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
I came across this strange article about German research on which slaughter method creates more pain for the animal: the Western method of stunning or the Islamic method of a cut to the neck. According to the researchers, the Islamic method wins. You can read all about the results in the article. What an utterly grotesque project.
He asked whether cows, chickens, sheep and some of the other animals that we eat are usually treated and killed in a humane manner. The meat industry will say yes, of course, all animals are treated and killed humanely. In my opinion, the crux of the question touches on what is “humane.” It's not conducive to humane anything.).
citizens have been struggling to bring an end to the inhumane practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. For previous posts on the ethical issues surrounding the slaughtering of horses for human consumption, see here , here , and here. For several years, conscientious U.S.
But, says Cantor, “’animal science’ rejects scientific knowledge: that humans are natural herbivores and did not evolve as hunters as formerly believed; eating from animals is linked to the most widespread and devastating chronic diseases; and more.” Below is a press release about the mailing. Another went out last Friday.
Just days before Barbaro was humanely put down, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act was reintroduced in Congress. In an incredible juxtaposition to the fanfare of Barbaro, more than 100,000 horses were slaughtered last year in the United States and shipped to Europe and Japan for human consumption.
September 7, 2006, a bill banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption( H.R. The dark secret behind factory farm profits—cruel and inhumane animal husbandry—is getting out. Factory farmers treat animals inhumanely for no good reason. Factory farmers treat animals inhumanely for no good reason.
Horses destined for inhumaneslaughter in the U.S. Because animal flesh sold for human consumption abroad must be inspected by a USDA inspector, the court ruling may mean that the few remaining horse-slaughtering plants in the U.S. A previous post on the "Horse Slaughter Bill" (H.R. is available here.
Horses slaughtered in America today go not to feed the poor and the hungry but to satisfy the esoteric palates of wealthy diners in Europe and Japan. The issue is not whether slaughtering horses is un-American, but that it is inhumane and wholly unnecessary. Horse slaughter for meat export is just plain wrong.
To the Editor: Re “ Humanity Even for Nonhumans ,” by Nicholas D. If human beings were confined, mutilated and killed, would we call it “humane” if the cages were a few inches bigger, the knife sharper, the death faster? Would we say these people were slaughtered in a “people friendly” manner?
While this legislation would be an important step in transforming inhumane animal production, we must also call for change on the federal level, where the farm bill subsidizes this sector to the tune of billions of dollars. Mr. Kristof is attuned to issues of human suffering and injustice. To the Editor: Nicholas D.
For example, Carl Cohen, who has argued at length that animals don’t have rights, admits: If animals feel pain (and certainly mammals do,), we humans surely ought cause no pain to them that cannot be justified. Nor ought we kill them without reason. Cohen, The Animal Rights Debate , p. Trivial or insignificant reasons won’t do.
There are moral reasons to go vegetarian: recognition that it is wrong to contribute to unnecessary animal suffering the injustice of exploiting animals and killing them for no good reason If human have rights, then many nonhuman animals also have rights, and confining and killing these animals for food violates these rights.
He clearly thinks that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer unnecessarily, but he appears to be somewhat ambivalent about killing animals (provided the killing is carried out humanely). are raised in cruel, inhumane factory farms. All that follows from that assumption is that it is morally permissible to eat some meat.
Paragraph #4 starts with: "Undeniably, neither I nor anyone I know advocates or even tolerates the inhumane treatment of farm animals." The veracity of this statement hinges on Scott's definition of "inhumane," and that definition must be very, very restricted, and clearly unrelated to the realities of our modern factory farm system.
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