>> "Now, you have a small baby you give it the food *you* eat and like.
Then
>> somebody asks: "Is is fair to force your personal decision to eat xyz on
a child?" It just implies or
>> reveals that he or she who sais it thinks that
>> xyz wouldn't be good for the baby. Nothing more."
>> Uh, but that's just it: it's not a question of like, it's a question of
what we're made for.

Oh, I think this goes much further that that. The general veggie reasoning
(philosophy, religion) is quite faulty. As soon as you start down the
fairness-doctrine slippery slope, you're bound to end up in an avalanche
(on the receiving end).

"Is is fair to force your personal decision to eat xyz on a child?"

Again, I ask, how is it "fair" (as if "fairness" really existed in nature)
to force a decision to eat "anything" on a child?? Fruits and veggies
included.

Have you ever seen what a child eats if left to his/her own devices? The
answer is *ANYTHING*. If (adults) were not around to "decide" what is
good/bad to eat, the child could very well die by ingesting just the wrong
thing. "Fairness" has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The other problem with this logic is the assumption, from the start, that
it is unnatural to eat meat (e.g. - "forcing" the child to eat meat). As if
it were a drug you were "forcing" on the child. It's kinda like trying to
use the Bible to prove the Bible :) 'Nuff said!