This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The status of animals in our legal system is in flux and attorneys are discovering creative and interesting ways to use legal arguments in the face of increasingly complex scenarios. Our clients are legally impacted by a vast array of human/animal interactions.
Yesterday, regarding being a minority within a minority , mikey commented (among other things): While I am fairly new subscriber to this blog, therefore not knowing your particular stance, I've often felt like a minority within a minority for my stance on animal birth control. And this is one of them. But who cares about me?
Both animal rights groups and animal welfare groups use "compassion" frequently. Then again, so do people who killanimals for a living. After all, they "love" the animals they kill. Nonviolence" is much more difficult to finesse if you're killinganimals for a living. Or vegan pumpkin pie.
Does my proposal as to what makes killing another human being generally a major moral wrong in any way help us with deciding what, if anything, is wrong with killing non-humananimals and foetuses? ones to do with the painfulness of the methods of rearing and killing.) I believe it does help.
Well, as it turns out neither a trip to a slaughterhouse nor killing an animal yourself is powerful enough to make people go vegan. The bottom line is that there are many reasons why human-animal interactions are so often inconsistent and paradoxical. All day long. If slaughterhouses had glass walls?
The University of Puerto Rico, an "1862" LGU founded in 1900, operates a slaughter facility killing small ruminants -- typically goats and sheep, cattle being large ruminants. We humans, herbivores like ruminants, are fine with one stomach -- we don't eat the really tough stuff like grass. Let me know if you hear the show!
One day about 10 years ago, I was in the process of transporting quite a few dogs to a rescue from a high kill shelter. As an Animal Communicator, Cherie has made it her mission to give all animals a voice, deepen the humananimal relationship and help raise the compassion level for all living things.
Notice that the author is not opposed to the use of nonhuman animals as resources for human consumption. She simply wants to minimize their suffering before they are killed (painlessly?) Notice that we (including, I assume, the author) would never allow such treatment of a human being. I can't imagine what it is.
As Montgomery shows, falconry is different from any other human/animal interaction. It’s not clear from the book’s ending, but it sounds like she abandoned her nascent apprenticeship because of her traveling schedule, her marriage, and her own chickens who would certainly be killed if she kept a hawk.
The next argument is usually something along the lines of: But animals in the wild might starve to death, and get injured, maimed or killed by predators! Finally, people who object to our moral stance jump species and say we should object to the lion killing the gazelle. Yes, that's true. Besides, we have choices.
In this morning's New York Times editorial " There Is No 'Humane' Execution ," we have an imperfect yet nevertheless baby step toward acknowledgment of the HumaneMyth. Let's summarize and deconstruct: After a botched execution, Ohio adopted a single-drug formula to replace the three-drug cocktail previously used to kill people.
Or to get struck by an automobile, die slowly, of failing internal organs, and be unfit for human consumption." Let's deconstruct: What we have here is the myth that killinganimals in the wild and then eating them is somehow a compassionate act. There's a lot going on in the above three sentences.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 30+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content