The topic of Nutrition just as heated as Religion - Page 10

[newcastlemama]

Originally Posted by thismama

Me too. I find it really disturbing, and upsetting, that everyone doesn't feel that way. Maybe it's a question I should ask prospective childcare providers. :

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.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

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.

Why is the idea of this cracking me up?

[JSerene]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

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.

This cracked me up too.

I've got a scenerio I'd like to share. Let's pretend your kid had a heart defect and could only be saved by getting a transplant from a baboon. Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would. A lot of people here seem to feel the same way about eating meat: they need it to live. Period. How can you aruge with that? Especially those folks who were vegetarians and found it didn't work for them. I get that.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by JSerene

Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would.

Me too, exactly this process.

[UUMom]

I'm not exactly sure if this link fits in with this thread, but it's brochure for the major Eco conference for organic farming. I like to think our common goals-- healthy food and safe environment can co exist.

http://www.acresusa.com/events/06con...06Brochure.pdf

[GiggleBirds]

I read this whole thread and I don't remember anyone saying they would save an animal over a child.

There was mention by someone that she loves her cat's better than a stranger's child, but she did not go so far as to say she would save it over the child.

Honestly, I thought we were over these silly scenarios. Okay, omnis, if you had to choose between your bosses dog (who will fire you if you don't save it), and your sister in laws, whose will it be? Come on. There are many factors that go into making any decision and having the dichotomous either/or really does not reflect on the inherent worth of either.


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 ).

[newcastlemama]

I read this whole thread and I don't remember anyone saying they would save an animal over a child.

Originally Posted by kaydee

But while we are speaking of instinct, I think my instinct is to protect those I know and care about first. I love my son more than to my cats, but love my cats more than a stranger’s son. Something other than species definitions are at work in our actions.

(bold mine)

[GiggleBirds]

I can't speak for kaydee, but my interpretation of what she said was that she loves her cats more than a stranger's son, and thus, her instinct might be more compelling toward her cats. She didn't go so far as to say she would save them in a burning building over a child. Many, many factors would play into that decision. It's as silly as asking who's child you would save; your nephew, or the child you are babysitting? It's meaningless. We could infer all sorts of horrible things about you if you chose either one. But the choice scenario isn't fair or appropriate.

So, instinctively, yes, out of love and emotional attachment if she were driving down the road and saw her cat and another child, she may swerve away from her cat. Instinctively. I think she may have been speaking to this instinct, and nothing more.

[pampered_mom]

Originally Posted by GiggleBirds

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 ).

From what I understand nutritional (brewer's yeast) is rich in the B complex - except B12. The B12 is synthetic and added back in. Again, an analogue as in it's similar but not exactly the same and not as bioavailable as that found in animal sources. Not a big deal if you have enough stores of your own or if you're not deficient. In the case of someone starting from a place of deficiencies and it's better to get it from the best source possible.

I'm glad that you've never had trouble with anemia and that you have found things that work for you. We're not just talking about you, though.

I am not naieve enough to think that there is a one-size fits all way of eating that will work for everyone.

[gardenmommy]

Originally Posted by edamommy

: I'm kind of sickish feeling yet feel like adding some hysterical laughter in there on this one! I guess, this is why I do not believe in a "god". But how nice that "he" gives one the ability to push of that guilt on "him"! WOW. I'm glad you wore the suit.

That was a bit harsh, don't you think? I stated my beliefs, and you just really blasted away. Good thing I did put it on! I can't image reacting so disrespectfully as that to another's stated beliefs. (even if I truly felt that way, I for sure wouldn't put it out there to offend the other person!)

[twins10705]

.

[thismama]

I am not a Christian, I am a Pagan, and my spirituality is consistent with my beliefs.

[GiggleBirds]

I was talking about instinct. As in "OH my God, there's my precious Fluffy!" -swerve- "oh shit, there's a kid!".

Instinct. Not intention.

I am 100% sure, though, that if that happened, anyone would be DEVASTATED. Do you think for a second if that happened she would be celebrating her cat's life and not going crazy about hitting a child? PLEASE. I really don't like how people are starting to assume that vegans don't care about anyone but animals. I really don't know how anyone has taken that from this conversation. :

From what I understood of her post, she was just saying there are many layers to love and to instinct. Eating vegan isn't about choosing animals over people. How the heck did this thread come to this?? Yikes.

Eating meat, however, is about choosing people over animals. Whether you feel justified or not in it, whether you believe animals have feelings, a soul, etc, that is still a fact. Eating meat isn't either/or, eat-or-die (for the VAST majority... those who have to or think they have to do not need to chime in again...) Vegan eating has no negative effect on humans whatsoever. So if you're going to apply the either/or dynamic, apply it to yourself (if you are a meat eater), where it belongs.

[/frustration]

[GiggleBirds]

Here is another quote from Kaydee in case you missed it.

#20 A house is on fire and a dog and a baby are inside. Which do you
save first?
-----------------------

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.
LK

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.
DVH

Do you love your dog or cat more than you love a complete stranger you've never met? Of course you do. Does that speak in any way to whether you value that person's life? Probably not.

