Until it is proved that plants have a conscience they no reason not to. When it is...what will they eat?! hmm...

I've thought the same thing... maybe it's because animals are cuter than a plant- I have no idea though...

The definition of vegetarian is not "not eating living things". It's eating plants, better known as an Herbivore. Although many aren't strict vegans and they also eat eggs and cheese. Some folks call themselves vegetarians and eat fish.

It's because they don't have a mommy and/or belly button.

Vegetarians are about not eating dead animals, not ''not eating living things'' to be specific about this. Plants do not have a brain and central nervous system. They don't feel pain, or fear, or anything like what an animal feels. Many vegetarians are also vegetarian due to the fact they believe meat is unhealthy, and pumped full of antibiotics, hormones and other things they don't want to put in their body rather than because they don't want to eat something that lived.

1) "Vegetarianism is the practice of a diet that excludes all animal flesh, including poultry, game, fish, shellfish or crustacea, and slaughter by-products. There are variations that admit dairy products, eggs and/or products from animal labor such as honey. Many vegetarians also choose to avoid wearing clothing that has involved the death of animals, such as leather and fur. Veganism in comparison, excludes all animal products from diet and in some definitions from attire also, whether or not the production of clothing or items has involved the actual death of an animal (dairy, eggs, honey, wool, silk, down feathers, etc.). A generic term for both Vegetarianism and Veganism as well as for similar diets is "Plant-based diets". The reasons for choosing Vegetarianism, beyond simple personal choice, may be related with moral, religious, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, environmental, social, economic or political convictions, as well as with health concerns." Source and further information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarian According to this, a vegetarian is not someone who doesn't eat living things, but someone who doesn't eat animal flesh (and a vegan doesn't eat any animal products. An ovo-lacto-vegetarian (as I am) eat also eggs and milk products (and honey). 2) ""You claim that vegetarianism respects life, but you eat plants. Plants are living creatures, too." There are two issues raised by such a comment. One is the distinction between "life" and "consciousness" in ascribing value to life, and the other is the inherent error about biological issues incorporated in the comment. First of all, making the point that plants have "life" and can therefore be equated with the value of higher animals ignores the basis on which differing valuations of life are ascribed. It is not "life" itself which is valuable, but the process of consciousness and meaningful sentience prominent in humans and vertebrates and essentially nonexistent in plants, bacteria, viruses or other simple life forms. We are willing to kill millions of one-celled bacteria, each one an autonomous, individual organism, to save one conscious, sentient human. We recognize consciousness and highly-advanced mental abilities in dolphins, chimpanzees and even household pets, which we do not recognize in flies, cockroaches or algae. While we may have valid reasons based on environmental considerations for protecting other species to maintain ecological balances, we almost always recognize that there is an inherent value in animals with greater sentience or consciousness than those that lack it. And few would assert any consciousness at all in plants. Second, when we eat animals, we kill them. But when we eat fruits, nuts, grains and many vegetables we don't have to kill the plant. On the contrary, we help the plant reproduce by taking a part of it which was designed to be attractive, to spread its seeds. If we don't take the fruits or nuts or grains, the plant will drop them to the ground and try to give the seeds a chance to grow. But it would prefer that another creature help spread the seeds as far as possible." Source: http://www.wordwiz72.com/veg.html 3) "Fruitarians take the argument concerning plants quite seriously; they do not eat any food which causes injury or death to either animals or plants. This means, in their view, a diet of those fruits, nuts, and seeds which can be eaten without the destruction of the plant that bears their food. Finding a theoretically significant line between plans and animals, though, is not particularly difficult. Plants have no evolutionary need to feel pain, and completely lack a central nervous system. Nature does not create pain gratuitously but only when it enables the organism to survive. Animals, being mobile, would benefit from having a sense of pain. Plants would not." "We ought to destroy as few plants as possible. And by raising and eating an animal as food, many more plants are destroyed indirectly by the animal we eat than if we merely ate the plants directly. What about insects? While there may be reason to kill insects, there is no reason to kill them for food. One distinguishes between the way meat animals are killed for food and the way insects are killed. Insects are killed only when they intrude upon human territory, posting a threat to the comfort, health, or well-being of humans. There is a difference between ridding oneself of intruders and going out of one's way to find and kill something which would otherwise be harmless." Source: http://www.salsa.net/peace/conv/8weekconv8-3.html 4) "There is research to suggest that plants are perhaps even further removed from other “objects” than we would have thought possible. Plants can and do respond to human behaviour. Plants which have been in the room when a crime was committed have been used to identify possible suspects out of a lineup, I shit you not. How much you want to read into these reports is of course up to you - ultimately the choice is up to the individual. I don’t think I’m going to stop eating lettuce out respect for the lettuce’s “life” but that’s just my opinion - it is all about where you draw the (your) line." Source: http://psytractor.wordpress.com/2007/05/15/high-iq-link-to-being-vegetarian/ 5) "Theoretically, our very existence causes pain to the earth at every level. Given, once again, that we live in the modern world where alternate food choices are available, must we carry the same burden of guilt when we take a plant’s life as we presumably would in killing an animal? Only to the extent that all life, all of the earth and "the-spirit-that-moves-through-all-things," is sacred. By recognizing this and acknowledging the dilemma and contradictions of this life, we can venture forth into this imperfect world with compassion, and begin to make choices that bring us back into a state of harmony and grace with the earth, ourselves, and all living beings. Once we begin to base our food choices on the principle of least harm and destruction, then we will know, as Tolstoy knew, that we are on the right path, that the vegetarian ethic is the genuine and sincere pursuit of moral perfection on the part of our species." Source and further information: http://www.satyamag.com/march97/eatplants.html

