Cattle slaughter is the killing of nonhuman animals, usually referring to killing domestic livestock. In general, the animals would be killed for food; however, they might also be slaughtered for other reasons such as being diseased and unsuitable for consumption. The animals most commonly slaughtered for food are cattle and water buffalo for beef and veal, sheep and lambs for lamb and mutton, goats for goat meat, pigs for pork and ham, deer for venison, horses for horse meat, poultry (mainly chickens, turkeys and ducks), and increasingly, fish in the aquaculture industry (fish farming).
The use of a sharpened blade for the slaughtering of livestock has been practiced throughout history. Prior to the development of electric stunning equipment,
…show more content…
This made the mechanical stunning of cows and electrical stunning of pigs compulsory, with the exception of Jewish and Muslim meat. Modern methods, such as the captive bolt pistol and electric tongs were required and the Act 's wording specifically outlawed the poleaxe. The period was marked by the development of various innovations in slaughterhouse technologies, not all of them particularly long-lasting. It is the objective of this dissertation to comparatively analyze the various types of cattle slaughter specifically in context of practices followed in India with special reference to cattle slaughter laws in foreign states. II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This plea arose from two types of arguments cited by the votaries of the cow protection movement. There was the religious argument – that the cow shouldn’t be slaughtered because it was an object of veneration among the Hindus from time immemorial, which is why beef was a taboo food item for them. This myth has been punctured through several scholarly studies over the years, not least by BR Ambedkar’s 1948 work, The Untouchable and Why They Became Untouchables? Ambedkar linked the status of Untouchables to their eating the meat of the dead
…show more content…
Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Lakshadweep have no legislation. All other states/UTs have enacted legislation to prevent the slaughter of cow and its progeny. Kerala is a major consumer of beef and has no regulation on the slaughter of cow and its progeny. As a result, cattle is regularly smuggled into Kerala from the neighbouring States of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, for the purpose of slaughter.
In several cases, such as Mohd. Hanif Qureshi v. State of Bihar (AIR 1959 SCR 629), Hashumatullah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Abdul Hakim and others v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 448) and Mohd. Faruk v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court has held that, "A total ban [on cattle slaughter] was not permissible if, under economic conditions, keeping useless bull or bullock be a burden on the society and therefore not in the public interest."
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is to propose a fact-finding commission for the resolution of the existing problem of illegal animal killing and
Pachirtat writes, “This book provides a firsthand account of contemporary, industrialized slaughter and does so to provoke reflection on how distance and concealment operate as mechanisms of power in modern society.” (3) Pachirtat’s main argument of this book is not to bring light to the thirty-three million cows that are killed every year in the United States, but to make an argument on how distance and concealment of the slaughterhouse are hidden by power. Pachirtat explains that there are laws put into place that prevent any outsiders to enter the slaughterhouse and to keep what is going on inside hidden from society. Throughout the book Pachirtat’s style of writing can make the biggest meat lover think twice before biting into their next hamburger, the main argument is not the cow. He states that “this book does not engage directly with arguments for animals rights, it is my deepest hope that its detailed account of industrialized killing will invite readers to seek a more thoughtful relationship with the nonhuman creatures.
A Rhetorical Analysis of “Against Meat” by Jonathan Safran Foer The standard way of thinking about vegetarianism has it that you either are one or you are not. While it is rarely discussed between omnivores and herbivores over dinner, vegetarians often fall into a category more accurately described as conscientious meat eaters. In Jonathan Safran Foer’s essay, “Against Meat,” he describes his personal plight to become, and remain, a vegetarian through-out his life.
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
Summary In this article “Against Meat” Jonathan Safran Foer describes his personal experience with struggling whether he eats meat or not and what he went through to become a vegetarian, his main reason was he didn’t want animals to suffer. Foer had a lot of influence in his life, starting with his grandmother who he considered her as a role model he loved her passion with food, although she had one recipe
He explains of the stress filled lives these animals endure for the pleasure of humans. The humans are not properly aware of the situations of these animals. They are consistently in cramped cages in farms, while human’s sense of morality towards farm animals has been nonexistent. Norcross’s conclusion does not argue against eating meat, but he justifies it to an extent. Norcross compares two distinctive creatures in his argument, and their comparison does not justify his point of view.
on the floor inside of the car. The police officer woke up the others and had them get out of the car first. According to Rhodes testimony, Tafero shot the police officer. Tafero said that Rhodes shot the officer and handed the gun to him so that he was able to drive. They stole the police car and fled the scene.
In the Story “Let them eat dong: A Modest proposal for tossing Fido in the oven” Jonathan Safran Foer brings to light the idea of how some animals are seen as special and not eaten. Using dogs as the example in showing how a person wouldn’t dare to eat one, but are okay with eat a pig or any other living creature. Making the argument that all living animals have feeling and are special in their own ways, so none of them should be eaten but rather cherished like a dog is. Although the story is unbelievably well written and with great point on culture about food, equality of animals and the…, yet there is only emotional appeal and bias towards his idea of not eating meat.
8. Scaphism Scaphism was a cruel method originated from ancient Persia against their enemies. They put the condemned to a container and firmly fastened him within a back-to-back pair of narrow rowboats with his head, hands, and feet protruding outside from this container. Then the executioner forcedly fed large amount of honey and milk to the condemned. Also, a mixture of milk and honey rubbed on the exposed part of his body to attract the flies.
From the time man invented fire, animal meat has been a main part of the human diet. Meat, a product we get from other animals, is a primary source of our daily diet. Over time, we progressed from hunting with our bare hands to using tools, and then to guns, yet in the last century, machines were created to mass produce and process consumable livestock. We don’t even touch the meat ourselves until we are preparing it as a meal. The most common livestock we eat includes poultry, cattle and pigs, according to an article in Business Insider (2014).
The pain is far less than hammed the animals into death. It is undertand why farm does not have technology like the slaughterhouses. New technology costs money. Profit is out-weight than humanity. In this situation, it is important for state rule maker to insure that animal suffer the least pain at possible.
In fact, the animals are often stored in small cages or spaces with barley any room to move, many will catch a disease from their poor quality of living. Social interaction is crucial because the animals become tired of the same environment, this leads to aggression. To control the aggression, animals are often pumped with drugs. Often, if an animal is sick there will be no veterinary help because of the high cost that is required, as a result, cattle have died from dehydration or other reasons regarding the lack of care. Because the animals are seen as a profit they are bred in a way that is convenient for the slaughterhouse.
Thesis There is a growing consent that factory farming of animals or concentrated animal feeding operations is morally
In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.
The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as
Meat of animals gives protein to body. They killed animals for getting nutritional value. Human’s demand for animal is fast growing in the moment. Shop and buffet about meat have increase follow their demand. Dimitrios Chaniotis is manager and researcher that has written article about Is it moral or immoral to kill animals?