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 DUTCH parliament has voted overwhelmingly to ban the ritual slaughter of livestock. However, Jewish and Islamic groups which can prove animals do not suffer more during ritual killing than in an ordinary slaughterhouse will be able to apply for permits.
The e-mail continues: " ARFF contends that lobsters suffer tremendously when they are relegated to tiny tanks and subjected to loud noises, prodding and pulling by a mechanical claw, and prolonged starvation. In this game, the object is to pluck live lobsters out of the water with a joystick-controlled crane."
Of course, as a result, "ethical meat" becomes an option unless one realizes that killing when you don't need to is killing when you don't need to, no matter if it occurs in a slaughterhouse or in a mobile slaughter operation or in a backyard. But they too lead one to accept "ethical meat" as an option because their focus is on suffering.
The suffering in this world that occurs at the hand of humankind and is entirely intentional, is disgusting and dispiriting. I choose not to watch videos or bombard myself with images of suffering. Abby, I too get very upset by stories and images of what occurs every second of every day to nonhumans and humans alike.
More barbarous, or less barbarous, such slaughtering may undoubtedly be, according to the methods employed, but the "humane" slaughtering, so much bepraised of the sophist, is an impossibility in fact and a contradiction in terms. Henry S.
If any "drastic measures" are employed, they are to remove animals from suffering, not to impose our dietary choices on others. I prefer "anti-unnecessary slaughter of sentient nonhumans" and it has nothing to do with perceived modernity. Of course, Lobo is missing the point entirely. The HSUS isn't even anti-hunting !
This is irksome, as the premise is that we need to save the animals (and which ones is an interesting discussion) because we will suffer if they are gone. Corwin tells the story of the Maasai of Kenya, whose culture involved disdain for and slaughter of lions. But again, he's a conservationist, so none of this is a surprise.
Interests arise, Singer contends, from the capacity to feel pain, which he labels a 'prerequisite' for having interests at all; and animals can and do suffer, can and do feel pain.
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.
14): To the animals being slaughtered, it does not matter whether their killers are local or whether they will be eaten or displayed on a wall. Their suffering is the same. To the Editor: Re “ Locavore, Get Your Gun ,” by Steven Rinella (Op-Ed, Dec.
The Argument from Glass-Walled Slaughter Houses Mel Morse, former president of the Humane Society of the United States, once remarked: “If every one of our slaughter houses were constructed of glass this would be a nation of vegetarians.” For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post.
Instead the argument for vegetarianism is based on the suffering that is, and as far as I can see always will be, associated with the rearing and slaughtering of animals on a large scale to feed urban populations.
September 7, 2006, a bill banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption( H.R. The reason that the industry is losing the argument is quite simple: There is no ethical justification for causing an animal to suffer unnecessarily. News flash: Slaughtering horses does not promote their welfare. 503 ) was approved in the U.S.
Nor could he object to meat-eating if the slaughter were completely painless and the raising of animals at least as comfortable as life in the wild. A vegetarian of the first sort has no grounds for objecting to the eating of animals—molluscs for example—too rudimentary in their development to feel pain.
It is natural to feel sympathy for animals who are suffering. Have you looked at images or videotapes of slaughter? Many people exclude animals from moral consideration, even though they would never think to neglect, much less harm, a dog or a cat. Have you taken the time to investigate this? This is bad faith.
Can anyone in good conscience be complicit with the unnecessary suffering and slaughter of another sentient being? To the Editor: When Nicolette Hahn Niman refers to “a conscientious meat eater,” she is using an oxymoron. Kellman San Antonio, Oct.
Neighbor A’s private property and peace of mind are both suffering because of the cats, which are killing government-protected species. They would be made up of people who are sick and tired of government-protected species being slaughtered by domestic cats. What can she do? She could call the SWAT team.
"In their publications, vivisectors virtually never state that they inflicted the harm suffered by their victims. By pairing humane with slaughter , legislators have sanctioned horrific cruelty and mass murder. What if slaughter were freed (miraculously) of all terror and pain? Instead, they hide behind passive verbs.
Can a 17-year-old who mercilessly slaughters helpless creatures – and then brags about it both in person and on social media – suddenly see the light when he reaches the magic age of 18? Who suffers for these crimes? If they are strong and wily enough, men. If his lawyer succeeds, Gutierrez won’t, either.
Like when they're about to be, say, slaughtered? Not to mention the reality that there is so much more involved in being bred for slaughter than pain, and none of that is addressed. This is where I'm confused. This proposed measure would take away some of the perception of pain, but what about the terror?
