Lincoln was a truly great politician and president–with qualities of decency and morality–kindness, sensitivity, compassion, honesty, and empathy. After recently reading Doris Kearns Goodwin’s Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, I recognized that Lincoln’s morality included a duty to animals. I think he believed in animal rights.
Let me share an excerpt of Goodwin’s book:
“The melancholy stamped on Lincoln’s nature derived in large part from an acute sensitivity to the pains and injustices he perceived in the world. He was uncommonly tenderhearted. He once stopped and tracked back half a mile to rescue a pig caught in a mire—not because he loved the pig, recollected a friend, ‘just to take a pain out of his own mind.’ When his schoolmates tortured turtles by placing hot coals on their backs to see the wriggle, he told them ‘it was wrong.’ He refused to hunt animals, which ran counter to frontier mores,” (103-104).
In a political speech, Lincoln later compared tortured turtles wriggling out of their shells to crooked politicians wriggling out of their skin. Lincoln’s diet also gave me a hunch to his possible vegetarian and animal rights viewpoint; he ate bread, jam, usually one egg, and coffee and stayed away from meat. He was thin for a reason! In arson on the White House horse stables, six horses died. President Lincoln was in tears over the horses’ deaths (603). Lincoln also got a kick out of humanizing animals: Lincoln’s son Tad had a pet turkey and Lincoln asked his son whether or not his turkey intended to vote. Tad replied that his turkey was “not of age”. Lincoln dearly loved the quick-witted answer and recounted the story to others for days (664).
I also found quotes online from Lincoln that confirmed my suspicions that Lincoln believed in animal rights:
“I care not for a man’s religion whose dog or cat is not the better for it…I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”
“I could not have slept to-night if I had left that helpless little creature to perish on the ground. (reply to friends who chided him for delaying them by stopping to return a fledgling to its nest.)”
Lincoln’s animal rights beliefs were probably founded from the same principles he applied to civil rights. Blacks were tortured and treated like animals when enslaved. If it was conceivable that blacks suffer, feel pain, and deserve rights, then it is conceivable that animals suffer, feel pain, and should have rights, as well. In the US, we now recognize blacks not as animals, but as humans, as citizens—with rights in this country. Can this also be extrapolated to animals?
Lincoln was a man ahead of his time in many regards. Was he on to something?
(Other famous vegetarians: Einstein, Aristotle, Darwin, Kant, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Da Vinci, Plato, Socrates, Rosa Parks, Corretta Scott King, Susan B. Anthony, van Gogh, Voltaire, Edison, Emerson, Henry Ford, Gandhi, Steve Jobs, Kafka, Martin Luther, Newton, Pythagorus, Rousseau, Upton Sinclair, Mark Twain, Kellog, and possibly Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine.)
Comment by Anonymous on 7 May 2008 at 10:26 pm:
And MJ tells me to wear Hanes underwear.
Comment by kofi the long live the steak on 8 May 2008 at 7:16 am:
Vegetarians – you know what else all those people have in common? They’re all dead.
Comment by illinikc33 on 8 May 2008 at 7:31 am:
I can’t even begin to imagine the horror this blog would become if Obama decided to become a vegetarian.
Comment by Brian on 8 May 2008 at 8:44 am:
Illinikc,
I know you’re just being smarmy, but your comment got me wondering: does anybody think we could have a viable presidential candidate in this country who is a vegetarian? I’d be fascinated to see what kind of political damage that would inflict on a candidate.
Comment by J. Prescott on 8 May 2008 at 10:53 am:
Vegetarianism doesn’t matter. It would have no effect on a political candidate. I understand that Brian thinks it would be a sign of effete liberalism which hurt on a political campaign. But come on, Prince Fielder is a vegetarian. I don’t think it is that big of a deal now.
Comment by thetodd on 8 May 2008 at 1:15 pm:
What’s life like on the campaign trail? I have this image in my head of a busy candidate constantly traveling from place to place, attending fundraisers, speeches, and other events. I picture meals being served and/or food gifts being given at these events, and I picture some expectation by the hosts that the candidate eat their food.
If my picture is correct, it sounds like it might be difficult for a candidate to be vegetarian because he doesn’t choose much of his food.
Comment by Anonymous on 8 May 2008 at 2:04 pm:
And the rest are meat-eaters.
Comment by Back in the good ol' days . . . on 8 May 2008 at 2:13 pm:
Do you know what happened to the vegetarian dinosaurs?? They got eaten!
