That doesn't follow at all. You're trying to derive what we ought to do, or what we are "supposed" to do, from what is natural. That's not a valid argument. You're still committing a fallacious appeal to nature.
You're now making a claim about health, but once again, as the American Dietetic Association has
stated:
It's unfair to confine, transport and slaughter animals for their flesh or other products when you can be just as healthy on a vegan diet.
I'm not saying it's an all-or-nothing thing, it's just a spectrum. Reducing meat consumption (
reducetarianism, as they call it) is good (particularly chicken and egg consumption, because chickens bear the brunt of a lot of the suffering); going vegetarian is even better (going lacto-vegetarian means you've cut out most of the suffering); and going vegan is just another step forward.
What questions haven't I answered?