Animal Rights

[Green Gaia]

Poll to follow....

 

[retrorich]

Can we select more than one of the voting options?

 

[DreamQuickBook]

Can we select more than one of the voting options?

yes. you can.

It does not appear, however, that the voting is public. It doesn't indicate who votes for what. Or did I miss understand what public meant.

 

[Exis]

quite frankly, until Mother Nature quits eating humans and animals, I don't think it really matters what we do... But it is a little crude to abuse for the sake of abusing...

 

[Jaymes]

It does not appear, however, that the voting is public. It doesn't indicate who votes for what. Or did I miss understand what public meant.

You have to click on one of the underlined numbers and it will show who has voted for what.

For the record, I'm divided on the issue of animal testing for medical purposes. Abuse is something worthy of jail time, and I think eating meat is acceptable as long as the animal has been treated humanely while raised and killed humanely.

 

[Fluffy]

I support the banning of all hunting. Additionally, I do not think any kind of animal testing should be performed. Lastly, I do not think that people should eat meat or wear skin.

I do not think any of these should be enforced by law until the majority of the population feels that they should be. Oh also, I support all of the above as long as all parties are consenting which normally limits the animal in question to a human.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

We've talked about many of these issues on different thread, so I think it's interesting to think about them all in one thread. I don't see a point in abusing or hunting animals solely for sport or amusement, but I don't have a problem with eating meat. If each of us had to acquire and prepare our own food, I would probably be a vegetarian. I just couldn't kill an animal unless I were in a survival situation.

 

[Katzpur]

For the record, I'm divided on the issue of animal testing for medical purposes. Abuse is something worthy of jail time, and I think eating meat is acceptable as long as the animal has been treated humanely while raised and killed humanely.

As you can see, I only voted on two topics. I, too, am divided on the issue of animal testing for medical purposes. But I do not purchase products that have been tested on animals whenever I learn of them. And I totally believe animal abuse is worthy of a very stiff prison sentence. I admire people who are vegetarians out of a respect for animal life. Personally, I do eat meat. But I haven't eaten veal in over twenty years.

 

[DreamQuickBook]

I believe animals are entitled to some protections from abuse and exploitation.

 

[Valjean]

I'm a strict vegan and a supporter of animal rights, but I realize that there are still groups who must hunt to survive. I accept that that is their dharma.

I also have more sympathy for those in developed societies who hunt than those who utilize "farmed" animals. At least a deer has a chance to lead a proper deer life before he is humanely shot. Most chickens, pigs &c lead only short, miserable, painful lives before they are often inhumanely killed.

 

[Ryan2065]

I support the banning of all hunting.

Do you know about hunting? I have only hunted in Ohio, so those are the hunting laws I know. In Ohio for deer season, there is a census taken to see how many deer are in the area. They compare that with how many deer should ideally be in the area and then they will say something like "Each hunter is only allowed one deer this season." Or something like that. They use hunting as a form of population control, not as just going out and killing lots of deer. Lots of times the rangers have to go out and kill deer just to keep the population under control. And no this isn't population control so they don't have alot of deer running wild, this is population control so the deer themselves don't starve to death over the winter. If deer wern't hunted, even more of them would die over the winter. I've always felt its more humane to kill say 100 deer instead of letting 500 deer die over the winter due to starvation.

 

[Valjean]

So, Ryan, I suppose you would have no problem with human culls in regions where population has clearly exceeded carrying capacity?

I'm taking issue with your support of killing for pragmatic reasons, rather than universal right-to-life principles. Such excuses have, in the past, resulted in some rather spectacular human-rights abuses.

 

[Green Gaia]

I'm Ok with hunting as long as the animal is being hunted for food (i.e. WILL be eaten not just thrown away or kept as a trophy) and that is it not done in one of those hunting farms where the animals have no chance of escape.

 

[michel]

I support the banning of all hunting. Additionally, I do not think any kind of animal testing should be performed. Lastly, I do not think that people should eat meat or wear skin.

I do not think any of these should be enforced by law until the majority of the population feels that they should be. Oh also, I support all of the above as long as all parties are consenting which normally limits the animal in question to a human.