Comment by Back in the good ol' days . . . on 8 May 2008 at 2:13 pm:
Do you know what happened to the vegetarian dinosaurs?? They got eaten!
Comment by Back in the good ol' days . . . on 8 May 2008 at 2:13 pm:
Do you know what happened to the vegetarian dinosaurs?? They got eaten!
Comment by Segen on 8 May 2008 at 3:46 pm:
Lincoln did not smoke or drink alcohol, either.
He seemed to do fine with pissing others off..?
Comment by thetodd on 8 May 2008 at 5:53 pm:
True, but some things have changed since the time of Lincoln. On the plus side (for a potential vegetarian candidate), the vegetarian position is more common and accepted, and there may be some people that strongly identify with vegetarianism that will vote for a vegetarian candidate almost solely because he’s vegetarian.
On the minus side, cameras, TV, and the internet have caused increased scrutiny.
If you want to know my actual position, based pretty much solely on my intuition, I think that being openly vegetarian will cost some votes, but the cost will be small, and it can certainly be overcome. I think the effect would be smaller than the Romney Mormon effect or the Hussein Obama effect. Obama (like Lincoln before him?) is doing quite well right now despite whatever votes this issue is costing him.
Comment by Augur on 8 May 2008 at 7:47 pm:
Segen – i dunno. I think Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine loved them some chicken, prolly quail too.
Comment by Segen on 9 May 2008 at 3:36 am:
In regards to the post, Billy, I cited the book “Team of Rivals” by Doris Kearns Goodwin and provided page numbers where I could.
Comment by Segen on 9 May 2008 at 3:39 am:
From what I learned about Hitler in my time in Germany–he was not a “vegetarian”, but rather stayed away from red meats.
Comment by kofi the it's the crack isn't it? on 9 May 2008 at 8:08 am:
Also…no one has TOUCHED the idea that civil rights can be equated to animal rights. Any takers?
What are you on?
Comment by kofi the it's the crack isn't it? on 9 May 2008 at 8:08 am:
Also…no one has TOUCHED the idea that civil rights can be equated to animal rights. Any takers?
What are you on?
Comment by kofi the it's the crack isn't it? on 9 May 2008 at 8:08 am:
Also…no one has TOUCHED the idea that civil rights can be equated to animal rights. Any takers?
What are you on?
Comment by Augur on 9 May 2008 at 8:46 am:
One think that irritates the hell out of me about vegetarians is they tend to do one of two things:
(1) try to judge you and make themselves appear morally superior by ranting about how cruel everyone else is.
(2) allow their identity to be totally caught up in their vegetarianism (probably at a minimum joining a few facebook groups)
If it’s a personal choice, leave it at that. Stop trying to impose your nonsense on me. Stop with the guilt. Stop with the superiority kick. Stop. Stop. Stop.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 9 May 2008 at 8:59 am:
Segen,
I thought it was clear that I wasn’t questioning the veracity of your information (ambiguous though it is) on Abe Lincoln, but rather your claim that all of the people on that list are vegetarian. Where did you get all of those names from? Is that list in the book about Abe Lincoln (I don’t think so)? Also, as I commented, I already found information that some of the people on your list can only questionably be defined as vegetarians (for instance Einstein was only one for the last year or his life or Thoreau was only so in a limited sense). For many of the names I could not find a single reference about them being vegetarian or not, which I assume means that they were not.
Please address my concerns directly.
Also, my view is the following…Animal rights are only significant insofar as they make the world a better place to live, potentially through better use of increasingly valuable farm land. Arguments about making the earth more habitable or increasing the world food supply are persuasive to me because as of now my primary concern is still human beings. Until we solve most of the world’s major ills I find it intensely foolish and callow to exalt the lives of animals to the point of ignoring the plight of humans, which the sort of attention you pay to animal rights will necessarily do. Humans are dying. Humans do not have even the basic rights that you wish upon animals. Humans are treated more poorly than many of the animals you cry for. Until those ills are solved I find the amount of attention and energy you pay to animal rights (simply for the sake of animal rights and not for the sake of bettering the condition of humans) to be morally selfish, it is an illusion to morally coddle and comfort yourself, rather than a genuine and dispassionate analysis of what the world needs most and how you might be able to help its condition.
Comment by Segen on 9 May 2008 at 10:42 am:
Augur,
My post was not about me being a vegetarian, it was about Abraham Lincoln. Stop, stop, stop what? I did not tell you that you should be a vegetarian–I was just pointing out the fact that President Lincoln cared about animal rights. The reason why I have posted on these issues is because I have knowledge of them. I enjoy that you post about things that interest you and that you are knowledgeable about. Just because you post about Obama does not make me feel the need to join the Obama camp. Relax. I don’t think I’ve forced my vegetarianism on anyone in this post. I’m just furthering discussion on topics I’m sure many of our readers are interested in hearing.
