Vegans like to say that it is a perfectly healthy diet–more healthy than the biologically natural omnivorous human diet. While it can certainly be indulged healthily–if carefully managed with supplements, etc.–unlike our natural diet, it is potentially hazardous for pregnant women. Indeed, I reported a bit ago of a woman whose breast fed child may have died because her milk lacked proper nutrients due to a vegan diet.
The actress Natalie Portman has been a vegan, but now pregnant, she has gone back to being an omnivore. From the story:
A pregnant Natalie Portman has decided to give up being vegan so she can nosh on the food she really wants. “I actually went back to being vegetarian when I became pregnant, just because I felt like I wanted that stuff,” she recently told Atlanta’s Q100 Bert Show. “I was listening to my body to have eggs and dairy and that sort of thing.”The 29-year-old Oscar winner became a vegan after picking up a copy of Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Eating Animals,” but now that she’s got a baby on board, Portman says being a vegetarian is a better fit.
Good for her. She listened to what her body needed during gestation. Her baby matters more than “the animals.” Parents should not put their children at physical risk over ideology or belief.
And since when is eating eggs and milk “vegetarian?” I think the proper term is lacto-vegetarian. But I quibble.
April 13th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Eating some organic animal products is a lot easier than trying to balance B12 all the time. Good for her!
April 13th, 2011 | 12:27 pm
Natalie Portman has NOT gone back to being an omnivore; she’s gone back to being a vegetarian.
One of the major differences between vegans and vegetarians is that vegans eliminate all animal products from their diet, including dairy and eggs. Vegetarians do not eat meat, fish or poultry but they tend to consume dairy products and eggs.
From a nutrition point of view, vegans need to take a B12 and amino acid supplement, since they have no dietary source of these nutrients. On the other hand, you can get all the nutrients you need on a vegetarian diet that includes eggs and milk without supplements.
As Portman says in the article: “I was listening to my body to have eggs and dairy and that sort of thing.” The article also says: “…now that she’s got a baby on board, Portman says being a vegetarian is a better fit.”
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Troll, by which I mean you are contentious just for the sake of it. It is boring and immature.
Definition of omnivorous: : “feeding on both animal and vegetable substances.” http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnivorous?show=0&t=1302716022 Eggs are animal substances. So is milk. She is now omnivorous.
And I mentioned the part about vegetarianism in the post. Troll.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
I will continue to disagree with you as long as you persist in piling BS on BS with a trowel. If that makes me a “troll” then so be it.
HW
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Disagreeing with me doesn’t make one a troll. What you too often do–not always, but too often–is engage in trollism, e.g., as in taking me to task for the correct use of the term omnivore. That is just being disagreeable for its own sake. You didn’t even have the maturity to respond to the comment directly. Troll alert.
HistoryWriter Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
@Wesley J. Smith,
Maturity dictates that I not insult an old fellow like yourself by pointing out the obvious, but since you’ve asked —
Omnivores eat meat (the prefix “omni” = “all,” e.g., all kinds of food. Natalie Portman does not eat meat. She defines herself as a vegetarian. Vegetarians, unlike vegans, do not consider dairy products and eggs to be animal products.
I think you already know that, but were trying to cover your derriere after having been caught making the absurd comment that Portman has now become an omnivore.
HW
April 13th, 2011 | 4:00 pm
On a side note, Natalie’s father Dr. Hershlag, a fertility docotr, has written a novel called Misconception, a thriller about cloning and the fertility industry. It might be an interesting read.
April 13th, 2011 | 4:08 pm
Never one to miss an opportunity to quibble, I’ll point out that most dairy is kosher for vegetarians because it’s derived from milk, not meat.
Eggs, however, contain a tiny bit of critter (how much depends on whether they were fertilized and when). I was given some free-range eggs the other day and cracking open one of those can be a bit of a bio-adventure. But overall eggs are more fuel for the chick than they are chick, so “ovo-lacto” vegetarians like Ms. Portman seem to meet most vegetarians’ standards.
She’d be even healthier if she’d have a nice piece of fish every so often, though.
These kind of discussions always remind me of the person who went into a all-natural clothing store and asked if they had wool sweaters. The clerk said, “We don’t believe in killing sheep for their wool.” The customer said, “Neither do I” and walked out.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
Animal rights people think that milk is cruel. Cows are repeatedly impregnated, domesticated, etc. That’s why people like Francione make a big deal out of veganism, which I think is a relatively new term. So Portman is now a lacto/ovo vegetarian in that she apparently still doesn’t eat flesh. But she is not really a vegetarian, at least as the word was once understood. They don’t believe in wool either.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, As I’m sure you know, not all animal rights activists, think milk is “cruel”. I for one, believe that, as long as the cows are given all that they need, to live happy lives (and I mean this, not in an antropomorphic way, but based on the neurobiological makeup of cows. That is, if the neuroscientific evidence indicates that cows should be treated in a certain way, to ensure their happiness, AND AS LONG AS the dairy farmers treat them in this way, AND DO NOT give them to the slaughterhouses, once their milk producing days are done, them it’s morally acceptable). Ditto for wool.
