Moral or unmoral, almost everything within the human body consists of protein, and that requires what to create? That's right, amino acids, that you get from doing what? Digesting other protein.
Correct. What you seem to be missing is the concept that all living things contain protein. All genetic code is made from your nice amino acids that we need. All respiration cycles are catalysed by enzymes. It's true to say that muscles tissue etc. of animals provides an easily digestible source of many of the required proteins and amino acids, however it's no true to say it is an exclusive source. It is perfectly possible, plausible and in no way harmful for you to not eat said animals provided you figure out where all your essentials come from. Ok for a few you may need to take supplements, which are not natural and may contradict the ethos of some vegans who taken them. I would not disagree with than and personally think vegetarianism etc. is silly, however that has nothing to do with it's nutritional credibility. Does it?
If you don't consume amino acids, you will end up having your body eat itself,
What do you mean by this? Simply put your wrong, your body will not 'eat itself' without amino acids. I can't really expand on this criticism because there isn't really a point to criticise.
by stripping first your less needed muscles, such as on the biceps or near the extremities. Then the linings of the intestines, liver, and everything else; save the heart and brain for last. After that organ failure occurs, and then death.
Can you find ONE example reported by a credible media source, documenting such a process in ANY person living in a developed country, with a plentiful range of foods from which to choose from as their diet dictates? No you can't.
So while the completely vegetarian lifestyle seems appealing, it's really a simple way to kill yourself, slowly.
Rubbish. The life expectancy in the countries with the highest percentage of vegetarians, is invariably AT LEAST comparable to countries with fewer vegetarians and in a similar level of development. For example Nepal has >90% Hindu/ Buddhist population, many of whom are vegetarian. Nepal certainly has one of the highest percentages of vegetarians. Nepal also has a life expectancy of around 60 years, which considering the development of the country is very respectable.
I challenge you to find my one significantly sized region, or country with a large vegetarian population and compare it to a similarly developed one based on life expectancy. I also challenge you to find me one piece of conclusive scientific study that shows a balanced vegetarian diet is bad and is 'a simple way to kill yourself, slowly'.
I hope that’s more constructive than my previous post, not that your
daft conjecture dissevered my oh-so-valuable time!