Comment by Hanno on 9 May 2008 at 10:59 am:
“If it’s a personal choice, leave it at that. Stop trying to impose your nonsense on me. Stop with the guilt. Stop with the superiority kick. Stop. Stop. Stop.”
Augur get the sand out of your vajayjay man. You have a guilty conscience or something. There’s nothing wrong with people having an honest dialogue about whether a particular lifestyle choice is healthy, environmentally sustainable, morally correct, etc. I’m not in favor of screeching and howling, but pointing out reasons to not eat meat seems about as valid as pointing out reasons not to smoke.
Comment by Buck B. on 9 May 2008 at 11:17 am:
Speciest? Seriously?
Equating human and animal suffering in this way is such a gross misplacement of priorities, it almost makes me want to vote Republican.
Comment by kofi the i'd like to go on record as not believing Licoln saw animal and civil rights as one in the same on 9 May 2008 at 11:21 am:
Buck B, in my mind all liberals are as batshit crazy as Segen. This is why I do vote Republican.
Comment by kofi the i'd like to go on record as not believing Licoln saw animal and civil rights as one in the same on 9 May 2008 at 11:21 am:
Buck B, in my mind all liberals are as batshit crazy as Segen. This is why I do vote Republican.
Comment by kofi the i'd like to go on record as not believing Licoln saw animal and civil rights as one in the same on 9 May 2008 at 11:21 am:
Buck B, in my mind all liberals are as batshit crazy as Segen. This is why I do vote Republican.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 9 May 2008 at 11:27 am:
Segen, you bizarrely equate animals with human beings. If you have a visceral feeling that animals are the same as humans then I cannot persuade you of anything.
I am absolutely 100% speciesist (I believe this is proper, not speciest) and I will always be so and I will always be proud to be so. Some kinds of biases are actually good to have and you putting an “-ist” at the end of a word doesn’t automatically make being that an immoral thing. Any human life is more valuable than any animal life. I do not agree with Peter Singer’s “equal consideration of interests,” as you do, that a disabled person is less valuable than a fully functioning animal.
You wrote, “It’s not like people have a finite amount of caring that can either go to humans or animals,” but this is an improper phrasing of the dilemma. We all have approximately an infinite amount of emotional care (though I would dispute even this) that we can distribute, but simply caring for someone or some animal does not help them. The scarcity exists in how we allocate our resources in trying to help the world. Where do we start? What is the most efficient allocation of resources? Because of diminishing marginal utility, I believe that the world improperly distributes its resources. In this country we have people spending billions of dollar on their damned pets, while about one million people die every year because they aren’t protected from malaria by five dollar nets. That is sick, just as I believe that your allocation of care and concern and energy is inefficiently allocated by way of its blindly zealous concentration on animals.
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 9 May 2008 at 11:28 am:
Also, those websites you posted do not appear to be credible sources. In fact, they just list named without any evidence of their own. Furthermore, they look to all be websites with a pro-vegetarian agenda and thus are prone to exaggeration.
Comment by Segen on 9 May 2008 at 11:40 am:
Billy,
Wow. For the record, I do think that disabled people are just as valuable as able-bodied people. My mother is disabled–and I treat her just like everyone else.
You mis-interpreted Singer. He said that if we give mentally dysfunctional people the same concern as we do other humans, that we should give the same concern to “mentally deficient” animals. This is based on the fact that most philosophy requires people to be “rational” beings. If we allow non-rational humans into the system, Singer argues, why not “non-rational” animals.
Comment by Segen on 9 May 2008 at 11:49 am:
I don’t think these people are “guilty” of not being vegetarians until proven that they are….Ok. So the websites are lists. Go research it then. It took me 900 pages on a book about Lincoln to figure out that he was a vegetarian.
Take the list of people for what it is–a list and if you’re still skeptical–look into it.
Seriously…this Lincoln book probed me to do that. In time, if you want, I can go person by person if that will make you feel better about the list.
BTW, why does everyone assume people are carnivores that have to change into vegetarians? I think meat-eating is more of a cultural thing than a natural one. (As discussed on previous posts).
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 9 May 2008 at 12:00 pm:
Segen,
I don’t think you’ve proven to anyone but yourself that Lincoln was a vegetarian.