I’m curious, though. Do you accept, the unfortunate practice, of giving older cows, that are no longer able to produce milk, to the slaughterhouses (I’m not asking if you eat meat, or accept other cows, from going to the slaughterhouse), or will you join me, in stating that, at least this, is unacceptable?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 13th, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Why would I think it is wrong to slaughter a cow?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 1:29 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Because it deprives them of their lives, and causes them suffering.
Since we both agree that cows are conscious, the cow has an interest, in staying alive, right?
Although I believe that killing cows, in slaughterhouses, is wrong, under any circumstance, and I know that you disagree, it would seem like a reasonable, pragmatic compromise, for you, as an advocate of animal welfare, to accept that, milking cows, should be sent to a sanctuary, rather than slaughtered?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 9:17 am
The only interests cows have are the one we impute to them. They have no idea of any of it.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 2:59 am
@Wesley J. Smith, They have no idea of “rights”, obviously. But cows, and other mammals, certainly know pain and suffering. They exist, and are conscious. This consciousness, is better than unconsciousness. It seems self evident, to me, that a conscious being’s existence, is better than it’s nonexistence. Are you arguing that, a cow a better off dead, than alive?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 1:34 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Since you also realize that, dogs, cats, and other domestic animals, are not “deserving” of more moral treatment than cows and pigs, I’m assuming that, if you believe that cows (and I’m presuming you place pigs in the same category), are not entitled to be protected from the slaughterhouse, neither are dogs, and cats?
True, we don’t “do that” here, because of our emotional attachment, to dogs, and cats, but you would have no objection, in principle, to this, nor would you condemn those, in other countries, who do it?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 9:16 am
Cats and dogs are not food animals in the West. Also, we have a different relation with them than cows. I also think that dogs are a special category. But, I support euthanizing these animals in some circumstances. They are not people. They don’t have rights. We have duties and our duties vary from animal to animals.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:34 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Sadly, Wesley, you don’t provide any arguments, for your assertions. You just repeat the same old, claims.
Of course, you’re entitled to your opinions, but it’s hard to see why anyone else would feel impelled to accept them. There’s no compelling logic here, frankly.
Your views, are probably reflective of what the majority of americans, for example, think. But they’re hopelessly complacent, and flawed, with all due respect.
Since cows, dogs, cats, and pigs, are all conscious, there’s NO rational justification, for treating pigs and cows differently, meaning we kill and eat cows, and pigs and not cats and dogs. Therefore, your position is relativistic. I’m guessing, that, if you lived in some other country, where eating cats and dogs, was culturally acceptable, you would be making the reverse claims.
This is odd. You seem to accept objectivity, in morals. But this seems to imply that, with regard to your animal welfare views, relativism, is ok. But, if so, why should anyone, be rationally convinced that, your animal welfare view, is rationally superior to animal rights?
That is, you have different standards, for what constitutes proper animal welfare treatment, with respect to dogs, and cows. This is not based on anything intrinsically relevant, about these animals, but about our attitudes, toward them. We like to eat cows, we like dogs for companionship. If you lived in India, you might say, we don’t kill cows here, but we do, other animals. Is animal welfare, so relativistic, in your view?
A proper animal welfare view (even though I reject animal welfare, and believe in animal rights) would, have to treat all LIKE animals the same, right? that is, if all animals can suffer, it would make no sense, to treat some of the suffering animals humanely, but not the others? That would not be a consistent animal welfare view, right? But isn’t that what you’re advocating, when you assert that, (or clearly imply) cows and pigs, can be killed, but dogs and cats can’t?
Frankly, this makes your animal welfare position, seem incoherent. You treat animals, that are similar, in morally relevant ways (they’re conscious, and can suffer) differently, in how we treat them, morally. But you don’t do this, consistently. You don’t treat bugs, the same way you treat dogs, right? and why not? because, in this case, at least, you accept the claims, I’ve just stated, that, the traits that animals have, is relevant to how we treat them, morally. that is, you don’t treat different breeds of dogs differently, right? You don’t say, for example, a lab should be statrved, but a golden retriever, fed, properly. Why? Because both dog types, suffer, simiarly.
Consistency demands that, you treat, or advocate treating, pigs and cows (since they suffer similarly) in the same moral fashion, that you treat dogs and cats.
So, on the one hand, you implicitly accept that, morally relevant creatures should be treated similarly (you treat different dog breeds similarly, and different species, cats), and the corollary, that bugs don’t require the same moral treatment, as cats, so far, so good.
But, then you argue, that cows and pigs, EVEN THOUGH they share similar morally relevant traits, as dogs and cats, can be treated differently (they can be killed and eaten).
But, then, you seem to imply that, what other countries do, eating dogs and cats, IS morally acceptable, for them!