There is a East Indian sect called the Jain's that will only eat leaf vegetables and fruits.If it is a root vegetable they will not eat it for it is killing them.In the seventies there was a famous book called "The secret life of plants" that showed that plants react to pain,fear,love and other emotions.There was scientific studies done and the plants had measuring devices on them to calculate their response.I guess the Jain's knew about this thousands of years ago.

There are degrees of vegetarianism. For some, it's a matter of not killing, for some it's a matter of health, for some (like me) it's a matter of taste.

One pretty compelling reason is not wanting to die. Vegetarians don't eat dead animals. Only a few scientists (and a number of pro-animal killing types on AB) claim that plants have sentience. The scientific community claims plants have no sentience. If they did, that is even more of a reason to be a vegetarian as it takes close to 15 pounds of plants to make a pound of dead flesh - therefore, you kill far fewer plants by being a vegetarian.

Vegetables don't scream as loud.

First, discard the word "living" and discard the word "life" from the english language forever. These words are responsible for all the confusions and senseless debates sometimes conjured up by some to synthesize a baseless claim that vegetarian is a contradiction. Vegetarians do not eat animals because animals are highly evolved entities that have a central nervous system and hence feel and fear the same pain that you and I are trying to avoid, ie get slaughtered or murdered, what ever you want to call it, the pain and terror is identical. Hence all animals,including humans are collectively called "sentient beings". Sentient means able to be "aware" of experiencing sensations and/or feelings. Note the emphasis on "aware". Plants, on the other hand, have nothing resembling anything as remotely as a brain cell, let alone a fully formed central nervous system. They are thus simply "biological" machines without the self awareness of an owner within that physical structure. No one claims to possess that plant structure. Consciously, it is as empty as a motor car is, although far more complex in biological make up. Some plants, like the Venus Flytrap, Dionaea muscipula for example, although it has all the required biological sensors to sense moving objects, it is biologically automated as opposed to a conscious interaction as that in animals. Plants, therefore are collectively NOT sentient but are simply non-conscious, biological machines. Therefore whether what you eat is "sentient" or not defines whether you are a vegetarian or not. Don't use the word "life" or "living" as it is definitely going to add confusion. The new and much clearer and broader definition of vegetarianism is, "A VEGETARIAN IS A SENTIENT BEING WHO DOES NOT EAT OTHER SENTIENT BEINGS" and encompasses a far more complete picture as to what a vegetarian is. Seeing it in its entirety, a non-vegetarian is a sentient being who eats other sentient beings and hence by this very definition must necessarily practice cannibalism. It is indeed no surprise, according to this more complete picture, that George Bernard Shaw [Writer Nobel Prize Winner] once said: "I was a cannibal for twenty-five years. For the rest I have been a vegetarian." and, "A man of my spiritual intensity does not eat corpses." The above definition for vegetarian also renders it applicable to any non-human sentient beings anywhere in the universe with the degree of intelligence equal to or beyond that of humans that don't consume other sentient beings. It does not imply a vegetarian must necessarily be a human. In a similar way, the commandment, "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" in the old testament, does not imply the one not to be killed must necessarily be a human.

because I have to in order to survive.

what do you suggest we eat? ;-)

because they are alive for me to eat... and wipe my but with.

Because I'm an omnivore and it's part of my natural diet.

lets just not eat anything at all lol

plants i need for vitamins and they can reduce your chance of disease. and there tasty also..

And it has been shown how they react to stimuli. Some you can see quite there in front of you. IE, the Venus Fly Trap, others have been hooked up to monitors much like a lie detector or a seismograph and subjected to different stimuli. The little pens on the graph jumped all over the place. So I guess we'll have to quit eating.

I can't exactly live on rocks and sunshine.

Plants get their nutrition from the soil so maybe if we just eat dirt we won't need to harvest and eat vegetation.