That you cannot use 'well it's just natural for humans to eat meat' as a justification for it being a moral or 'good' practice to have a mass meat industry that slaughters millions of animals daily.

If it were a necessity for human survival, sure; but vegetarians have proven otherwise.

Plenty of things are 'natural', that doesn't make them necessary to be upheld as good practice.

I'm not a vegetarian myself. But I can see vegetarians point; there simply is little reason to have a mass meat industry if we accept that killing lots of animals aint all that nice.

Nothing. . . . .

. . . . .... ... ... ...... ...

....

. ....... ..... ..... ..nothing.

Two people produce a child with a rare genetic disorder that severely hampers that childs wellbeing. They are told by the doctor that if they have another child, they have a 50% chance of the second child also contracting the disease; and yet, in this scenario the law does nothing. And yet, in cases with close relatives when it is (as far as I have heard) an 8% chance of complications arising, it is illegal.

I think the whole idea needs to be re-examined. In the case of risks of complications, maybe more things than incest need to be banned, and if not, by principle, incest among consenting adults should be fully legal.

Its a beautifully chivalrous idea, but as policy and to be forced upon people, no. Chivalry shouldn't be forced. Both men and women have an equal right to be alive.

Why does our ancestry have anything to do with just social behaviour now? If violence is commonplace amongst human prehistory and since the dawn of life itself, does that mean we should still uphold it as a moral standpoint? Is evolution some kind of god or religious text that we should adhere to? Evolution is horribly cruel and amoral, possibly even immoral; we should be moving past primitive motivations for our actions.

Is it not moral for a society to move away from the wholesale slaughter of a semi-intelligent being where possible? Asking people to do this five to ten thousand years ago is absurd, but also is applying reasoning for what people did back then for what is moral now.

I am almost inclined to think it is a moral duty.

So if you support the killing of murderers, and you assert that a woman who aborts a baby is murdering that baby, should women who get abortions be subject to capital punishment?