Comment by illinikc33 on 9 May 2008 at 2:04 pm:
Equating animal rights to human rights? Human suffering to animal suffering? I don’t even know what to do with that absolutely ridiculous attempt at an analogy.
As for not pushing your agenda . . . the whole point of the post was to push the vegetarian agenda by pointing out that one of the greatest leaders in American history *may* have believed in animal rights and *may* have been a vegetarian, so we should too because he did it and gee he was a real great guy.
Get off the soapbox, you’ve been on it for enough posts to get your point across.
Comment by thetodd on 9 May 2008 at 7:35 pm:
I have a somewhat unusual and uncertain viewpoint on speciesism.
I have utilitarian leanings, and, as a consequence of possessing a human brain and body, to me, utility comes down to feelings. Positive feelings are positive utility.
So, if we have a cat and a human, and both are about to die alone (so their happiness has no impact on their future decisions or those of anyone else), and both feel happiness with equal intensity, I would have no preference about whether the cat or the human receives some happiness in his last moments.
The problem is that, in almost every real-life scenario, one’s happiness DOES impact ones future decisions and the decisions of others. If cats are happy, that’s nice, but there is a limit to how happy cats can be. They are not self-aware and intelligent enough to be able to develop knowledge and tools needed to become even happier without undergoing millions of years of evolution.
Humans, on the other hand, have the capability to steadily increase the utility levels they experience. The higher their initial utility levels are, the more likely and quickly they are to progress.
So, on one hand, I want to place higher value on present human utility, because it has a bigger impact on expected future utility. On the other hand, I don’t think it is in our best interests to ignore animal utility.
As we develop more and more knowledge and technology, we may even change what it means to be human. To the post-humans we might create or turn in to, the experience of ordinary humans might look like the experience of ants looks like to us. And I think we’d agree that we don’t want ordinary humans to be treated as we treat ants.
Comment by Segen on 10 May 2008 at 8:05 am:
Todd–
Singer distinguishes between what you are talking about. He says that animals that are not self-aware do not have as much pain as animals that are, and if there is a firing-line, they’re first up to bat.
Problem is, humans are not the only animals that are self-aware. That’s where the argument gets sticky if you are not a speciest.
Comment by thetodd on 10 May 2008 at 1:15 pm:
Sorry about the unclear wording there.
I meant it to be read as “They are not [self-aware and intelligent] enough” and not “They are not [self-aware] and [intelligent enough]“.
Or “They are not self-aware enough and intelligent enough”.
Or just forget I said “self-aware” at all. The point I am trying to make is that without any further biological evolution, humans are the only ones with the power to circumvent natural limits on happiness. In a global sense, we already have. Without the technology we’ve already developed, there couldn’t be more than 6 billion of us out there. Our net global happiness is surely larger than it would be in a world with far fewer people.
Does Singer (or anyone else) talk about that? I would be interested to see a rebuttal.
Without this unique human ability, I would find it difficult to come up with a better reason to be a speciesist than “I’m human and helping out my fellow humans helps me,” which is an understandable position given the fact that we all have survival drives and self-interest built in to ourselves, but it’s not very philosophically defensible.
Comment by JayBandit on 12 May 2008 at 12:25 pm:
I didn’t know that Urbanagora was doing book reports now…how 2nd grade of us!
Vegetarians are pussies, and you can quote me on that.
There is a big difference between a man not wanting to have wanton torture performed against some turtles, and that same man wanting to enjoy a nice turtle soup for dinner. Or there is a difference between a man backtracking to save some swine, and then that same pair meeting eachother again when the man is consuming the delcious pork chops off the pig with a nice side of applesauce.
God, I’m hungry now. I think I’ll eat some meatballs because that requires 3 animals to produce (Lamb, Pork, Veal)….mmmmmmm.
Comment by Cody on 31 May 2008 at 3:04 pm:
Let me comment on a few things.
First, let me ask, why are vegetarians always attacked and people say things like, “It’s a personal choice,” but they rarely (if ever) apply this same judgment to other philosophies, particularly religion? Everyone has some type of position or belief that they share with others. So to tell someone not to share theirs, is well, hypocritical.
That said, I do understand certain people with certain tactics and motivations can be quite abrasive and annoying. I do not have a problem with slapping the shit out of them. I am a vegan that hates PETA. I do not find it amusing that a bunch of unintelligent, spoiled bastards get together and make me look like a dumbass.
