchly anti-animal abuse and they'd be funded by people who believe animals are moral beings posessing personhood. You'd have others that believe their respective opposites.

Sounds just as scary to me as big government. Still the same potential for abuse of power and corruption, like in the Mob.

People that want to kill their children or abuse their animals are going to have much higher protection insurence premiums --

Huh? Now I'm losing you. How could the insurance agencies find out who was inclined to kill children or animals and know what to charge?

Well, that's my philosophy anyway.  I'm not expecting to turn you into an anarchist overnight.

Oh that's a relief. 

Their have been many articles on strike-the-root, and other market anarchist sites about how the issue of abortion would be dealt with in a completely free society. I think many of them would speak to this issue too, for people like you who believe many animals are on a morally equivelent level with humans.

I'll look those up, thanks.

[tracysaboe]

Huh? Now I'm losing you. How could the insurance agencies find out who was inclined to kill children or animals and know what to charge?

They wouldn't neccessarily need too, however in a free society insurence companies would be a whole lot more complete, number 1, because they'd be allowed to, in their back-ground checks on who to cover and who not too. And number 2, because they wouldn't be depending on socialized police and government systems to help them, those costs would be internalized to the company.

But the simple fact that some people get involved in violent situations, and pehaps get attacked more frequently then other people would be enough for those sorts of people to have higher ratings.

I believe abortion is murder too. I also believe killing animals is murder. I just don't see the difference.

I don't believe animals are sentient beings like you do. But that's a debate that's been hammered to death, and I was trying to address your concerns with out needing to deal with it.

Tracy

Tracy