With all due respect, lilasuka, I don't think your slavery analogy is working out in this case. Whether cattle are bred for eating or run wild and are hunted down, our anatomy indicates that it is 'correct' for us to eat animals. Take a look at the human teeth as compared to, say, the teeth of a rabbit or a cow. Our teeth match other omnivores - we have some teeth for cutting (consider our rabbit-like front teeth), others for chewing (like our particularly bovine molars) and others that are seen elsewhere in carnivores (consider the naming of the 'canines'). We have no reason to be ashamed of eating animals - including cattle. We should, however, be ashamed of torturing them.

Otokonoko

Well I think the vote is in concerning the rights of some of our yummy friends, and one thing Sue online said got me thinking. The problem lays with the knowings of how live-stock are processed, and you know the old saying, "what you do see, you'll be none the wiser" and that's pretty will right across the board in a large proportion of anything that humans kill for consumption. True the footage was unacceptably inappropriate, but that's how Indonesian practices have been for 1000's of years.

The omnivore vs vegan argument as to who is right and who is wrong can be argued from a number of different platforms. There is the ethical issue of whether we should eat other animal life, and also the argument as which is 'better for you', based on arguments such as vitamin B12 is not available from a vegan diet. There is even the 'lifestyle' argument: does our lifestyle define our diet?

Read more: http://www.disabled-world.com/fitness/vegetarian/omnivore-vegan.php#ixzz1P4AtPGo7


LEA

It wouldn't bother me if all meat was banned from now. Years ago I stopped eating red meat due to a program I saw on ABC TV about the trial of a 'new' method of killing cattle. It was appalling. It didn't get off the ground(as far as I know?) I don't eat pork as I hate the way pregnant sows are treated. I was appalled and disgusted over the scenes on the 4 Corners program. The sound was chilling also!

If the majority insist on eating meat, then we should abide by the correct procedures and make it as painless as possible. This includes not subjecting an animal to watch other tortures prior to his turn - that was stomach churning too.

We have strong laws about cruelty to domestic pets for example; we should adopt the same principles for animals to be slaughtered. Animals should be stunned, so they don't feel any pain. The pain inflicted was just due to unnecessary cruelty - who knows why?

I'd like to see the end of live exports, full stop. It'll only be a matter of time until another situation arises. All those involved, from the farmers onwards must share some responsibility for this situation. And I include all govts involved also! If farmers don't bother to ask questions, that doesn't remove responsibility from their shoulders.

The Indonesian Minister admitted, that the banning is their fault, not ours. They have strong Laws about humane slaughtering - they just didn't bother to ensure that they were carried out. Hopefully, now they will be forced to do this. I understand, that there are 3 months worth of (Aust.)cattle in Indonesia now anyway, so these animals will either be slaughtered or kept in the feed lot areas.

The MLA should have to contribute to the feed for cows awaiting transport now. They were negligent in not enforcing the Laws, and took almost $5 for each animal that was exported. They should all be sacked in my view, and new people employed to do the job properly.

...So over on this thread we have the morality issue in focus. What I conclude from the opposing camp is a morality based on “This goes with that at Susanne’s”. On the one hand, “this” states that (some!) animals in Indonesian abattoirs were killed inhumanly; (and the definition of universally acceptable slaughtering standards are also under debate by the RSPCA I notice). On the other hand, Cattle producers supplying the live trade, trusting the system in place would attend to the details outside the arena of production, and thus outside their expected knowledge, are to be victimised by the power of an elite minority of vegetarians disguised as animal welfare activists, and be singled out for the “goes with that at Susanne’s” side of the morality argument; and can now have their rights to a fair judgement and reasonable consideration shredded in the face of hysterical overreaction and opportunism by the group least effected.

...I was interested to read an article on the subject in last weekends Australian newspaper in which it was alleged that three of the four abattoirs in question were not actually slaughtering Australian cattle at the time the report on four corners was being filmed. So, even the facts presented are to be questioned. But, as they say, don’t let the facts stand in the way of a good story!

...What is at stake here is a whole industry comprising cattle producers and a periphery of associated support industries and individuals who are the immediate losers. An industry valued at 330 million dollars a year to Australia, which now stands idle awaiting a judgement whether their future will be thrown to the wolves by the actions of just another “idiot” fringe element running rampant through the halls of Parliament in Canberra.

Pelican -- nope. I am saying that if animals don't have the right to life it is hypocritical, dishonest and absurd to say they have the right not to be punched. All honest people know that "not being killed" is more important that "not being punched". I agree we can choose how we treat animals, and I agree it is nice to treat them nicely. But dressing this up in "animal rights" is dishonest.

King Hazza -- I could try to explain to you the difference between animal rights and human preferences... but I won't burden you with those concepts.

Yabby -- I agree that dead people don't mind being dead, but you can't use that as a justification for murder. You are not allowed to kill people because we recognise that humans have a "right to life". Clearly, animals have no such right. Saying that animals have secondary rights (ie "not to be punched") but they don't have fundamental rights (ie "right to life") is hypocritical and absurd.

I agree it is perfectly appropriate to *prefer* to minimise animal suffering. That is a natural human preference that I share, and that's why I don't want to see animal suffering. But it is a personal preference, and not an "animal right". It is appropriate to promote your personal preferences (using voluntary means), but it is not appropriate to enforce you personal preferences on others (using government bans).

(P.S. I agree with you about voluntary euthanasia.)

*You are not allowed to kill people because we recognise that humans have a "right to life".*

Yes, John, its a great idea to stop us killing each other. But on
the other hand its fine if we go and kill the other tribe and call
it war. We even get medals if we do.It tends to happen when the
place becomes a little overcrowded with too many people.

So our right to life is limited to certain circumstances.

Animals in fact have a similar problem. Given that herbivores etc
breed far quicker then we do, we could in fact give them the right
to life, which we do to many, but they would soon die from overpopulation. As they are often in our care and their wellbeing
is our responsibility, we don't really like to see them suffering
from starvation, as suffering is far worse then death.

Humans in the short term, have solved the population problem by
simply stealing resources from other species, because we can