Francione's Argument Analysis

1001 Words5 Pages
In Debater Francione’s argument considering the Andre Robinson Case, A man who callously kicked a cat for laughs, Francione says that intentionally harming an animal is no different from killing an animal for eating purposes. And those that eat meat are practically the same as people who abuse animals on purpose.
I disagree with Francione’s view. Eating meat does not make you an immoral person. Yes, Andre Robinson, the man in question, shouldn’t have kicked the cat like he did and he should not have shamelessly danced afterwards, but him kicking a cat is not the same as someone going to Whataburger and eating a bacon cheeseburger for lunch. Unlike physically and purposely kicking a live animal, someone who is eating a hamburger is just enjoying a meal; not seeking out an animal to intentionally harm.
Of course, there is a fine line between animal abuse and animal use for food. There is a difference between
…show more content…
Carnosine is exclusively found in meat. Just like the previously mentioned nutrients, Carnosine is related to how well your brain can operate. And like Vitamin B12, a deficiency in Carnosine can lead to Alzheimer’s disease. Carnosine can also help keep yourself looking younger with its anti-aging properties.
Finally, Docosahexaenoic Acid (DHA), otherwise termed as Omega 3s, are extremely important for the proper growth of your brain. A deficiency in DHA can negatively impact cognitive performance. Although Alpha Lipoic Acid (ALA) which can be found in Flax seed oil, a popular supplement among non-meat eaters, is able to be converted into DHA; the process is found to be a widely ineffective in the human body. The best source of Omega 3s are fatty fish, hence, most vegans and vegetarians will have a DHA deficiency.
Along with all these drawbacks, who will actually convert to Veganism, and will they really make a difference if they do? Millions of other people will still be eating
Open Document