Friday, July 1, 2011

Humane vs. Human

There have been a couple of pretty weird stories in the news this week regarding our interactions with animals.

  In the first, the government of the Netherlands is considering a new law that would essentially outlaw Kosher and Halal butchering of animals. Shechita is the ritual slaughter of mammals and birds according to Jewish Kosher laws. Dhabiĥa is the method used to slaughter an animal within the Islamic Halal tradition. Both require that an animal be conscious when its throat is cut and this is taken to mean the modern practice of electrical, gas, or  percussive stunning before slaughter is forbidden.  The Dutch authorities have decided the practice is inhumane.

Read the Story here

Comments on this story from around the world are about equally split between accusations of raging anti-Semitism and those that claim that humane treatment of animals should always over-ride outmoded, barbaric traditions.

For those who feel that not stunning the animal prior to slaughter is inhumane, I suppose I understand their concern, but stunning doesn’t always work, and after just a few seconds the animal in question is just as dead one way or the other.

That brings up the whole subject of just what is humane when dealing with animals. 

Numerous ostensibly pro-animal organizations such as PETA and the SPCA campaign for neutering of all pets while Eugenics, the forcible neutering of less than perfect humans, is considered to be an abomination.  While some groups such as various pro-life organizations claim that Eugenics is still a common practice, their definition of the word is flawed, modified to suit their particular cause.

While I am not unaware of overflowing animal shelters where true animal lovers are forced by necessity to euthanize unclaimed animals, I try to put myself in the animal’s place – You would have a hard time convincing me that you were removing my testacles for the betterment of the planet.

That brings us to the other article I mentioned:

California in general, and San Francisco in particular has been the source of some pretty bizarre ideas over the years.  Currently the San Francisco City Council has come up with a truly Draconian solution to animal overcrowding.  They are considering an ordinance which would outlaw all  pets in the city, an idea so weird that even Los Angeles has noticed:

Story from the LA Times

 

No comments:

Post a Comment