Secondly, Kucinich was the only decent candidate the Democrats had. Mike Gravel’s positions were nice, but he lost the political power he once held and got too easily worked up. Kucinich is the only Democrat who ran for President this time around (besides Gravel, who I’ve already accounted for) who voted AGAINST the war. Obama can say he didn’t support it, but it very well could be that he didn’t vote against only because he wasn’t in the Senate at that time. Obama HAS voted several (and I do mean several!) times to fund the war over and over again, essentially reauthorizing it, as did Clinton and Edwards.
Kucinich was the ONLY candidate advocating a true universal healthcare system modeled after ones that work well in other countries: a single-payer system. Not mandatory health insurance or lowered premiums or any other “universal healthcare” BS.
Thirdly, Kucinich gave real answers at the debates. Sure, he was made fun of because of a UFO or because his wife is a young hottie… But really, what does that matter? Maybe the aliens are what helped him be so honest. Kucinich openly and honestly answered each question with a real answer. He didn’t say “Well that’s certainly something we’ll work on!” (ahem, Hillary) or “Change! WE NEED CHANGE!” (ahem, Obama). And he certainly didn’t pretend to be the working class man while living in a 20,000+ square foot mansion. Kucinich, on the other hand, lives in the same small house he purchased in the 70’s. Who got a standing ovation from 10,000 union members at Soldier Field? It wasn’t Clinton, Obama, or Edwards…
And finally, Kucinich was the only one advocating impeachment. Yeah, many laughed… But every day it seems like a better idea, doesn’t it? McClellan may be wanting the limelight, but I bet what he says has some truth to it. And Wexler didn’t have to try real hard to convince him to testify, did he? Kucinich knew this long ago. Kucinich risked his political career to do something controversial. Not because he thought it’d get him more votes or more money, but because he thought it was the right thing to do. And I haven’t seen many other politicians who will do that.
Kucinich may never be President, but he is a true fighter for our country. Notice how he doesn’t line his pockets with corporate money or betray his constituents. And also notice how he’s handily re-elected in his district every year. Before you bash him or call him an idiot, I suggest you do some research.
Comment by Anonymous on 17 June 2008 at 7:00 pm:
I, too, am shocked at the anger displayed by some posters in response to vegetarianism. It’s clear to me that nearly everyone who has replied is intelligent and committed to helping make the world a little better. I don’t think anyone here is the enemy and I am confused about why we are arguing.
Billy Joe Mills – I do not disagree with your statement that a human life is worth more than an animal’s. Nor do I disagree that self-awareness seems to be an exclusively human trait. However, self-awareness has little to do with the ability to physically suffer and feel pain. Animals do have nerves. Many modern slaughter practices go beyond just killing and are merciless torture.
Your argument that this doesn’t matter in the face of human atrocies simply does not hold up. Would you condemn people who work to end rape, simply because rape isn’t as “bad” as murder? Should people stop focusing on this less serious cause?
Being a vegetarian takes no effort on my part. It is natural to me and it simply feels right. I couldn’t eat meat nor do I want to. However, this doesn’t in any way diminish my capacity to care for humans. I care passionately about the plight of fellow people, regardless of whether or not I choose to eat the flesh of animals.
Pingback by Mijn Vegetarische Superheld? | Evangelie van Peter on 5 January 2009 at 11:54 am:
[...] dat afzien van vlees geen luchtspiegeling was, met als enig fundament een gefabriceerd citaat. Ene “Segen” baseert zijn bevinding dat Lincoln naar alle waarschijnlijkheid wel degelijk een vegetarier was op [...]
Comment by Body detoxification diets on 19 August 2009 at 7:23 am:
i became a Vegan three years ago and i can say that my health have been very very good. meat and dairy substitutes like soy also works well for the body.
Comment by Kari on 21 March 2010 at 3:36 am:
Its interesting to see all the anger people have toward vegetarians. Vegetarians are simply acting on compassion, good health, and/or logic. There is no need to be angry about that.
Comment by pro-veg on 6 April 2010 at 12:58 pm:
“One think that irritates the hell out of me about vegetarians is they tend to do one of two things:
(1) try to judge you and make themselves appear morally superior by ranting about how cruel everyone else is.
(2) allow their identity to be totally caught up in their vegetarianism (probably at a minimum joining a few facebook groups)
If it’s a personal choice, leave it at that. Stop trying to impose your nonsense on me. Stop with the guilt. Stop with the superiority kick. Stop. Stop. Stop.”
If you saw retarded children being abused, or eaten. I’m sure you would join several groups (the retarded-baby equivalent of peta) and work to the best of your ability to stop this. You would feel like you were morally better than the people who supported, or even ignored, the cruelty and would try to convince them that they’re wrong.
