"Can you love others as yourself? Do you need love? Do you crave meaning in your life?"

Honestly, this would describe veganism as well as humanitarianism. Does coming to Jesus save God's creatures, or must we read between the lines of his Bible?

"There are as many ways to love our neighbors, our brothers and sisters, as there are ways to make a sandwich, literally thousands of ways. Jesus just wants us to LOVE!"

There aren't traditionally that many ways to make a sandwich without killing a sentient being (who would have loved to live its life). Just as we cannot love one another without fundamentally being sentient, it's the truth about love! "Sun" days give us our plants to eat. Joie de vivre.

Semantics:

"Now let me clarify, I love the church, I love the bible, and I believe in sin... I hate religion."

I think the "poet" meant to say: "I love the religion, but not its sin". After all, Jesus is not personified outside of your religion, per se, though altruism is not peculiar to him either way.

"If I Were a Rich Man"...

(I would set them free, like a fiddler on the roof.)

Once again, soundingjoy, even if humans are your only consideration, it is in our best interest to preserve lives, and help ourselves in the process. The astounding biology of this video is not unique to humans, nor is the sanctity of life on this planet.

Like I mentioned, there are ongoing long-term studies of humans, which indicate significant health benefits and longevity resulting from life-sustaining dietary practices.

This is about human development, and I am saying that human development does not occur independently of all other life on this planet.

Like I said, humans will live longer and healthier lives by not killing and processing billions of other sentient beings each year.

Mr. rhemes1582, can you read the whole thing, or do you stop after finding a word that you can pounce on?

Other than ignoring my point, you are clearly harping on the semantics of two words which you are taking out of context, even after I restated the message to show that they were not pivotal to its meaning. Your bias is the only thing that you are making clear. What I said is true, either way.

Correction, I meant to say sentient instead of sentinent, as I said before with links:

Conception is a miracle for all sentient beings, just as it is for us. Humans today can save more lives each year than the entire human population on earth (while maintaining ecosystems and our health in the process). We should look at the quality of life beyond birth for all, because we are the only ones who have these choices to make. The issue of pro-life must become universal to matter.

While I am elucidating, I will reiterate that it would not only be a good outcome for animals and the planet, but for people themselves to appreciate life.

I can also restate my original remark with more positive semantics, for the sake of conveying optimism:

Conception is a miracle for all sentinent beings, just as it is for us. Humans today can save more lives each year than the entire human population on earth (while maintaining ecosystems and our health in the process). We should look at the quality of life beyond birth for all, because we are the only ones who have these choices to make. The issue of pro-life must become universal to matter.

There you have it.

Firstly, you are making references to your misinterpretations of my other discussions in order to attack my character. That is not going to fly.

Secondly, you are ignoring the problem to which this discussion and news report refers: sexual misconduct. The downsizing is already occurring, as reported (I was merely remarking that it was more reactionary than corrective). I then suggested oversight between the sexes, just as this is being done in other professions, such as male doctors having female nurses in the room when they examine female patients. It prevents sexual misconduct from occurring (or being questionable). Do you have a better idea?