"If one can Kill another living creature to fill his desires even if he has a choice, He will not step back before killing another creature of own kind to fulfill his deeds!"

Regular fruit and vegetable consumption reduces the risk of ischemic heart disease. A recent survey of 47,000 Italians found that persons in the highest tertile of vegetable consumption had a 21and 11% reduced risk of myocardial infarction and angina, respectively, compared with those in the lowest tertile of vegetable consumption (12).

Longevity

Adventists can expect to live between 4 and 10 years longer than the general public. Not all Seventh-day Adventists are vegetarian. Vegetarian Adventists can expect to live up to 12 years longer. Adventists in general have an advantage over the general public probably because they eat more fruits and vegetables.

Less Heart Disease

Because of the low fat, saturated fat and cholesterol content of the vegetarian diet the risk of heart disease is lowered. High blood cholesterol levels are associated with increased risk of heart disease. Vegetarians have only half the risk of dying from a heart attack when compared with the general population.

Less Cancer

It is thought that up to 40% of all cancers are diet related. Cancer death rates have been associated with obesity and high-fat/low-fiber diets (a low in fruits, grains, and vegetables, but high in animal products). Vitamin A and C are thought to be protective against colon cancer. Lowfat diets protect against prostate and breast cancer.

Less Bowel Disease

Diverticular disease and appendicitis appear more frequently with lower fiber intakes. High fiber diets increase the ease with which the food can pass through the system and decrease the transit time from mouth to anus. Bile acids are very irritating to the lining of the intestine. Shorter transit time reduces the contact between nutrients and digestive juices and lining of the intestinal tract. Also less time is allowed for the breakdown of bile acids into carcinogenic substances.

Less Osteoporosis

Lower protein intake and a higher vitamin D and calcium intake may contribute to higher bone density in Seventh-day Adventist women.

Less Obesity

It is easier to plan a low-fat diet for a vegetarian than a low-fat diet for a meat eater. The fiber in plant foods dilutes the energy and provides a satisfying meal without all the calories. Diabetes over the age of 40 seems to be related to obesity. Those able to manage their weight will have less risk of diabetes.

Less Hypertension

The factors involved in high blood pressure are many, but 30-40% of society are sodium sensitive and would be better following a lower sodium diet.

Endurance

For many years it was thought that meat provided the energy for the muscle. It is now known that the best sources of food for endurance exercise are the carbohydrate foods. The body uses glucose to produce energy not protein. A meal of pasta is standard fare before a marathon race. It has been determined that vegetarians enjoy greater strengths of endurance than meat eaters.

If you belong to the vegetarian-by-choice species, you must be immune by now to the varied reactions to your culinary preferences. For those neophytes who are yet to develop a thick skin to queries ranging from the aggressive to the downright asinine, here are some tips:

Hunger argument: Eliminating meat eating will drastically cut livestock pasture and that land can then be used for growing food. One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes but only 250 pounds of meat. Already, vast quantities of food that can feed humans are being fed to livestock. For example, of all the corn grown in the USA, the livestock consumes 80 per cent and humans only 20 per cent.

Environmental argument: Topsoil erosion, global warming, depleting rainforests and extinction of species may be halted if the majority of the world's population adopts a vegetarian diet. For instance, according to research statistics, 300 million pounds of beef is imported from Central and South America to cater to the USA. The economic incentive impels these nations to cut their rainforests to make way for more pastureland.

Natural resources argument: Raising livestock is an inefficient way of generating food. While 25 gallons of water are needed to produce one pound of wheat, 5,000 gallons are used to produce one pound of beef. Also, it takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce one calorie of beef but only 2 calories for one calorie of soybean.

Antibiotics argument: A large amount of antibiotics are fed to livestock to control staphylococci. These are only partially effective, as the bacteria are becoming increasingly immune to them. Both the antibiotics and the bacteria they were intended to destroy are still in the meat when it goes to the market.

If slaughterhouses had transparent glass walls, everyone would become a vegetarian.

Approximately nine billion chickens like these are slaughtered every year in the U. S.. They are being deprived of their God-given liberty for their entire lives.  This is evil!  The Bible teaches us that we are to "rule" over the animals in the same way we expect our elected government officials to "rule" over us.

There are two notions pulling my head in opposite directions. The first one: I firmly believe that animals were not placed on earth to serve humans; i.e. they must not be used as means to our own ends. In this sense, technically, killing an animal for its meat WOULD be morally wrong.


I guess what I'm trying to say is...eating meat is morally wrong, but biologically correct.



EDIT: i cut some stuff out so its the main point

Morality is the product of the existence of rational beings. We, the humans, ARE the rational beings, and morality has since been devised in order to keep our actions in line. I don't understand how you can say that morals do not exist...If there were no morals, people would be slaughtering each other like it was there job. Morality guides our principles, and it keeps us from doing stuff that is damaging to our society. When I said that humans use animals as a means to their own ends, I find that as a violation of the moral code. Technically, we're all animals, the only thing that makes us stand out is the fact that we can rationalize.

I am not completely swinging towards one particular way, I'm just trying to explain my stream of consciousness here. Yes, I do eat meat, and there are reasons that I and other people do, but at the same time I feel that I should and could be refraining from it. It doesn't make me a bad person. Everyone is liable to second-guess their actions every once in a while. Of course, when it involves food, the second-guessing doesn't have an enormous impact on you, especially when you're hungry