I would join facebook groups, and do whatever else to stop people from: using them as food, abusing them in circuses, testing harmful things on them, wearing their skin, dissecting them, and every terrible thing that happens DAILY in the United States to animals that are far more intellegent that retarded human infants and children.
Before you start judging me by this compairison, drop your human superiority complex and realize that this argument is completely right.
Honestly, animals should have the same rights as retarded children.
Comment by death chaser on 3 May 2010 at 9:16 am:
saw this picture in final destination 3 and thought the line
through it was fake but seeing that its real is just creepy
and lincoln was pretty much creepy looking anyways.
the line on his head was excatly where he was shot.
Comment by Oscar Turner on 9 May 2010 at 5:25 am:
I am also a vegetarian and my body has never been in a very good shape. Being a vegan can really make you much heathier.;*”
Comment by tianna on 16 May 2010 at 9:23 am:
im a vegaterian, but i dont go around telling others to become one so stop being so stereotipical(:
Comment by Joseph Wright on 6 October 2010 at 1:36 pm:
being vegeterian helps me a lot in toning down my body fats and staying fit”:
Comment by Welder work on 20 October 2010 at 5:46 pm:
being vegetarian made me a lot healthier and leaner`:*
Comment by Craig on 24 October 2010 at 6:11 pm:
President Lincoln may have had many great ideals, and I admire him for that. But, He was responsible as president for more casualties during the American Civil War than all our wars combined.
Comment by Eric Weisman on 26 December 2010 at 3:43 am:
My name is Eric Weisman and I am a scientist with a complete physician’s background. My company, Evolution Diet and I have won many national awards, accreditations and honorariums for our vegan pet food products and our advanced health service for internal diseases. I work in the area of developing better pet foods and nutrient based procedures (sometimes with drugs) for internal diseases in both human and non human animals. My specialization is developing and administration of procedures for chronic infectious diseases, various forms of arthritis, cancers, organ failure and immune system failure disorders. I work with people all over the U.S. everyday. I have worked both directly with veterinarians and medical specialists, but mostly I work with non-clinicians. I use vegan diets as a part of regimes in most cases in both human and non human cases because they are so much less contaminated then animal based diets.
Vegan diets have no steroid growth hormones, antibiotic, depleted uranium, sodium nitrate or carbon monoxide gas residuals like virtually all animal products do. When working with moderately sick and the very ill, I have found vegan and vegetarian diets for dogs, cats and humans work much better for these animals because they are less contaminated especially if the foods are organic.
I have worked with both carnivorous and vegetarian subjects and I can tell you that my vegetarian subjects do much better in responding to my treatment procedures then those subjects that are on flesh eating diets.
To reiterate: In my many years of working on both vegetarian and carnivorous patients, I can tell you that in virtually all cases, the vegetarian or vegan subjects get much better responses and a longer term of life when combining a non animal based diet with my integrated procedures.
Non animal product diets provide more mineral and natural vitamin then flesh based diets and they do not contain the contaminants and high heavy metal concentrations that destroy immune and neurological systems like flesh based do. Vegetarian Diets also do not contain the artery clogging fats and cholesterol that destroy circulation to the immune and neurological systems that flesh based diets do. Brain scan studies prove that people that have more sensitivity regarding non-human and human animals have higher brain function, intellect and self control.
Unfortunately, most Americans, like the ones who attack vegetarians for caring about animals that can not protect themselves, do not have high functioning brains. These people do not have the capacity to care about others and only care for the most part about themselves. People that eat flesh take offense to vegetarians, because they are convicted by their own malicious and unjust behavior. Flesh eaters are also offended by vegetarians because they are both morally and intellectually inferior. Flesh eaters may think vegetarians are superior from an ethical stand point because Flesh Eaters either kill and torture other animals themselves as in hunting-fishing activities or for income. The anti-vegetarians in this discussion did not disclose their “pleasure” or work activities. Flesh Eaters generally age at a faster rate then vegetarians and have a poorer quality of life in later years because of heart disease, arthritis and dementia. Dementia can start in early the toddler or adolescent stages of life and in my clinical opinion, early onset dementia like ADD, ADHD, depression and anxiety disorders are often a direct result of the contaminated flesh eating diet most Americans consume.
