The common argument on being pro-vegetarian or not is centered on the treatment of animals and their rights. Vegetarians complain that in most cases, all forms of animal products and enabled foods for consumption, are products of violation and meet their destiny human’ hands at their expense. They further state that their treatment is capable of being termed non-existent since their preferred way of living is overlooked by man for selfish gains. Points of interest are attributed towards the equality of animals as well as humans. The interest of non-human animals is leveled against such occurrences between a chimpanzee and a small baby. Their value is not similar since issues like developed memory, abilities do not favor the latter. In addition, the vegetarians believe on the speciesists’ principle.
I do not support the stance by vegetarians on total exemption of feeding off any animal products due to the perceived nature of their treatment and exploitation by man. The existence of animal species in nature, as enabled through creation theories and explanations, permit the dominance of man over them. Their importance cannot be understated, and so is their availability for human survival. The matter is only in question where the treatment is not permissive. The rights bodies and associations should be guaranteed of their power in enabling positive treatment of the animals and subsequent charging of any violator. For example, in our farm on the countryside, we rear cattle, sheep, and goats for part subsistence use as well as enabled commercial value. However, there is no form of mistreatment or exploitation delivered on the animals at any cots. The above claims cannot be used to deter their consumption, yet from religious reading, their provisions are for human thriving. What would be the value of animals if they were not slaughtered for consumption?