Like Abortion Argument Analysis

Animals, author Foer states that “ Like abortion, where it is impossible to definitively know some of the most important details and that cuts right to one's deepest discomforts, often provoking defensiveness or aggression”. Although the physical benefits of consuming a dog can easily be proven or stated, the emotional side of this argument cannot simply be solved, if possible at all. The argument behind the morality of eating a dog has been taking place for a very long time. Many of the individuals who believe in the banning of consuming dogs argue that dogs are a higher tier of animal than the other types of animals we consume. This is simply not true. While one might argue that the majority of America would not consume dogs even if dog meats
are made available in markets as result of proven benefits in both health and economy because dogs have been treated as companions, one cannot however argue that dogs should not be consumed as result of them being treated as companions in the history of this country. Making the dogs available to be physically consumed does not endanger pets or owners of dogs, the live stock of these dogs will come from the wild, or them being raised in a controlled environment. All in all, while people can argue that because of the way they view dogs emotionally, it will be extremely difficult for them to consume dogs physically, and since the majority of Americans have this perspective, it makes the physical consumption of dogs seem unfitting, it can be seen as vividly clear that the benefits of consuming these dogs physically will only provide benefits for the human body, as well as lifting up the economy.