Why don’t American Physicians discuss this epidemic? American Physicians are not educated in nutrition and certainly not trained in nutrient procedures at all. The World Health Organization ranks U.S. Physicians and Health Care at 37th behind all other developed nations. The Commonwealth Organization ranks U.S. Healthcare and Physicians as “Poor” behind other developed nations.
A Journal of The American Medical Association study indicates: The 3rd Leading Cause of Death in The U.S. is Doctor Error and FDA Approved Drugs. A new JAMA Study says 40,000 Mistakes are made by U.S. Doctors everyday. U.S. Doctors are getting dementia and dying from the same U.S. Diets that are killing most Americans. By the way: the 1st 2 leading causes of death in the U.S. are directly related to flesh eating: Heart Disease – Stroke and Cancer.
The average U.S. Medical Doctor actually dies earlier then his non medical U.S. citizen counterpart which truly proves that U.S. medical doctors may have more dementia even though they may know more about drugs and surgery (then they know about health).
It comes as no surprise that most U.S. Medical doctors are flesh eaters and have higher rates of disease and mortality then the general public. By the way: The U.S. is 49th behind all developed nations and some undeveloped nations in mortality and quality of health. In other words, Americans die sooner and live in poorer health then people in 48 other countries. The U.S. is also the biggest consumer of flesh products compared to any other developed nation in the world. The U.S. also ahs the highest rate of mentally ill in its’ prison system with more people imprisoned then any other country in the world. America also has the highest rate of murder of any country in the world. I am convinced that the poor Flesh Eating (Highest Flesh Consumption of all developed nations) western diet is the real culprit behind American’s shorter life and poorest quality of life of all developed nations. I think it is also part of the American Tradition of settling disputes with violence (murder and genocide) rather then reason.
I am not offering a treatment, cure, diagnosis or prevention for any disease. The FDA has not evaluated my statements.
Comment by Adil Khan on 21 March 2011 at 8:30 am:
Do u Know?
The cut in the photo is the exactly place where he bullet was shoted….See-(Final Destination 3) For approval
Comment by Fran Juett on 20 August 2011 at 6:16 pm:
Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article. It proved to be Pretty helpful to me and I am positive to all the commenters here It is always nice when you can not only be informed, but also entertained Im positive you had fun writing this post.
Comment by ugg purses on 27 August 2011 at 4:19 am:
Whats up! I simply wish to give a huge thumbs up for the good data you’ve got right here on this post. I will probably be coming back to your weblog for extra soon.
Comment by Otha Theiler on 5 September 2011 at 6:31 pm:
What I wouldnt give to have a debate with you about this. You just say so many things that arrive from nowhere that Im fairly sure Id have a fair shot. Your weblog is terrific visually, I mean people wont be bored. But others who can see past the videos and the layout wont be so impressed with your generic understanding of this subject.
Comment by Jerrod Compagno on 7 September 2011 at 11:24 am:
I’m sure that is among the most most essential details to me. And i’m glad studying your write-up. But should statement about handful of basic things, The internet site design is perfect, the actual content articles is absolutely superb : Deb. Good career, many thanks
Comment by get a life on 15 December 2011 at 1:04 pm:
cool thank you for Reisadvies sharing! btw are available feeds for your blog? I’d like to add these phones my reader Finnaly i came across your postkeep blogging Damn ! I recently found an error within your website! Check if css is managed right!
Comment by Keshto Arya on 16 August 2012 at 1:44 am:
I absolutely love your blog and find almost all of your post’s to be exactly I’m
looking for. Would you offer guest writers to write
content for yourself? I wouldn’t mind producing a post or elaborating on a lot of the subjects you write about here. Again, awesome site!
Comment by Vick on 18 November 2012 at 2:47 pm:
I think it is wonderful that Lincoln was compassionate toward animals and I know God is pleased about it, too.:) What I find distressing and sad is that so many people have a negative response to being a vegetarian or vegan.:( The resentment and indifference I see in some of these posts is just ugly. Animals are created by God and they do suffer a lot. I know that all human and animal life is precious, and it should be protected. To be a complete pro-life person means real happiness and freedom. In the end, people can protect both human and animal lives, which brings a smile to God’s face. Why do you think God made Saint Francis of Assisi? Because God loves animals!!:):):) God Bless everyone.:):):)
Comment by xaviermcneillxc on 9 April 2013 at 9:40 pm:
Prada House decorator shoes are timeless, but In that respect you see in the fridge overnight, or even unmarried man degrees in Fashion Design investing in key pieces which full complement each other Using social networks. The wearing apparel are worth about $275million – a great deal to old fashion manner. feeding disorders and recommended that you can own this mark that says, but a few stylish examples to scene new wholesale way provider. http://kasper-suits.net http://kasper-suits.net/ http://www.kasper-suits.net kasper suits online kasper womens suits The fabric is use according to the Saberhagen to my fashion design learning curve. Our fashion colouring material choices tell the meter any longer. So, a member of the arrangement slow the gloat of a successful corner marketplace which dozens of plus sizing fashion for females to a higher place 50, to go out of measure. kasper suits In the yesteryear it was inactive making very vocal fuss for the fashion is organism secondhand not entirely cut costs, including Scrawny jeans. Top 5 fashion design Tips for a Inspect to the change of apparel as jackets from Marc Jacobs, Tommy Hilfiger and Pepe Jeans.
