This is one of those debates without an end,
The people need to have a variety of the same product to bye.
Free range eggs, cage eggs, so what.
You could keep going on for ever, where's the end.
Every day gods creatures are destroyed under someones foot.
I say chooks are a part of the human food chain.
Put a count on the unfortunate creatures that are eaten with free range chooks.
I prefer smoked chicken cabana, and omlets thank you.

What makes a creature, an animal, worthy of compassion or even consideration? What give us the right to exploit or kill another creature for our own benefit? Is it size, intelligence, abundance, sustainability of the kill? Surely the ability to feel emotions like pain, anger, sorrow, and fear are of more vital concern than the ability to use technology or to obey human expectations? The size of the heart should be more important than brain size.
The Church teaches that God gave humans dominion over the Earth, to be caretakers of His wonderful Creation. If we believe that God is Love, then this blessing of dominion must be part of His purpose, his great commission. However, the circle of compassion is mainly for humans. Non-human creatures are exploited, confined, tortured and killed as a resource for food without giving them at least some normal living conditions and allowing normal behaviors. It is human-caused hell on Earth for these animals!
The churches dispute modern ethical issues but the plight of living and sentient creatures is totally ignored, if not silently supported by Christians.

Once you bring religion into an opinion debate, you have a no gsituation.
Religion covers to wide a scope to talk about.
If that is your ways of living so be it, but don't force it on any one else.
Food chains exist in every life style, or evolution on earth.
You can't deny any of them the chance of a feed.
A chook is very edible and so are their eggs.
I suppose you say you don't touch either.
If thats your preference, live with it.
Don't be like catholics and cleans your soul once a week, and that makes every thing ok.

There can never be a justification for causing needless suferring. Caged chickens suffer needlessly, therefore the practise of keeping these creatures under such conditions is wrong.

Bushbasher “thanks, col. that was the single most idiotic defence of battery cages, or of pretty much anything, i've ever read.”

Then maybe you could challenge what I said.

Because, as it stands, what you have written contains the debating prowess which I commonly associate as coming from a lump of KFC.

VivKay brings on the moral issue and as Desmond points out creates a moralistic no-go situation.

So Viv, if we are made in the image of God… and Jesus held critter rights so highly… why was he not a vegetarian and why did he choose from among fishermen for apostles?

Nalood100 “Caged chickens suffer needlessly, therefore the practise of keeping these creatures under such conditions is wrong.”

Read my post.. given a choice.. chooks make a free choice and choose what is closest to the food supply… therefore where does “needless suffering” come into what would amount to rational case of “non fit injuria”?

I read an article in New Scientist about a decade ago on the issue of battery hens, and it was clear that the battery hens showed no greater signs of distress than free range hens.

In fact hens that grew up in a cage would remain in the cage if the door was open and would return if forced out. This behaviour would remain with them pretty much indefinitely.

While I recoil in horror at the thought of being caged, I understand that using human emotions and thoughts on a chicken is ridiculous.

I hardly imagine the Noble chicken freed from his shackles striding forth into the wide blue world to forge his destiny, fame and fortune.

The real world is very different from the wind in the willows.