Two-thirds believe that nonhumans have as much "right to live free of suffering" as humans, but vivisection, food-industry enslavement and slaughter, and other practices that cause severe, prolonged suffering are legal (49). Most believe that it's wrong to hunt animals for sport, but sport hunting is legal.
Cain=farmer=evil murderer; Abel=slaughtered animals=victim/good son. The fact remains, however, that if you don't need to kill anyone to survive, no amount of storytelling and mythmaking (or myth borrowing/co-opting) around that slaughter excuses it. Ingesting suffering can't possibly be good for anyone's karma. Net message?
Due to mass wolf poisonings in the 1960s and the 1970s, Griffon Vultures in Serbia suffered a dramatic population crash. Hence, vultures rely on a feeding station where they are provisioned with slaughter house offal and occasional carrion. No, they weren’t in raspberry fields.).
"Desperate to drive up prices by stemming the gusher of unwanted milk, a dairy industry group, the National Milk Producers Federation, has been paying farmers to send herds to slaughter. Since January the program has culled about 230,000 cows nationwide."
He says it's unacceptable for wild horses that embody the spirit of the American West to be slaughtered. In a written statement, Rahall says the intent is to help spur alternatives to killing excess wild horses that are in holding facilities. They don't have the text of it on Thomas.gov, but here is a link to HR 1018 on the site.
The meat industry is inherently destructive and inhumane, there is no way to make it otherwise, and much of the harm it does to ecosystems is by inflicting suffering and death on billions of nonhuman animals, farmed and free-living, each year. Another went out last Friday.
It's impersonal and hideously ugly and the animals suffer greatly. Yes, I do think it's better to have lived a comfortable life and then be slaughtered than to have been tortured the entire time and then be slaughtered. It's cruel. There's no "compassion" in the process. No argument here.
This says it all: "[T]he vision of sustainable farms that give animals a good life (a life as good as we give our dogs or cats) and an easy death (as easy as a death we give our suffering and terminally ill companion animals) has moved me" (242). You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. Not a single one.
22): PETA is proud to see that its hard work behind the scenes with Bell & Evans and other companies to encourage implementation of this new, less cruel form of slaughter is finally coming to fruition. To the Editor: Re “ New Way to Help Chickens Cross to Other Side ” (front page, Oct. McDonald’s, are you listening? 25, 2010
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.
Animals raised for food suffer miserably. Would we say these people were slaughtered in a “people friendly” manner? Confinement is confinement, mutilation is mutilation, and slaughter is slaughter. After time in the Marines, I veered strongly away from eating creatures, thinking of their suffering.
The fact that geese mate for life, and that the mate of the poor goose that was slaughtered would step forward, was enough to make me swear off meat forever, if I hadn’t already. Doesn’t he realize that he does not have to engage in this voluntary activity, which causes moral conflict for himself and suffering for the animals?
If our liking for meat is in fact more intense than our revulsion at the suffering endured on factory farms, then we are going to remain meat-eaters, with the result that, if the vegetarian has grounded his case in an appeal to our feelings, then that case is in jeopardy.
Meat, however, purchased at the supermarket, externally packaged and internally laced with petrochemicals, fattened in feed lots, slaughtered impersonally, and, in general, mechanically processed from artificial insemination to microwave roaster, is an affront not only to physical metabolism and bodily health but to conscience as well.
Virtually everyone agrees that: (1) It is wrong to cause a conscious sentient animal to suffer for no good reason. Causing an animal to suffer for no good reason is cruel, and our ordinary commonsense morality tells us in no uncertain terms that cruelty is wrong. Most people hold that it is wrong to cause animals unnecessary suffering.
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.
If we are not justified in eating mackerel ourselves, are we not also morally obligated to stop the slaughter brought on by the tuna? He’s right: I don’t care deeply about the suffering of animals I eat, wear or otherwise benefit from. Suffering and injustice are inherent in life, and time is short. David Peters New York, Nov.
The Argument from Human Grain Shortage All of the clearly moral arguments for vegetarianism given so far have been in terms of animal rights and suffering. Nobody wants existing animals to be slaughtered. For an explanation of this feature, click on “Moral Vegetarianism” at the bottom of this post.
Engber mentions that in 1972, the USDA put into place "a special exemption for rats, mice, and birds, allowing scientists to treat them however they saw fit—in cages of any size, in experiments with any degree of pain and suffering. That exemption remains in force, despite Schwindaman's later attempts to overturn it. And for what?
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). We have already seen that Jonathan thinks that it is wrong to cause animals to suffer unnecessarily. What does he think about killing animals?
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