Vegetarian, at the urging of an audibly irate stomach, heads downstairs and makes a beeline for the kitchen.

Vegetarian enters said kitchen and flings open the refrigerator.

Vegetarian encounters a bowl of French onion soup.

Vegetarian likes French onion soup and, having been estranged from it for some time, proceeds to devour this appetizing find.

Vegetarian, upon leaving the kitchen, happens to glance in the pantry and notice another can of French onion soup.

Vegetarian, belatedly curious, begins to read the ingredients on said can.

Vegetarian discovers canned French onion soup is made with beef broth.

Vegetarian realizes this may be why she hasn't eaten much French onion soup.

Needless to say, this was yet another of my bouts of brillance. I hadn't eaten meat in over four years, and can't say I've missed the stuff, so heaven knows how I managed to let it happen... By rights, I should be feeling terribly ill right now, or at least terribly guilty, and possibly indulging in self-flagellation in an effort to compensate for the pain and suffering of cows worldwide.

Instead, I just feel rather disgusted with myself. Never did get too into the PETA business... And then, PETA's radical to the point of absurdity.

That is, in my muddled opinion, animals do deserve certain rights; there are some in particular (e.g. the right to individual dignity, the right to be treated with respect), that should be as inalienable to animals as they are for humans. And yes, it does seem pretty bloody hypocrtitcal not to include the right to live, but, if ethnocentrism is taken into account, it would be even more hypocritical to include it. Humans are more likely to overrun the planet than any given species of animal is, but something's got to give, and, being at the top of the food chain and all, it isn't going to be homo sapiens. Homo sapiens has enough moral and ethical battles going on without adding on the idea of limiting its own population instead of others'. Yes, animals do have as much of a right to life as any human being does; no, that doesn't mean people are going to honor it, especially since humans have enough trouble letting members of their own species live in peace. Inalienable rights have always been something pf a problem to uphold, though it is nice to believe they exist.

That's not to say that animals' rights should be identical to those of humans; animals aren't identical to humans, and therefore demand a different set of values. Just to clarify, if that's even possible at this point. I don't believe humans should have to abstain from killing animals entirely. There is the matter of nutrition, which is vaguely important. Meat=protein, protein=something that's rather nice to have around if one is interested in living healthily, and so on. And, once again, there's the matter of animals overrunning the planet, and the fact that eating them works to prevent this, etc.

Yes, in this wonderfully advanced day and age, it can be argued that there are vitamins and other protein supplements available, and that steps can be taken to limit the population sizes of some species. Which is true, but not internationally so. Quite a few places outside the US, and several places within it, don't have the access or the desire required in order to implement such things. As for experiments, yes, it would be simpler if products intended for humans were tested on humans. Advanced beings that we are, we can communicate with each other enough to give consent for experiments and the like, as opposed to animals. But that brings us to the matter of testing products on the imprisoned and the hospitalized, which is an entire new ball game...

Have I digressed? Dear me.

So.

As of now, I've been a vegetarian for a few hours. Hopefully I'll be able to keep it up for at least another four years before the next bout of brilliance hits.

Adieu.