Should cattle and other animals used for food have rights?

[Rau]

…But there are many that argue for abolishment of capital punishment quoting precisely that commandment. Vatican included.

The Church has proposed that the necessity of capital punishment rarely exists today. The consequences of capital punishment are grave, both in the loss of life, and in the diminution of the value of human life that it may engender. If there is not sufficient offsetting positive benefit in the act of capital punishment, then it is morally wrong to pursue it in those circumstances. The argument is NOT that the 5th commandment forbids capital punishment.

 

[Rau]

Of course the 5th commandment is divine. But it nowhere forbids the state from killing if a citizen were to break a particular law. In some countries death penalty is imposed for drug trafficking above a certain limit. In some countries…

None of this has any bearing on the point I made. Let’s all accept that State’s may not always give human life the respect our creator requires it be shown.

 

[Brassring]

This is a personal moral opinion, not a theological one. Here’s my personal take:

The meat industry should be regulated in such a manner that animals do not suffer any more than is absolutely necessary. Processers should be required to treat animals in as kind a manner as they can without adding undue costs or shortages of meat for food.

However, animals should not have legally enforceable rights. They should be protected by law, but that’s not the same thing. Humans MUST be able to use animals to meet our own needs.

 

[Ridgerunner]

This is a personal moral opinion, not a theological one. Here’s my personal take:

The meat industry should be regulated in such a manner that animals do not suffer any more than is absolutely necessary. Processers should be required to treat animals in as kind a manner as they can without adding undue costs or shortages of meat for food.

However, animals should not have legally enforceable rights. They should be protected by law, but that’s not the same thing. Humans MUST be able to use animals to meet our own needs.

I agree entirely.

I might mention in passing that animal processing facilities are in an ongoing process of using more humane methods of killing animals. It’s not so much out of the goodness of their hearts as it is efficiency, ease of handling and maintaining quality.

Animals don’t really have an aesthetic sense. Who has ever seen a cow meander over to a rose bush to sniff the flowers and admire their beauty? She might eat the roses, but it’s just another plant to her.

And so, in livestock handling, the real thing isn’t the appearance, it’s maintaining calm. Frightened animals are hard to handle, take time and risk injury to themselves and handlers. Injuries can ruin the hide and the meat both.

Thanks to a number of a persons, definitely including Temple Grandin, facilities are constantly being re-worked to promote calm in the animals.

So, for example, in poultry processing facilities, the birds are first put into a room in which “black light” is the only light. That triggers somnolence in the birds almost instantly. They move along on a conveyor as if asleep (and perhaps they are asleep), and are killed in that state.

Cattle processing facilities more and more use Grandin designs. Certain touch, turn and angle movement promotes calm. Proximity of other cattle promotes calm. Handling facilities are designed so that cattle move in ways they naturally prefer to move.

If one sees movies in which animals are panicky, treated roughly or forced to do things they absolutely resist, then it’s not a modern facility and could even be faked.

 

[ericc]

None of this has any bearing on the point I made. Let’s all accept that State’s may not always give human life the respect our creator requires it be shown.

Agreed. That really depends on the type of state and who is running it.

 

[ericc]

I agree entirely.

I might mention in passing that animal processing facilities are in an ongoing process of using more humane methods of killing animals. It’s not so much out of the goodness of their hearts as it is efficiency, ease of handling and maintaining quality.

And so, in livestock handling, the real thing isn’t the appearance, it’s maintaining calm. Frightened animals are hard to handle, take time and risk injury to themselves and handlers. Injuries can ruin the hide and the meat both.

Thanks to a number of a persons, definitely including Temple Grandin, facilities are constantly being re-worked to promote calm in the animals.

I was told or read somewhere that a calm animal ends up with a better tasting meat. An animal in a state of stress release chemicals that renders the flesh not as great. I was told by my brother who runs a fish and chip shop that fish caught fresh and frozen immediately produce better meat than live fish in a tank but stressed out.

But I digress.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I was told or read somewhere that a calm animal ends up with a better tasting meat. An animal in a state of stress release chemicals that renders the flesh not as great. I was told by my brother who runs a fish and chip shop that fish caught fresh and frozen immediately produce better meat than live fish in a tank but stressed out.

But I digress.

I’d love to meet a guy who could taste a burger and write a cow biography.

 

[Brassring]

I’d love to meet a guy who could taste a burger and write a cow biography.

They’re out there, and they’re almost as fun to talk to as the people who can sniff a wine and tell you if the vintner had body odor.

 

[mackbrislawn]

ericc;14638378

I think you may have to reframe this statement. When God gave us the Commandments, he didn’t establish rights, he established a list of things you can’t do. There is a difference. One establish a prohibition, the other give you an entitlement. In fact he permits life to be taken away under certain provisos.

Correct–it should be reframed. God didn’t establish rights, He gave a list of things you can’t do, as well as things you must do. Therefore, it seems to be the Framers that think in terms of ‘rights.’ It is they who assert that God has given us unalienable rights and since these ‘rights’ exist prior to government, the state cannot take them away. So these are rights in regard to other humans. Also if one is an atheist and prefer not to invoke the term ‘God,’ you can say they are natural rights.

Not true. Fetuses are dumped like garbage daily. The fetus owner seemingly has more right over her body than the fetus has a right to his/her life. Since this is allowed by the US Constitution, would you say these rights came from God or humans? Those who commit certain crimes can be legally killed. Can you yourself take away that right by committing suicide? Something to ponder.

Fetuses aren’t considered to be human so of course they don’t have human rights. God may consider the fetus to be human but if the law doesn’t, the law doesn’t have to consider that it has God-given rights.

That’s what I said. These are man-made proclamations. God didn’t proclaim these, a group of rebel guys against their mother country agreed that it should be so, and it was so. Not very different from a group of terrorists that say their right was given by God to take away the lives of infidels/fight against established governments with the aim to start a new country. We have to be careful when proclaiming stuff in the name of God when He actually didn’t say it.

Hmm…true, He actually didn’t say it. But the Founders of the U.S. wanted some way to limit the power of the state, so they used the concept of “God-given rights.” They wanted to get away from the notion that Caesar, the prince, the divine-right king possessed all power and they wanted to establish that people’s rights did not come from the king, but from God. Again, atheists can consider these are rights that people naturally possess to begin with, instead of being from God.

Only recently and depending on which government. At one time, kings, emperors, rajas etc had absolute power over their subjects. I think North Korea is still very close to that model today. Communist countries used to be very close to that model too. The state or king or dictator owns you, period. The government does create rights. If the law didn’t say so, we got nothing. If the constitution didn’t say so, you got no right to a lot of stuff. And these are man-made. A person declaring “these are God-given rights” is really confused what God actually said and didn’t say. Slavery existed not too long ago. Discrimination in various forms still exist today. Democracy wasn’t a God given right. There was no democracy during ancient biblical times except for the pagan Greek I believe.

Sadly, you’re right. Since belief in God is dwindling, the idea that we can have God-given inalienable rights is dwindling as well. Which means only government creates rights, or should we say privilges. And what is government? Government is the power of the gun. Might makes right.
The conclusion is, nothing has rights, neither people nor animals.