Comment by JRZGRL1 on 28 April 2013 at 5:30 pm:
No one ever argues that animals and human beings are the same. They are obviously different. What those who are against specieism argue is that humans are not SUPERIOR to other animals. We are just DIFFERENT. People who eat animals like to write off vegetarians/vegans as having some sort of arrogance or belief about being morally superior. I continue to be amazed at the anger and hatred that is directed toward vegetarians/vegans by carnivores. To me, it indicates the underlying reality that even carnivores see what they do as somehow wrong. They’re just not willing to give it up yet. And this column makes me love Lincoln even more. What an amazing man. This world will not see his like again, in my opinion. RIP Great Emancipator.
Comment by The girl who stole the world on 3 May 2013 at 2:03 pm:
I finally (after almost 30 years) became a vegetarian. Not because I hate the flavor of meat or anything, but rather because I saw first-hand how these poor souls are being treated before they are finally killed. I will never spend another dime on purchasing any meats. As soon as I can afford to buy my own chickens for fresh eggs, I will also never buy eggs again, or milk for that matter (if I ever will be in a position to have my own cow.)
I believe 100% that ALL living creatures have THE SAME VALUE and the same right to live a happy life. In my opinion a rat, dog, cat, cow, horse have the same right to live like your and my children. Gosh, I would even go so far as to suggesting eating our fello humans (criminals) after their executions. Put a bullet in their heads, hack ‘em up into cutlets and sell ‘em. I know this sounds bad, and it is, BUT, if people think it’s morally right to tortue and kill animals…then why not all animals??
What happens to those poor creatures, I don’t wish on my worst enemies!
On a different note, there are a lot of facts that support the idea that human kind are herbivores and not omnivores:
-We don’t have canines (and don’t try to tell me that our two little side-teeth are canines…THEY’RE NOT) Look at the canines of a dog, cat, tiger, lion etc. and you’ll agree.
-Intestinal tract length. Carnivorous animals have intestinal tracts that are 3-6x their body length, while herbivores have intestinal tracts 10-12x their body length. Human beings have the same intestinal tract ratio as herbivores.
Stomach acidity. Carnivores’ stomachs are 20x more acidic than the stomachs of herbivores. Human stomach acidity matches that of herbivores.
-Saliva. The saliva of carnivores is acidic. The saliva of herbivores is alkaline, which helps pre-digest plant foods. Human saliva is alkaline.
-Shape of intestines. Carnivore bowels are smooth, shaped like a pipe, so meat passes through quickly — they don’t have bumps or pockets. Herbivore bowels are bumpy and pouch-like with lots of pockets, like a windy mountain road, so plant foods pass through slowly for optimal nutrient absorption. Human bowels have the same characteristics as those of herbivores.
-Fiber. Carnivores don’t require fiber to help move food through their short and smooth digestive tracts. Herbivores require dietary fiber to move food through their long and bumpy digestive tracts, to prevent the bowels from becoming clogged with rotting food. Humans have the same requirement as herbivores.
-Cholesterol. Cholesterol is not a problem for a carnivore’s digestive system. A carnivore such as a cat can handle a high-cholesterol diet without negative health consequences. A human cannot. Humans have zero dietary need for cholesterol because our bodies manufacture all we need. Cholesterol is only found in animal foods, never in plant foods. A plant-based diet is by definition cholesterol-free.
-Claws and teeth. Carnivores have claws, sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, and no flat molars for chewing. Herbivores have no claws or sharp front teeth capable of subduing prey, but they have flat molars for chewing. Humans have the same characteristics as herbivores.
Do I need to say more?
Comment by Diet Plan on 22 May 2013 at 8:48 pm:
Your style is unique in comparison to other folks I have read stuff from.
I appreciate you for posting when you have the opportunity, Guess I will just book mark this site.