In our society, free choice is morally acceptable as long as it doesn’t harm other beings or isn’t detrimental to their freedom. The problem with saying that meat eating is a personal choice is that the defender completely ignores the effects of his actions on the lives of millions of animals, based on the sole argument that they are not humans.
This person is ignoring, on purpose, the fact that animals are equally sentient as us and have as much a desire to live than anyone.
The challenge with animal rights is that the victims are silent. They are hidden away, far from the public’s eye and can’t speak for themselves which makes it even harder to fight for them.
The “personal choice” defense is a desperate way of setting aside important variables of a problem. It falsely implies that the speaker has considered all options possible and concluded that they are not valid points. But clearly he has just closed his mind to other opinions and chose to stay in a bubble of ignorance.
How awful is it to use a personal choice to take away an other being’s choice to live?
Hitler wanted to kill the jews, it was a personal choice. Does it make the atrocity of his actions okay? No.
Not that long ago, rich white men used black people as slaves, it was their personal choices. Was it morally acceptable? Hell, no.
Then why is it still considered alright to do the same with animals?