slg@ukma.UUCP (Sean Gilley) (01/10/86)
>From: avr@purdue.UUCP (Andrew V. Royappa) >> >> 2. Ethical considerations > > Rubbish. Just because some great people are *queasy* about >eating meat doesn't mean that it's wrong. What about the vast number >of carnivorous animals out there ? Are they all amoral, too, or do >these ethical considerations apply to humans only ? Face it, it's >a fact that animals kill for food. Why should humans have to feel >guilty about it ? I also have no doubt that cattle are slaughtered far >more humanely than the way I see carnivores killing their prey on >those TV nature shows. I won't go into details, but even though it is possible to argue that the actual *slaughter* is more humane, the living conditions of the animals prior to slaughter is not something that I would consider ``humane''. The idea that beef cattle is allowed to roam free and graze is generally a farce. Chickens are kept in cages four per, and so small they literally can not turn around. (If you would like references I can supply them.) I'd feel a lot better about eating meat if I had the ability to raise and slaughter it myself. In that way I would know that until it's death, the animal was treated well. Since I can not do that at this time, I refrain from eating meat. These are my ``ethical'' considerations. > A better thing to get mad about is humans killing animals for >pleasure or "sport" or furs or skins or perfumes or tusks ... I do. But I don't see why you do. If it's okay to eat meat, why isn't it okay to kill an animal for it's skin? Sean. P.S. Followups have been changed to net.veg. It seems a more appropriate group. -- Sean L. Gilley Phone: (606) 272-9620 or (606) 257-8781 {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!cbosgd!ukma{!ukgs}!slg, slg@UKMA.BITNET But somehow, it's not just the words, is it?