Is there such thing as ''humane'' slaughter?!
I think it is paradoxical. The animal will still suffer *regardless* of how it is slaughtered. (Slaughter is such a horrible word)
Answers: Personally, I don't think there is a ''humane'' way of *killing* an animal.
I think it is paradoxical. The animal will still suffer *regardless* of how it is slaughtered. (Slaughter is such a horrible word)
No there isn't. There are just slow ways and fast ways but they are all equally painful (measured as agony per second).
Moockie, we're NOT on a deserted island. Why do people keep coming up with this stupid scenario?
Anyone would be willing to do desperate things in a desperate situation. The survivors of the Andes plane crash ate their own dead friends. You wouldn't eat the dead bodies of your friends in day to day life, or would you?
By the way, medically speaking, a shot to the head with a high caliber firearm is probably the quickest way (note, I didn't say most humane, as that would be an oxymoron) and certainly much, much quicker than slitting the throat.
Kosher and halal have their roots in bygone days when refrigeration did not exist and meat spoiled quickly if there was lots of blood left in the tissue. So they decided to drain the meat of the blood, and you cannot drain a dead animal. Ergo, the animal is alive and very conscious while it is being exsanguinated.
I don't care if this offends any religious sensibilities. I'm sure the animals would have a word or two on the matter, if they could talk.
That would be considered a Kosher slaughter. A razor sharp knife is used to slice from one side of the throat to the other, severing both jugular veins and the esophagus. The animal dies almost instantly.
Personally, I could never kill an animal and won't ever eat one again either!
To be perfectly humane, you don't kill anyone or anything. That means no slaughter.
Rapid kill - like the Kosher or Hallal recommended-are the most efficient as well as least painful according to study. The least "humane" being the bludgeon to the head preferred for quickness as the animal may still be alive as it is "prepared". At least Veggies don't scream when you slice them.
depends whats is considered humane....for example shooting a horse thats badly injured is considered humane in that circumstance..although i dont think people would call it humane if you walked up to a perfectly fine horse and shot it....i guess it all depends on the situation....there are humane ways of killing animals however some might work differently on each animal....cutting its throat means it doesnt feel pain but if you miss at all its gonna feel pain.....its really hard to garuntee every animal will be killed humanely
According to the definition of "humane" there isn't anything humane about slaughter unless it is done when an animal is suffering.
Humane:
1. Characterized by kindness, mercy, or compassion
2. Marked by an emphasis on humanistic values and concerns
The last time I checked, kindness, mercy, and compassion and slaughter do not go hand in hand. "Humane" can be applied to areas in which a person helps another person out of pity, respect, etc. but can definitely not apply to how humans treat animals...especially livestock.
In fact, the term means the complete opposite of slaughter.
There is no humane meat!
; )
i thing the only humane reason for killing an animal is to ease its suffering. i am a vegetarian in training and i am trying to rid myself of this cruelty completely.
Some methods are more "humane" than others, but killing is killing. People in our culture are far removed from the reality of slaughter--instead, meat is packaged in cellophane like produce.
In fact, watching a slaughterhouse video clip prompted me to become a full-fledged vegetarian. Several of the animals were in excruciating pain. If there is a humane way to slaughter, how can a consumer tell the difference when gazing at the cellophaned flesh-produce?
Have a terrific weekend. Peace...
hmmm, if you were on an island with nothing to eat but meat... what was the animal eating before it became meat? what kind of island has animals but no plants? (Rikers perhaps...)
"slaugh·ter /?sl?t?r/ [slaw-ter]
–noun
1.the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., esp. for food.
2.the brutal or violent killing of a person.
3.the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.
–verb (used with object)
4.to kill or butcher (animals), esp. for food.
5.to kill in a brutal or violent manner.
6.to slay in great numbers; massacre."
(http://m.reference.com/d/search.html?q=s...
I'd say putting the word "humane" before anything defined as above only serves to create an oxymoron.
And isn't it wierd how close in English the word slaughter is to the word laughter?
No, there isn't any such thing.
We just say it's more "humane" to make ourselves feel better about killing them.
And, since we don't hear any argument from the animals, we decide it must be okay. How convenient.
It depends on who gets to define humane. It is not pretty to kill but it is a fact of life and I will fight mightily to retain my right to eat meat.
Its part of life... don't be gay forever just eat it!!! If you were on an island with nothing to eat but meat I bet you would kill the animal!!!