restrangled:
If anyone has any info on this subject PLEASE POST!
Two excellent books on this subject are:
The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals by Michael Pollan and The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter by Peter Singer and Jim Mason. (The latter was published in the UK under the title Eating: What We Eat and Why It Matters)
If you must keep eating meat (and there's really no need to do so), free-range and organic animals are likely to have been treated more humanely during their lives (althugh not necessarily as well as you might imagine or hope). The "kosher" label is certainly no guarantee of animal welfare - quite the opposite, in fact, as the animal must be conscious when its throat is cut.
momzcrazy:
Not once their throats were slit, they wouldn't. And if my kids were starving I would do it.
And if your kids weren't starving? Would you then forego the slaughter of any animals, or just those to whom you had become emotionally attached?
Summer was comparing animals raised for food and then slaughtered to starving children. There is no comparison there at all.
No, one case is about passively allowing sentient beings to suffer and die, and the other is about the willful wholesale slaughter of sentient beings. Sometime though it can be useful to compare things that are similar but not identical.
Once again, a comparison of humans and animals. How can you compare the two? In my mind, there is no comparison at all. That is MY OPINION.
Except your dogs, whom you treat as babies even though there are children starving in the world. (But that's out of context, right?) Where you really don't want the comparisons being drawn is between children and animals you personally know and care about, and children and animals you don't.