post #181 of 248
11/22/06 at 6:38pm
That is what I was thinking---Note to self: Make sure and ask the babysitter if Jack will be put above Fido in case of fire.
|I read this whole thread and I don't remember anyone saying they would save an animal over a child.|
As for vitamins B6 and B12, they are in abundance in nutritional yeast, which is very cheap. Here http://www.evitamins.com/product.asp?pid=6646 is a link to a nutritional analysis of it (scroll down). There are plenty of ways to get iron too. I have never had trouble with anemia and I don't go overboard worrying about it. I just eat spinach a few times per week (seaweed, etc, as well ).
|#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
The one I choose to save first tells us nothing about the ethical
decisions we face. I might decide to save my child before I saved yours,
but this certainly does not mean that I should be able to experiment on
your child, or exploit your child in some other way. We are not in an
emergency situation like a fire anyway. In everyday life, we can choose to
act in ways that protect the rights of both dogs and babies.
Like anyone else in this situation, I would probably save the one to
which I am emotionally more attached. Most likely it would be the child.
Someone might prefer to save his own beloved dog before saving the baby
of a stranger. However, as LK states above, this tells us nothing about
any ethical principles.
I'll believe that when I see it in nature. I think it's arrogant to believe that we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy soil composition.
There's a nature conservation area nearby that's been around for years and years and it's not doing so well, due to the lack of animal involvement. Last I heard they were going to introduce some intensively managed bison to try and revive it. Wish I knew more about it, but I haven't had the time to look into it. It's called Wanuskewin, if anyone wants to look it up . . . I don't know if they have a website or not.
|One more hypothetical and then I really will go (these threads are hard to stay away from ):
If you had a crystal ball that allowed you to see your great great great grandchildren, and it showed that if you did NOT eat meat, but instead chose a "nutritionally complete" veg*n diet, they had become progressively weaker to the point of degenerative diseases at young ages, rampant digestive problems and inability to reproduce, whereas if you DID eat animal products, they were healthy, strong and virile . . . would you still avoid meat?
Originally Posted by thismama
From what I understand nutritional (brewer's yeast) is rich in the B complex - except B12.
Originally Posted by gardenmommy
I also believe, that without that sort of Biblical framework, it is nearly impossible to separate humans from animals. Without a higher reason for being, there is no distinction between humans and animals. Humans think, so do animals; humans feel, so do animals; humans love and nurture their young, so do animals. There are some animals who are probably smarter, more intelligent, have greater mental capacity than some humans. So, without a Bibilcal context for human value, why is the lower capacitated human worth more than the higher capacitated animal?