Amy Alkon makes a weak attempt to use moral relativism as a defense of abortion:
Don't bother accusing me of "moral relativism." I'll admit to it freely, and you should, too  because there's no definitive answer on whether it's right or wrong to eat meat or on when a fertilized egg becomes a person. There's only my opinion and your opinion, and the opinions that shaped them.
Aside from specific religious moral considerations, there is no secular argument for declaring the consumption of meat to be an immoral action. The vegetarian that she cites could argue that it is inherently wrong to eat an animal's meat, but that would logically lead to the ludicrous assertion that entire species' existences are immoral. Would it then be the "moral duty" of a wolf to commit suicide, rather than eat a deer? If not, then why would it be immoral for a human being to eat an animal? Humans are by nature omnivores.
There is a simple reason why it is equally moronic for someone to say "I don't know when someone becomes a human being." The essence of humanity is not some philosophical bullshit like when we become sentient, draw our first breath, or when we become more free agents. It is as the moment of conception, when both gametes merge together and form an organism that is genetically homo sapien. Genetics, not philosophical claptraps, is the basis of what defines a human being. I have yet to see anyone successfully argue against this from a scientific, rational point of view.
It is not an opinion that someone becomes human at conception. It is a scientific fact. Deal with it, you bloody sophists.
Good post. Especially the point about conception.
It is not an opinion that someone becomes human at conception. It is a scientific fact. Deal with it, you bloody sophists.
How true. I've never understood the intellectual constipation revealed by those who refuse to acknowledge this simple fact. Not only is the offspring human--regardless its phase of growth--it has zero potential to become anything else.
If not, then why would it be immoral for a human being to eat an animal? Humans are by nature omnivores.
That's a fairly dangerous road to start down, however, because any number of animals eat their young. Does that mean it's not immoral to commit infanticide?
You drive at an even broader point here, Mike. Secular Humanist cling to historicism as the fig leave of their axiology. They never seem willing to either acknowledge the logical implications of their philosophy nor acknowledge that as in the case of abortion, the virulent racism that pervaded it's modern nascence.
What most of the believers in this luciferian crap are unaware of is the Dewey pragmatism in which it's rooted. "What works now" is the only truth they cleave to.
Like Vox points out, birth rates are telling of the fact its a generally self-correcting problem.
What the vegetarians often object to is predation. That is what I am saying is not a moral issue when it comes to food.
Which is ironic because according to darwinian theory, the rich and brilliant are the ones who should be breeding like rabbits, not the people who are most likely to have at the most two kids, and often one or no kids at all. As you said, it is a self-correcting problem.
Good post, Mike! That's my position on it as well.
As for the philosophical/moral side of things - since science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a soul, I say it's best to err on the side of caution.
As Vox points out, though, man is not rational, but rationalizing.