[split] "Some people eat animals, some don't."

[Diana]

The fact that plants are capable of being third-density makes it apparent to me that though they do not possess the same type of physical structures I do believe they have many of the same functions. Maybe they don't have a nervous system like humans but that doesn't mean they have no sensitivity or that they don't feel pain. They have all the potentials of second density as second density animals.

I am so confused by this approach that separates plants and animals. They are both second density, they are both capable of progressing to third-density and beyond, so why is the fact that their bodies not like ours conclude they do not experience any of the same faculties? I just can't get behind that.

I don't think you are really getting what, at least I, am trying to say. I am only making a distinction of what to choose based on what I actually know. I agree with the above bolded statement. But this is conjecture only. I KNOW animals don't want to die, that they suffer. I KNOW that plants don't die when they are pruned, or when their fruits are taken, etc. That is not to say that it's not possible that plants suffer as we do even though they don't have the same nervous systems. But we have perception for a reason; we use our sense perceptions to assess and make choices. Extra senses of course matter, but no one I have ever known of can claim to KNOW that plants suffer as we, and animals, do in the same way. 

So when I have to make a choice of what to eat, can you not see the desire to proceed from what I know; to choose from what I know, to recognize cruelty and suffering and the desire of the other as I literally see and hear it? Is it not my responsibility as a conscious being to make choices and decisions based on what I perceive (and I do realize the limitations of that but what else do we have to go by as we evolve?), rather than what I wish things to be (like Christians do) or what I might philosophize about ignoring what I perceive?

Occam's Razor ... what makes more sense: 

1. That what we can observe about plant life is really not the reality and that plants, although they don't appear to nor do they have the same physiology in order to do so (even though they exist on the same planet within the same conditions and derive from the same evolutionary pool), suffer and fear death and don't want to be used for food even though they often depend upon animals eating their parts and speeding their seeds? (I am not discounting that plants as a life form would have survival instincts particular to them as all life does—for example, bees and other insects with a hive mind sacrifice themselves for the good of the whole, so their survival instinct is not individuated as animals' and humans' are).

or, 2. That there is a distinct difference between 2D plant and 2D animal life in regards to suffering and dying, based on what we can observe, and what we know.

In any case, I see no efficacy in making decisions based on wishful thinking or conjecture that ignores OBVIOUS suffering. I totally get that there is a bigger picture and that all life is worthy of life. But when it comes to making a necessary choice, are we to ignore everything we see here in favor of what we think it might be? Perhaps.