All Lives Matter — Human or Animal, Born or Foetal (Part II). By Dr Chapman Chen
- Chapman Chen
- May 25
- 4 min read
Vegans would question antivegans like Charlie Kirk: How can you morally justify unnecessarily causing pain and death to animals?
1. The Weakest Spot of Kirk’s Antivegan Discourse
Theologically, the weakest spot of Charlie Kirk’s antivegan discourse is that he is adamant that because only humans are made in the image of God, only human lives matter, and animal lives do not matter. Only humans, including human foetuses, should have rights; animals are entitled to none. But nowhere is it ever mentioned in the entire Bible that animals are not made in the image of God. On the contrary, many verses in the Bible describe how different animals bear different characteristics of God and/or Christ. For example, Jehovah talks to the prophet Isaiah just like a lion roaring to his prey (Isa 31:4); weeping for Jerusalem, Jesus yearns to gather its children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings (Matt 23:37; Luke 13:34); John the Baptist regards Jesus as God's lamb (John 1:29); during Jesus's baptism, the Holy Spirit descends in the form of a dove on His head (Matthew 3:16).
2. The Veganism Debate Video Deleted by Kirk
In this connection, it is unwise of Kirk (2025) to have deleted the following video of debate with a conservative vegan activist known as Mike Bilotich, who made some salient points. For it reflects badly on Kirk’s openness, tolerance, and capacity for self-reflection (n.1).
2.1. One Simple Moral Claim about Meatism
The opponent repeatedly returned to one simple ethical claim:- “The breeding, exploitation, and killing of animals for food when we do not have to is immoral.” Instead of directly refuting the moral premise itself, Kirk shifted toward biblical permission, naturalness, protein, testosterone, processed foods, and human superiority. But none of those automatically answer: Why kill sentient beings if killing is unnecessary?
2.2. Soy Does Not Suppress Testosterone
In reply to Kirk’s insulting allegation that soy contains estrogen and produces “soy boys”, Bilotich scientifically points out that soy contains phytoestrogens, not actual human oestrogens. These compounds can act somewhat like SERMs (selective oestrogen receptor modulators). In certain situations, they may even help modulate excessive oestrogen activity in males rather than increase it. Current studies do not show that soy suppresses testosterone production. Research has generally found similar testosterone levels between meat-eaters and vegans when calorie and protein intake are comparable.
Concerning Kirk’s claim that a vegan diet lacks protein and is not conducive to young people’s healthy bodily development, I would add that both the American Dietetic Association, the British Dietetic Association, and NHS have all stated that a vegan diet is healthy, safe, and nutritionally adequate for all stages of life, including pregnancy, lactation, and infancy (n.2).
2.3. The Opponent Remains Calm
Bilotich’s demeanour itself strengthened his case. Unlike many emotional campus challengers, he stayed polite, asked for fairness, admitted nuances, conceded survival exceptions both in the Bible and in real life, acknowledged unhealthy vegan junk food, and even agreed with Kirk on abortion and conservatism.
3. Vegan Theology Goes Further Than Kirk’s Opponent
In contrast to Bilotich, I would not admit that meatism is ever condoned in the Bible.
For example, I would not admit that Jesus ate and distributed fish. Kirk asked Bilotich why Jesus did not just distribute bread but fish and bread together. Bilotich said it’s a survival situation. I would answer that fish (opsarion) (John 6:9) could be opson, a kind of fishweed, a popular snack in the Middle East both 2000 years ago and now. Fish (ichthys) (Mark 6:41; Matt 14:19; Luke 9:16) is also an acronym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour". And when Jesus later referred back to the miracle, He only mentioned bread, not fish (Matt16:9-10; Mark 8:19-20). So did early church fathers like Irenaeus and Amobius.
Likewise, I would not admit that God gave Noah permission in Genesis 9:3 to kill and eat animals either. (Kirk even mistook Genesis 1:29 for Genesis 9:3; whereas Bilotich claimed that the permission was due to food shortage). What God permitted Noah to eat is remes (“creepers”), which could mean either creeping reptiles or creeping plants (vines). But the eating of reptiles is strictly prohibited by the Torah. So it could only mean creeping plants.
Concerning Kirk’s allegation that God commanded animal sacrifice, I would quote how God detests and condemns animal sacrifice as maintained by the five great OT prophets (Isaiah 1:11; Jeremiah 7:22-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-22; Micah 6:6-8).
Concerning survival situations in real life, unlike Bilotich, we will not kill and eat animals even in a famine, just as we will not kill and eat humans in a famine. Even in a famine, we will trust and surrender our well-being to our Heavenly Father. “Cast your burden on the Lord, and He will sustain you,” the Psalmist reassures us (Ps 55:22). The only exception that we would accept is self defence. Scripture supports protecting yourself and your family, and does not hold a person guilty of bloodshed for taking a life in defensive circumstances (Exod 22:2-3; Luke 22:36). (to be continued)
Notes
Comments