Daily Campus

1.) All beef cattle (cloned or not) is "created" with the intent to be destroyed for nourishment, not for some trivial "whim" or "desire." Whether you like or not people are a part of the animal kingdom and are a natural link in the food chain.

2.) We aren't carnivores we are omnivores. (We can't survive on meat alone.) If humans are designed to consume both meat and plant matter why limit ourselves to a strictly vegetarian diet? I fail to see the ethical delimma presented by the consumption of meat.

3.) I agree with your premise but I just want to make the point that if the small farmer was allowed to raise some of the scientifically engineered copies organically (Or free range, as really all animals should be) then they would still be able to compete by appealing to people like myself who are willing to pay a little more for meat that doesn't come from abused animals.

4.) The topic of animal breeding for competition is a separate issue from diet or farming. But to imply that breeding would be reduced to nothing but cloned animals is extremely misleading. Animal breeding already allows the rich to be favored because they are already able to spend more on the best animals. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent the person who may have a moral issue with cloning their own animals with studding or breeding traditionally with a genetically modified animal. I know that there are many people who would still be unsatisfied with this option as well, but there are also many people who don't like the current way things operate.

5.) Selective breeding (what we do now) is in and of itself unnatural. And lets not speak for the dead, Darwin was a scientist and while he may or may not have supported genetic engineering, I do believe he would be interested in the data produced from such research efforts. There is no reason why genetic modification has to stand in the way of "ethical evolution." While I acknowledge that just like any other technology genetic modification could be used in an unethical manner, the abuse is not the fault of the technology, but how it was used.

I also want to acknowledge that I am not shocked or surprised that an atheist could/would bring these types of issues to the attention of the public. I am not ignorant to the fact that atheists have morals just like everyone else.

I care about life, all life. But I don't think there is anything unnatural about taking my place in the natural order of nature. Humans have a place on the food chain and in understanding that role in the circle of life many of us feel we are practicing our "ability to show concern."

Thank you for writing this article and please continue to "think about it!"

I think that that the Darwin's theory is absolutely wrong. Human beings are Got's devine children and they musnt't eat meat, fish, because it is against their nature! I am deeply convinced that ifall people were vegetarians the situation would be MUCH MUCH better all over the world! "NON FINGO HYPOTHESES!"said one of the most illustrious philosophers which England or the world has ever produced. Do you agree with him? Bless YOU! Niki

Visit a dissenting site for more information:
http://www.vegetariansareevil.com

Humans were designed to be omnivorous and must eat meat to survive. Humans may live healthy lives eschewing vegetables and eating only meat, but this is not possible if they eat only vegetables.

A vegetarian diet is problematic from a standpoint of protein and especially vitamin B12.

Vegetarianism makes people more aggressive and militant, as our bodies naturally go into an aggressive "hunting and killing" mode when we are starved for protein. Vegetarian and vegan tribes have been proven to be more violent and territorial than peaceful hunter-gatherers. Hunter gatherer tribes have been pushed to near extinction by vegetarians and land rapers who push hunter gatherers off their land to engage in the farming of vegetation.