According to the reading about eating meat, I disagree with Law’s opinion in this story in many aspects.
First of all, on page 138 about “Health and design”, Gemma said that “There are millions of people across the world living healthy lives without meat.” I don’t agree with this statement because I believe that no one can grow up and has a good health without eating any animal flesh. As the supporting data that Euy searched for us in the last topic about "Food Pyramid of the Month", people need to consume animal flesh because it provides us many essential proteins, which our bodies cannot synthesize by themselves, for growing up and having a good health. So, everybody needs these proteins for growing up when they were young. It means that we all used to consume animal flesh before.
Moreover, in accordance with Mr. Wilson said on page 138 that “We’re designed to eat meat, aren’t we? We have canine teeth.” I agree with this statement because each organ in all kinds of animals is designed to be suitable for their living. For example, stomachs of the cattle are parted to be four compartments because they can help the cattle digest their food and provide those essential fatty acids and protein from plants while stomachs of other animal are not like these. Like canine teeth of human, they are provided to help us rip animal meat. I believe the natural already creates the suitable features of each organ for each kind of animal including human. So, having canine teeth of human means we are designed to eat meat.
According to the reasons and the examples that I say above, I totally disagree with Law’s opinion.
Sunday 27 September 2009
1 comment:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Another post that has made use of the information in Euy's cited source. I hope that everyone has now read that, since it has been referred to and used by so many people to support their ideas.
ReplyDeleteKate has also given as reasons for disagreeing with Law the argument that Mr. Wilson presents on page 138. What is Law's response to Mr. Wilson's suggestion on page 138 that if something is natural it is morally right? Do you think that Law's response to Mr. Wilson's argument there is right or wrong?