I agree with what you said about hunting, I think, sadly that until we have the technology, there are certain needs to use animals for testing - but only for medical research, and as little as possible. I seems a sad necessity.........

I stopped eating meat at one time, on Moral grounds - and then thought myself a hypocrite, because I was still eating vegetables - and they are a form of life, even if they can't feel pain (as far as we know) - they are still living, reproducing beings......

I think, at the end of the day, it comes down to accepting their sacrifice, in the way that they nourish us. If there ever was a form of totally man made food, I would opt for that, in a flash - even if it was in the form of a pill; to me, that is the only way out of the 'food' cruelty...........

 

[Katzpur]

I'm a strict vegan

I admire you for that. But I have a question. It is my understanding that vegans refuse to wear wool or eat dairy products. I don't follow the reasoning behind this, since shearing sheep and milking cows does nothing to harm them. Would you mind explaining?

 

[Ryan2065]

So, Ryan, I suppose you would have no problem with human culls in regions where population has clearly exceeded carrying capacity?

I'm taking issue with your support of killing for pragmatic reasons, rather than universal right-to-life principles. Such excuses have, in the past, resulted in some rather spectacular human-rights abuses.

So you are for the death of hundreds of deer due to starvation? What is more humane, killing some deer for food with guns or letting them slowly starve to death?

And equating killing deer for population control to killing humans for population control is a bogus argument and you know it. Deer are NOT humans, they are food. To disagree is to go against the natural order.

 

[Green Gaia]

I admire you for that. But I have a question. It is my understanding that vegans refuse to wear wool or eat dairy products. I don't follow the reasoning behind this, since shearing sheep and milking cows does nothing to harm them. Would you mind explaining?

I know you didn't ask me, but here's my 2 cents.

Do you know any other mammal that drinks the milk of another? I'm not vegan, but I won't drink cow's milk. Vegans did not consume animals or animal products in any form (that includes dairy). For most this is an ethical stance because of the dairy connection to veal.

From GoVeg.com: "In order for a cow to produce milk, she must have a calf. "Dairy cows" are impregnated every year in order to keep up a steady supply of milk. In the natural order of things, the cow’s calf would drink her milk (eliminating her need to milked by humans). But dairy cows’ babies are taken away within a day or two of birth so that humans can have the milk nature intended for their calves. Female dairy calves may be slaughtered immediately or raised to be future dairy cows. Male dairy calves are confined for 16 weeks in tiny veal crates too small for them even to turn around in.

The current high demand for dairy products requires that cows be pushed beyond their natural limits, genetically engineered and fed growth hormones in order to produce huge quantities of milk. Even the few farmers who choose not to raise animals intensively must both eliminate the calf (who would otherwise drink the milk) and eventually send the mother off to slaughter after her milk production wanes."

Those who are opposed to leather, wool, fur and other animals products are so because the animals are generally not treated humanely. Check out http://www.savethesheep.com for more info on that.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I guess I shouldn't tell you about fileting live catfish then. Almost all of the 8,000 pounds consumed were alive when we started cleaning them. They WERE good to eat.

 

[Valjean]

I admire you for that. But I have a question. It is my understanding that vegans refuse to wear wool or eat dairy products. I don't follow the reasoning behind this, since shearing sheep and milking cows does nothing to harm them. Would you mind explaining?

Maize summed up the situation pretty well, Katzpur. Just because the product an animal's currently being used for doesn't cause it's immediate death doesn't mean the animals aren't forced to lead short, miserable lives. Market pressures force farmers to be ever more efficient in their husbandry in order to stay competitive, and humane treatment doesn't feature in their investment:return algorithms.

Most people familiar with the industry say they'd rather be a beef "cow" than a dairy cow.

 

[Valjean]

So you are for the death of hundreds of deer due to starvation? What is more humane, killing some deer for food with guns or letting them slowly starve to death?

And equating killing deer for population control to killing humans for population control is a bogus argument and you know it. Deer are NOT humans, they are food. To disagree is to go against the natural order.

Sorry Ryan, You make some good points. Looking back, my post #12 was overly critical, more a knee-jerk reaction than a well-considered response. I apologize.