Religious Sensibilities Vs Animal Rights

[mushroom25]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17966327

which should take priority?

[jno]

for me, human rights come before animal rights.

When cows form a government, they can change the rules if they like.

[RATTER15]

The priority should naturally go to the humane killing of the animal and no animal should be killed purely for ritual reasons.

[RATTER15]

jno, but surely if we are going to kill an animal we can insist that it is done humanely, isn't that just basic decency?

[pixie373]

Animal rights. Nobody should have the right to be cruel to a person or animal.

[andres]

Animals in this instance should take priority.
Outdated religious rituals should be dragged kicking and screaming (like the animals they kill) into the 21st century.
No animal should be hung up, have its throat cut and then be left to bleed to death.

[jno]

after the apocalypse, there's just you and a cow. Anyone who'd prefer to let it live, and starve themselves, because they couldn't kill it humanely, raise their right hand.

[RATTER15]

jno, that is not what this thread is about, read the link.

[sandyRoe]

Alive, the cow would provide milk. Dead there'd be so much meat most would go rotten.
Animals should be dealt with in as humane a way as possible.

[pixie373]

We're not talking about people starving or dying, jno.

[jno]

my answer is that human rights come before animal rights. But I suspect this thread isn't about animal rights at all, it's about religion.

[jim360]

Human rights should perhaps come before animal rights, if the choice is between death of a human and death of an animal. This is the choice between death of an animal in a "humane" way or not. A completely different issue. Does a human have a right to slaughter animals in a vicious way?

[andres]

You're right jno. If it wasn't for the religious beliefs in this instance, the animals would be stunned before having their throats slit.

[rockyracoon]

I've yet to find a definitive answer that tells me if halal slaughter is less humane than the traditional method, given some of the horror stories we hear about abattoirs.

[pixie373]

It depends what you mean by "human rights", i think. I would say a human has the right to kill an animal if they're starving, but not to torture them because of a belief.

[RATTER15]

jno, the question is very clear, should an animal be killed in a way that is barbaric just to satisfy the religious, nobody is talking about anybody starving to death or an apocalypse.

[ludwig]

// for me, human rights come before animal rights. //

Is it a human right to cause suffering to animals?.
Does having a religious reason trump any other consideration? What if you have non-religious reasons, - are those reasons not good enough?

Difficult question this - if you believe animal rights matter, surely they have a fundamental right to not be killed at all, and arguing over the niceties of whether you shoot them through the head with a bolt gun or slit their throat are a bit pointless.

[Zeuhl]

Just one point

An animal that has had its throat cut (properly) does NOT 'bleed to death'

That is clearly nonsense.

Loss of consciousness is almost instantaneous when the artery to the brain loses pressure and brain death follows shortly after although it would probably continue to twitch for a while.

[pixie373]

"Almost" instantaneous? So it isn't?

[Zeuhl]

^
Do you think being dragged into a noisy industrial slaughterhouse and having a captive bolt rammed up against your forehead is any more 'instantaneous'?

[pixie373]

No. But less painful.