If I'm trying to get a fly out of my house and my daughter starts crying I don't ignore her. Nor do I say "eff it" and kill the fly. Get it?

AND that doesn't mean that I hurt my daughter (or the kid I'm babysitting, etc...) to save the fly.

[mykdsmomy]

Originally Posted by GiggleBirds

Do you love your dog or cat more than you love a complete stranger you've never met? Of course you do. Does that speak in any way to whether you value that person's life? Probably not.

chiming in late here and maybe I'm not understanding this but in a situation that endangers a strangers child or my own dog/cat, I would definitely not think twice about my dog/cat.....I would instinctively protect the child or adult or whoever the *person* may be. I wouldnt be a fraction of a bit upset hitting an animal as I would a person/child even if it was my dog of ten years......it still doesnt compare to harming a human.....

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by HerthElde

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.

My first thought is, what sad kind of nature area has no animal involvment? Unless it is a newly reclaimed Superfund site, that seems--well, impossible.

My second thought is that I wonder if you are familiar with the extensive studies on veganic (vegan + organic) agriculture done in the UK over the last 10+ years? I can't recall the study center name--Elm Farm, maybe? Something like that....Of course, that's not purely "in nature"--but then again, farmed cows and pigs etc., aren't exactly purely "natural" either.

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?

Well, to quote you , "I think it's arrogant to think we know all there is to know about vitamins and minerals and what makes healthy" nutrition. I know I do fine without animal products, and you know you need them.

But I'll bite: I am not utterly self-defeating. If the crystal ball presented me with that vision, I would eat animals or animal products. But I would do it as low down on the food chain as I could, and involve the least sentient animals possible (mussels, scallops, or clams would be my preference). Because even then, causing the least suffering would be my aim.

To turn the tables What if the crystal ball told you that you DIDN'T need animal products to be "healthy, strong, and virile"? Would you still eat meat?

[kaydee]

Originally Posted by newcastlemama

(bold mine)

Since you seem to have missed several salient points of my posts, newcastlemama, here is the Reader's Digest version of what I said.

I love my kid more than my cats. I love my cats more than a human stranger.

These hypotheticals--the kids and the rat in the burning building, the baboon heart and the dying child--are, IMO, silly.

No, worse than silly. They can actually be damaging, I believe, because although they are provocative and exciting to discuss (and allow us to be : and : and about other people's answers and feel all morally superior) they don't actually help us understand each other or help us devise a practical ethical code. They are, IMO, irrelevant distractions from the real issue(s) at hand.

As I CLEARLY said before, the choices offered in these hypotheticals are false dichotomies. Most of us will never be faced with a burning building housing a child and a dog. No single baboon heart can help a single child. Yet every day, we can make humane compassionate choices.

I have no idea what I'd do facing that building, and honestly, I don't care. If I'm ever faced with that unlikely scenario, I'll just wing it. I'd rather put my energy into the decisions I am faced with every day.

Because that's what ethics are--what we do, not what we say we would do.

[kaydee]

It's the attack of the serial poster! :

Originally Posted by thismama

Originally Posted by
Originally Posted by JSerene

Would you sacrifice the animal? When I was young, I said no, I wouldn't. I thought it would be unethical. Now that I'm a mother, you bet I would.

Me too, exactly this process.

Becoming a parent has expanded my sense of compassion in so many ways. One of the ways was to have more empathy for the animals used in agriculture--especially the mother animals used in dairy production, continually impregnated, then separated from their babies.

Reading accounts by Temple Grandin (not an animal rights activist my any stretch of the imagination) of mother cows and calves crying for each other at dairy farms became even more heart-shattering after having my son.

Originally Posted by pamered_mom

From what I understand nutritional (brewer's yeast) is rich in the B complex - except B12.

Just FYI, Brewer's yeast and nutritional yeast are not the same thing.

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?

Oh my gosh--we agree on something! I can see where with your beliefs about the Bible and God, you would have the view of animals that you do. You explained it really well, which I appreciate. I don't agree (either about God, the Bible, or animal's place in our world ) but I get what you are saying.

[gardenmommy]

You know, I disagree strongly with a lot of what I've seen posted on here. However, I still respect the various people represented here: you have clearly thought through your choices carefully. I may think they are [insert descriptor of choice- silly, wrong, foolish, dumb, excellent, etc.], but still, I think that it is foolhardy and damaging to bash others' viewpoints. When we begin to attack each other, we lose the opportunity and ability to learn from each other; we lose respect for each other. When that happens, we lose the ability to teach a greater lesson to our children, that is, the ability to get along with others with whom we strongly disagree.

Consistent with my spiritual beliefs, I believe that we need to show love and grace to others, even when we disagree with them. Which is why, even if I do think your viewpoint it ridiculous, I will not say so. I will try to understand you, even to the point of agreeing to disagree, just so that to whatever degree I am responsible, I can maintain the peace between us.

[gardenmommy]

kaydee, lol! I'm glad we can agree on *something*!