I like you, Wesley, and think you’re a decent guy, and causes me some pain to say this, but your animal welfare position seems incoherent, and poorly thought out.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:44 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Would you feel compelled to object, to dogs being eaten, in other countries, why or why not? It seems that you would have no basis for that. Would you object to this, in our country, and if so, on what basis? Thank you.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:04 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Let me add, a few more things, then I’ll shut up. sorry to be so long winded.
If morals are objective, and if animal welfare, is a species of objective morality, then animal welfare is objective. But, a principal component, of animal welfare being objective, is having a standard, for treating all animals the same. For example, it would make no sense, to argue that, a pig, because he has a snout, should be tortured, but a cow, because he “moos”, should not be. These traits, (snout, and mooing) are entirely morally irrelevant, to how they should be treated, morally. You accept this, Wesley, in that you treat a cat, differently, as far as morals go, than a chair. why? Because the chair has no morally relevant traits.
What are these traits? Consciousness, and the capacity to suffer. I don’t want to speak, for you, but don’t you accept these traits, as being the criteria, for determining whether, we should adopt an animal welfare view, toward them?
And if so, this treatment should apply to ALL animals that have these traits? And if one is not, then one is being logically inconsistent?
But is this not what you’re doing, when you advocate that, it’s ok to kill and eat cows and pigs, but not dogs and cats, even though all, of these animals, are conscious and suffer?
But then, to endermine, even this inconsistency, you seem to imply that, killing and eating dogs and cats, is morally acceptable, if other countries do it. This, and treating dogs/cats differently, as stated above, seems to imply that relativism, is ok, in the animal welfare sphere.
But relativism, contradicts objectivity. so your animal welfare position, is not objective (the animals are treated differently, based not on morally objective criteria, but on the wishes of humans using them). But you try and argue that, your animal welfare position, is correct. But this presupposes its objectivity. It cannot be either “correct”, or “incorrect”, it’s just a preference. Therefore, any morally serious person cannot even consider it.
I’ll shut up, now! Thanks!
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 4:36 am
@Wesley J. Smith, I may have jumped the gun, a little. After reading up, a little more, on the animal welfare view, the latter view, which you hold, Wesley, does believe (wrongly, in my view) that, killing animals “humanely” is appropriate. My argument, is that, animal rights is the more consistent view.
But you may be consistent, within your own animal welfare viewpoint, if you believe, as you apparently do that, killing and eating animals is morally permissible, as long as it’s done “humanely”. So, as long as you accept that, killing any animal, including dogs/cats, as well as cows, etc., you’re consisent, with your animal welfare viewpoint. Certainly, anyone who gave a special pass, to dogs, cats, etc., would be inconsistent. But, as long as you “bite the bullet” as it were, and accept that dogs/cats, or any animal can be killed or eaten, you’re consistent. And as long as you don’t assume that, different countries, or people, or groups, can deviate from this, and still be considered adhering to animal welfare, than you’re consistent. That is, if you believe that, as long as everyone kills, animals, humanely, in a way consistent with animal welfare, then your’e consistent. Only if they believed, say, in torturing an animal to death and then eating it, would they not be consistent with the animal welfare view, that you accept.
My disagreement, is with the premises of animal welfare, and think that animal rights, should replace it, regarding our treatment, of animals.
But, if one accepts the premises of the animal welfare view, as you do, then you’re being consistent.
I’m sorry for jumping to conclusions, Wesley. I feeln very passionately about this issue, and I jumped the gun here. You are being consistent, and objective, as long as you believe all people should treat all animals, the same way, reflective of animal welfare principles, which you do. Thank You.
padraig Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, I’ll jump in and say that dogs and other animals we Westerners don’t think of as food, such as guinea pigs, insects, and many rodents, are commonly eaten in other countries without arousing uproar from the West.
There are exceptions, of course: bonobos because we have a taboo against eating other primates (although chimpanzees, for example, will catch and eat monkeys). Also whales, which are thought of as having primate-like intelligence. I think Westerners object to these because of extinction issues, but also as a part of our attempt to raise our concept of human value, or as Wes calls it, human exceptionalism. We value them for their similarity to humans.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 3:37 am
@padraig, Thanks for your honesty. It provides, dispite your intentions, ample evidence for why the animal rights view, is a more consistent, and morally sophisticated view.
padraig Reply:
April 15th, 2011 at 10:18 am
@Bret Lythgoe, No, it doesn’t.
And frankly, “morally sophisticated”? Isn’t that a euphemism for “needlessly complicated and contrary to common sense?”
(Well, you didn’t back up your opinion, so I don’t have to back up mine.)
April 13th, 2011 | 4:41 pm
Eggs, however, contain a tiny bit of critter (how much depends on whether they were fertilized and when).
Wait a minute, are you saying that vegetarians recognize fertilized eggs as chickens?
/brain breaking
padraig Reply:
April 14th, 2011 at 9:12 am
@Blake, I don’t know if they do or not. If they follow anti-abortionist doctrine, which they usually don’t, I suppose they would. Vegans certainly regard eggs as at least an animal product and therefore verboten.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact