Killing Animals.

[Jacqueline]

People kill animals for different reasons. Some for 'experience', for their meat, and others just because they hate animals. What is your opinion on killing animals?

[nesS]

I am vehemently against the killing of animals. I think it to be unnecessary and brutal.
We as humans have been abusing and killing them for ages, be it for sport (which is border line stupid in my opinion), for experimentation, for clothing or for food. I don't think any of it is right or necessary, and the means we use to kill them, as well as treat them overall, ar pretty unhuman if you ask me.
Plus, I'll emphasise the lack of necessity we have for killing them, be it for sport, since I don't see how killing could ever be a sport and there are a lot of other really good sports you could do without commiting murder, for clothing, since we have other natural and sintetic fibers and a lack of purpose for skinning them, or for food, since you can very well survive and suffice without eating meat. I'm a vegan, and have been for almost 2years and a half, and I never took vitamins of any sort, and still remain in perfect health=)

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

this is strangly topical for me as i am just reading a book by Dean Koontz, the darkest evening of the year, where the main woman rescues dogs, and the last chapter seems to have been all about puppy mills.
this writer seems to have a thing about dogs.




http://www.deankoontz.com/trixie/

[Kirsten]

I am a fan of PETA.

[Flyyn duMartier]

"The PETA you don't know would outlaw fishing, circuses, dog shows, horseback riding and zoos. They even oppose using service animals like eye-dogs for the blind. Fucking blind bastards torturing those dogs! In PETA, there's no room for Kentucky Fried Chicken, or the Kentucky Derby. See you, Shamu! And forget about smearing honey all over your fuck buddy, because even bees are persecuted by the man. And pets are forbidden in PETA's world too. That's right! No pets. Hey all you pet lovers who donate to PETA, feel like a sucker yet?" from Bullshit!

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

circuses with animals really should be outlawed and dogshows are not that nice either. both kentucky's should be gone. horseracing is cruel and corrupted.

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

http://www.care2.com/causes/animal-welfare/blog/a-mouthful-of-flesh/


"But for the sake of some little mouthful of flesh we deprive a soul of the sun and light, and of that proportion of life and time she had been born into the world to enjoy."
- Plutarch


In my last post, Dog, Horse… It's Good Food for Us, I posed the question of whether there is a meaningful ethical difference between eating a dog and eating an animal commonly used for food, such as a cow, pig, sheep, chicken or fish.

So far, readers commenting on the debate have brought up some interesting points, which I feel are worthy of further discussion.

As one would expect, some readers feel strongly that there is a major difference between killing and eating a dog (or, presumably, a horse, cat, hamster, or guinea pig) and killing and eating a cow, pig, sheep, chicken, turkey, fish, (or, presumably, a deer, moose, duck or quail).

Frankly, it's a little baffling trying to figure out what combination of factors puts certain animals off-limits to certain people. Rabbits are a case in point. We're horribly confused about rabbits – some of us shoot them, some of us pet them, some eat them and some enjoy watching dogs tear them apart, limb from limb. As a society, we don't seem to know what rabbits mean to us. Are they our pets, are they our prey… or are they, in fact, persons: individuals who exist for their own reasons?

Two weeks ago, I posted about Elizabeth Carlisle, who drowned two rabbits and had her manager take a photo of her holding up their bodies. Readers were outraged at this story, presumably because of the callousness and cruelty exhibited by Carlisle, but also because the animals she had killed were rabbits, animals whom many readers believe fall into the category of pets.

By contrast, five weeks ago, there was a story aired on NPR Radio. "Rabbit So Good" celebrated the legacy of a restaurant called The Rabbit Hutch, named after the main ingredient in their cuisine. As a vegan, hearing a story like that is like hearing a report on the holocaust. Yet the NPR story about The Rabbit Hutch was celebratory. Elizabeth Carlisle held up the bodies of two dead rabbits and was charged with a crime of animal cruelty. The owners of Rabbit Hutch Restaurant served rabbits' bodies to diners for sixteen years, and the closing of the restaurant was mourned on NPR. Do we need any further evidence that we are dreadfully confused about our relationship with animals?

As with Elizabeth Carlisle, Paea Taufu stirred people's emotions because he killed an animal we are used to letting in to our circle of compassion or empathy. Dogs are different to cows, aren't they? Pigs don't have the same feelings that dogs do… do they?

But of all the responses so far, there is one that strikes me as particularly interesting, because it raises an important question about an issue that is in serious need of examination, in regard to the rising popularity of 'humanely-produced' animal products.

It seems that the reason many people feel that this particular act of animal killing was different to the millions that occur every hour in the US alone is because the animal in question was a 'pet'… An animal who had been taken into the home of a human family.

Some readers seem to assume that this dog was granted the love and care that we would like to think all pets receive. Of course, in a great many homes around the world, this is far from the truth. The suffering of animals being used as pets ranges from extreme brutality (think Michael Vick, a classic example of pet ownership gone horribly wrong), to socially acceptable callousness (think tail docking, ear clipping, declawing, and the most recent trend in pet mutilation – devocalization), to common heartlessness (millions of 'pet' animals abandoned at shelters every single year).

But of course, many animals being used as pets are treated as part of the family. We take care of them, and we are concerned about their well-being. They are given names, they make friends with our children, they give and receive love and affection. They depend on us to meet their needs and if we do so, they trust us. For that reason, one reader argued, it is wrong to kill and eat them. Once they are let into the family, they are off-limits as food.

There are many animal farmers who do exactly this with their animals. Many cows, pigs or sheep on family farms, (while they may be living outside) become a part of the family. They have names, make friends with the children and they might even be loved, stroked, groomed and well cared for. But when slaughter time comes, none of that means anything, except maybe to the heart-broken children who don't understand why their pets have been killed and butchered.

In fact, increasingly, these kinds of situations are being praised as sources of ethical animal products. 'Compassionate carnivores' judge the ethical status of animal products according to how 'happy' or 'pet-like' an animal was prior to being slaughtered.

One website touting its animal welfare standards displays a slideshow of beautiful images of children in a bucolic farm setting, cuddling animals including a lamb so small that if he were human you would call him an infant.

These emotive images are accompanied by Orwellian phrases such as:

"Appreciation builds respect, respect creates kindness."

A reader could almost think they were visiting the website of an animal sanctuary.

Such phrases appeal to universal values. But they seem more than a little hypocritical when you think of the picture that is not being shown: the same child screaming in horror and rage when she finds out what happened to her beloved animal friend whom she once cradled in her arms and fed from a bottle.

"The belief that all living [beings] should be treated with respect is part of our very fiber as humans."

Yes, I believe that it is. But I also believe that a culture that justifies the slavery, exploitation and killing of innocent non-human animals for no reason other than that we like the taste of their flesh, milk and eggs, has a way of silencing that belief inside the individual.

I doubt very much that the two girls in the pictures would witness the slaughter of any one of those animals and see it as an expression of the belief that all living beings should be treated with respect. I think they would be very clear that such an act is blatantly wrong.

It is wrong when animals are crowded into factories, treated like machines and killed using extremely brutal methods. It is wrong when animals are free to roam, treated kindly, and killed using relatively painless methods. It would be wrong if I treated my family pet like royalty and killed him swiftly and painlessly while he was sleeping, to cook his flesh and serve it for a Sunday meal with my family.

Killing is wrong. Exploitation is wrong. It is time that we stopped trying to justify actions that are morally reprehensible, for the sake of 'a mouthful of flesh'.

[Stalking Sanity]

Naturally, most of us on this forum are more predisposed to eat Bessie the Cow than we are to eat Scruffy the Dog, because we see dogs as pets. But my anthropology professor put out an interesting point. She grew up in Africa, and her family had a chicken, which she treated as a pet. A time came, though, when they were in dire need of food, so they had to eat the chicken. She was unable to eat the chicken, because it was her pet. The same goes for us and our pets.
We've developed the idea that cats and dogs are more intelligent or important or whatever than all other animals, just because we keep them as pets, but if you were starving and it was down to eating little Johnny or your dog, we'd all make the same decision.
This is the same logic behind animal testing. I would rather a rabbit or a rat die as a result of an experiment than my mother. We all would. Because people are more important than animals.

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

they are not intrinsically more important. we just think so, because we are human.

[Stalking Sanity]

Right. And as rabbits don't run our government, schools, or courts, humans kind of matter a little bit more.

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

we set these things up.for ourselves. that does not give us more rights.

[kassandra/sabelmouse]

Taking the misery out of meat-eating?

Scientists are working on creating livestock that are immune to pain. Would it make you feel less guilty when enjoying a steak?

Cows on a farm in the Scottish Borders, look out of a pen

Scientists believe they can engineer cattle that feel no pain when slaughtered

Researchers into genetics and neuroscience are working on creating livestock that are immune to pain by trying to locate and eliminate the pain gene. This, according to philosopher Adam Shriver, is the very least that should be ethically done as we consume almost 300m tonnes of meat a year – a figure that only looks set to rise.

How would you feel about picking up your pork chops with a "pain free" sticker slapped on the packaging? Should we try to limit the suffering of animals as we continue to feed our insatiable appetite for meat, even if it means using genetic modification?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/10/meat-eating-pain

[Ix]

i would like to say i love meat...
also i think it would be cool to go hunting
but i would feel guilty about killing it
though i eat fish and crabs i catch i dont kill them myself
and stuff........
killing for sport is dumb