The Article Written By Anna Sherratt Discusses About The Vegetarian Population Of The Article Review Example

VEGETARIANS AND THEIR CHILDREN

INTRODUCTION

World. She points out in her article that a huge population of the United Kingdom, United States of America and India is vegetarian. The term vegetarian is used for the people who abstain from any kind of non vegetarian food item, for example, meat, fish, eggs etc. The reasons for following vegetarianism could be different for different sets of people. It could be religious beliefs; some may not like the taste, inability to afford non vegetarian food, a belief that non vegetarian food can lead decrease sexual competence, disliking for the meaty taste or the belief that vegetarian food is healthier. In the article, the issue regarding ethical beliefs for not eating non vegetarian food is taken in to consideration. The ethical vegetarians have their own argument to support their stand. They believe that having non vegetarian food is causing unnecessary suffering to different organisms at different levels. The fact that special care is required to grow the animals, to relocate them from once place to another and slaughtering of animals, all these steps lead to suffering, either for the animals or the human beings. On the other hand, growing vegetables is much less of a pain. Thus being a vegetarian is a better option. Another argument that they present is that like us, animals too have the right to live. Being a life form, they have the right to survive. And we being another life form on the Earth, have no right to curb their rights to life. The vegetarians instead fight for the animal rights, they oppose consumption of non vegetarian food by saying that the quantity of plants that are used for feeding the animals is double the total amount required by the human beings for consumption. Thus they claim non vegetarianism leads to deforestation and other activities that harm the natural environment.
The writer tries to prove how it is fair for the vegetarian parents to make their children vegetarian too. But she also says that it is not fair to impose the parent’s choice on the children regarding anything, especially when it comes to food habits that are harmless. Although many parents claim to be vegetarian, but they do consume eggs and other dairy products. It is then equally wrong to consume these products and call oneself as a vegan. At the same time, it is wrong to deprive the child of such food products which are nutritionally beneficial for the health of the child. Also it is being argued the parents do have the right to take decisions for their children when they are too young, but they should not take moral decisions on the children’s behalf. The children should be grown up as omnivores up to some years of life, till the time they are grown up enough to understand the pros and cons of having non vegetarian food and deciding themselves if they really want to continue with the same. Some may claim that vegetarians do not grow as healthy individuals as they are deprived of certain nutrients in the diet. But this is not the complete truth. There are studies that show that children who are vegetarian are as healthy as the non vegetarians. However, very few of them may develop some deficiency diseases like anemia. The article ends in a dilemma whether it is justified for the parents to bring up their children as vegetarians or not.

SUMMARY

The article deals with different thoughts on the issue of being a vegetarian and imposing one’s food habits on the children. The writer argues about the vegetarians’ side of the story. She explains how and why they think that their stand holds true. Similarly she puts forward the non vegetarians’ point also. In the article the vegetarians try to defend their position by bringing out points about how being a non vegetarian is wrong. They claim that is leads to suffering by organisms at different levels and also it means violation of the animal’s right to survive. They point out that a huge amount of resources are being utilized to feed the animals, which they find to be wasteful and meaningless. The writer says that having eggs and dairy products does not mean being truly vegetarian. She puts forward the theory that having complete vegetarian food may make the child nutritionally deficient, but also supports the point that the health issues which may crop up are neither too serious and nor bound to occur. Also it is being said that the parents should not take moral decisions for their children, especially regarding food. The children should be brought up as non vegetarians from childhood, and when they are mature enough to decide on their own and take rational and logical decisions, they should be allowed to decide it themselves. Simultaneously, she also says that parents do have the right to take decisions for their children and guide them whenever they are wrong, so there is not much harm in taking decisions regarding meals too. As depriving them of non vegetarian food completely do not possess much of unavoidable health risk.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

The article aims at arguing if vegetarian parents should grow up their children as vegetarians too. The author claims to support the idea, although she gives very strong and logical points to support her thesis, but the points she talks about in contradiction to her thesis statement seemed to be more apt and convincing. Thus even when she says that she is trying to prove that parents should instill vegetarianism in their children, it somehow seems that she is actually using the corollary method to prove her point. The data regarding the number of people who are vegetarians in some of the countries is appreciable. She has begun the article with explaining what exactly the meaning of the word ‘vegetarian’ is. The way she proved the point that those call them as vegetarians are not truly vegans is commendable. She says that those who are vegans should not consume then any kind of dairy products, which is a very reasonable and logical argumentative point. She says that parents should not take moral decisions for their children, but the article does not intend to deny the right of the parents to decide what is right and wrong for their kids. The situations where it is clearly justified for the parents to take decisions on their children’s behalf are clearly explained. The argument of the opposing side regarding the nutritional deficiency in the children arising as a result of lack of non vegetarian food is not rejected baselessly. Proper studies were discussed in the article which throws light on the researches conducted by scientists about the validity of the statement. It was hence concluded that although the vegan children also are equally healthy, but very few may have some nutritional deficiencies which can be evident during their growing years. The main strength of the article is that she does not reject the opposing views outright, but examine the argumentative points of both the sides and leaves it up to the readers to decide what is right and what is not. She does not impose her views on any of the two sides and respects the emotional sentiments of both sides. While taking care of the emotional grounds, the article does not leave behind the scientific and the health issues. She talks about both the sides of the coins, giving equal importance to both of them. That is what makes the article unique, it does not support one section and demeans the other, it is an impartial analysis of the two sections. The logical explanations of all the argumentative points make it an article worth reading and recommending. However, at times the author seems to confuse the readers, she says she supports the statement, but the arguments favor the opposing side. It could be the author’s way of respecting the values of the other side. But it indeed creates a sense of confusion in the mind. The article may end up creating a dilemma and make the reader feel what exactly the stand of the author is. The article does not end in justifying the thesis statement. It was left in a way where the reader has to decide is almost impossible to judge exactly what is the author’s stand in the whole matter.. Both the sides are given so much importance that it. But the way of presenting the argument is good indeed. All the points are judged keeping intact the views of both the sides. The good flow of thoughts and a great argument would keep the reader’s attention intact and will increase their curiosity.

CONCLUSION

The article indeed was worth reading and recommending it to fellow readers. Although I support the non vegetarians, but after reading the article I am convinced that it is not completely wrong to practice vegetarianism, at least it is not unhealthy for sure. It was always considered that vegetarian food is poorer in terms of nutritional values, and that was the strongest point every non vegetarian has to support his belief. But this article is an eye opener for all those who have been inculcating this belief since generations. Also it will be a good lesson to the vegans who will understand that they should not impose their decision of being a vegan on their children. It should be left up to the children what he wants to have.