As a veggie, I am continually conscious that I have made a moral choice which does not fit with society's morals on the issue (in general). I believe that in this world of choice, I can have an adequate diet without the need to kill animals. What does the panel feel about this issue?

I'd like to add to what Professor George has said. A year ago, I led an overseas study program from my college to East Africa, and saw first-hand how not everyone has the kinds of choices we enjoy about nutrition. But this observation also raises questions about what kinds of moral considerations "trump" others (and why, or on what ethical grounds), and whether or not those who don't have our choices are forced at best to choose between evils (and thus cannot really choose the good in their lives). The fact that animals can suffer is clearly morally relevant. But I am not at all confident that this is the only morally relevant consideration in this or any other moral judgment--plainly, the fact that they suffer does not seem to be decisive evidence for the claim that no one should ever eat them, or we would condemn even those who do so because they have to. So, at best, the fact that animals suffer is what philosophers call a prima facie ground for not willingly causing them to suffer. ...