Lacto-vegetarians and Ovo-vegetarian cause animal cruelty thus are animal abusers.

Pro - "I don't see upholding the culture as a valid reason for continuing to perform an unhealthy and cruel act." - Pro "You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option"-pro Con - I thought I pointed out that eating eggs is not a cruel act considering it is for survival. A vegetarian should understand that considering that eating just a vegetarian diet will leave you with a vitamin b12 deficiency. Do you know what has a good source of vitamin b 12? oh yeah... eggs! Furthermore, studies from your sources concerning the dangers of cholesterol and saturated fat are incorrect. Cholesterol in the diet has no bearing on cholesterol formed by the body. They are two separate things. This thought is outdated and mainly supported by misinformed doctors who don't even need to take nutrition to get their degree. The human digestive system is quite incredible, it breaks everything down to its basic parts, takes what it needs, and disposes of the rest. Cholesterol found in arterial walls is more likely from having a high sugar diet. The molecular makeup of sugar is sharp and when streaming through the blood causes microscopic cuts at the bends of arteries. Cholesterol is not collecting here because it is in high content in the blood, it is collecting there because the job of cholesterol is to repair these tears caused by sugar. Cholesterol is made by the body, not from the diet. As far as saturated fat goes, your results are also wrong from bias sources. Again, a high sugar diet is likely the cause that scientists draw from these studies. An American diet does have a lot of saturated fat in it, but that is nothing knew to the human diet. Pastoralist societies have been thriving off the meat from their herds for well over 10,000 years. The only thing knew is a high simple sugar content in our diet. Eskimo's for example eat mainly meat and eat straight whale blubber in high amounts when it is available. They eat their meat raw (Eskimo=eater of raw flesh), in order to get the nutrients they need. It is only when they take on a western diet high in sugar do they have significant health problems. Pro -"According to the data at nutrition facts, 4.86 large eggs have 343% cholesterol, 37% fat, and 38% saturated fat. Yet, only 347 calories." Con -Even though this information means nothing because of what I said above, an unhealthy diet does not make someone guilty of animal cruelty. Pro - "The culture needs to change. You make an excellent argument for banning eggs. Since individuals do not need eggs nor are eggs the healthiest nor the cheapest option. Eggs aren't the healthiest because of their high cholesterol, fat, and saturated fat content. Grains are much cheaper per calorie than eggs. If you look at this table you will see eggs are not the most economic choice" Con - Again, I don't see how a supposedly unhealthy diet can make you guilty of animal cruelty. Secondly, grains have a lower nutrient and macronutrient content than eggs. Thirdly, why are we arguing a healthy diet? I thought this was about animal cruelty... your bring up no new points. Con - With your logic, anything anyone ever does ever, would make them an animal abuser. You would find some statistic somewhere to support your opinion. Statistics do not make laws, they only create conclusions drawn from the person that interprets them. If people who eat eggs are animal abusers than your are too simply because you are using your computer. Computer's are used at slaughterhouses so you must be cruel to animals. Do you see how this silly argument is false? Ignorance does not make someone guilty. Culture is learned. They don't know any different. Ignorance does make someone innocent. You are not arguing that people who eat eggs are animal abusers, you are arguing that our culture needs to change the way in which we procure our food sources.