Two PETA Employees Arrested on Animal Cruelty Charges in N.C.

PittsburghAfterDark

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Latest from the "You can't make this shit up." that is real life.

AP) - Two Hampton Roads employees of Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been charged in Ahoskie, N.C., with animal cruelty after dumping dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin, police said Thursday.

Investigators staked out the bin after discovering that dead animals had been dumped there every Wednesday for the past four weeks, Ahoskie police said in a prepared statement.

Police found 18 dead animals in the trash bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA. The animals were from animal shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties in North Carolina, police said. The two were picking up animals to be brought back to PETA headquarters for euthanization, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said Thursday.

Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped.

Local officials and veterinarians said they were told that PETA would find homes for the animals, not euthanize them. PETA has scheduled a news conference for Friday afternoon to discuss the charges.

Police charged Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk,each with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals. They were released on bond and an initial court date was set for Friday in Winton.

Hinkle has been suspended, but Cook continues to work PETA, Newkirk said. Hinkle has worked for more than two years as one of its community animal project employees in North Carolina, PETA spokeswoman Colleen O'Brien said. Cook, who joined a couple of months ago, was being trained.

Newkirk said she doubted Hinkle had ever been cruel to an animal and said if the animals were placed in the bin, "We will be appalled."

PETA euthanizes animals by lethal injection, which it considers more humane than gassing groups of animals, as poor counties are forced to do, O'Brien said.

"PETA has provided euthanasia services to various counties in (North Carolina) to prevent animals from being shot behind a shed or gassed in windowless metal boxes, both practices that were carried out until PETA volunteered to provide a painless death, free of charge," Newkirk said.

But veterinarian Patrick Proctor said that authorities found a female cat and her two "very adoptable" kittens among the dead animals. He said they were taken from Ahoskie Animal Hospital.

"These were just kittens we were trying to find homes for," he said. "PETA said they would do that, but these cats never made it out of the county."

PETA had taken 50 animals from Proctor's practice over the past two years, he said.

PETA also has taken animals from veterinarian James Brown in Northampton County.

"When they started taking them, they said they would try to find homes for them," Brown said, adding that no one checked on the animals afterward.

Barry Anderson, Bertie County's animal control officer, identified nearly all of the dumped dogs as ones that Cook and Hinkle picked up just a few hours earlier Wednesday, said Detective Sgt. Ed Pittman of the Bertie County Sheriff's Office.

Anderson also said that the PETA representatives "told him they were picking up the dogs to take them back to Norfolk where they would find them good homes," Pittman said.
Link
 
At least they exposed how cruel Kosher slaughtering methods are.

But for the most part, PETA sucks.


And I think PAD is turning liberal, actually caring about animals.
 
Don't forget PETA's ecoterrorist links..
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Fumento20050615.shtml

PETA is a bunch of hypocritical misanthropic sychotics.

And I don't believe 'caring for animals' is necessarily a 'liberal' trait. My family has always leaned right, and we have always had animals/pets that we have treated well. They become a member of the family. Apart from 9/11 charities, the only charities we have given to consistently have been no-kill animal shelters. Actually, it could be argued that caring for animals is a conservative trait--teaching responsibility, focusing on someone/something external to yourself, etc.
That said, I'm all for [sane] animal testing. I don't know if we need to test makeup or whatever on animals, but until we're able to test on death row inmates, if testing a drug on 200 monkeys or bunnies will help find treatments for AIDS or cancer or other powerful, widespread diseases, I'm all for it.

They "exposed how cruel Kosher slaughtering methods are"? What exactly are "Kosher slaughtering methods,", and are you saying the 'ends justify the means,' since they made 'a point' [which they didn't, if they were trying to make a point the video would be on their webside, they wouldn't have gotten busted trying to toss animal corpses in a dumpster], it validates what they were doing?

I'm still wondering how lethal injection is "more humane" than gassing. Now, 'shooting behind the shed', okay, that's pretty bad. And I'm sure lots of animal shelters do that. But lethal injection versus gassing + the animals still dead. Killing a healthy, young, adoptable animal, in any way, doesn't seem very "ethical" to me.
 
Masochism and sadism towards animals is generally a hardcore conservative trait, so the opposite can be assumed to be a hippie liberal trait.
 
"Masochism" toward animals? What, conservatives like to have cats scratch them? You're reaching. This is probably a stretch, but do you have any sort of, you know, source, stating that "abusing animals" is "conservative".?. Or is this just one of those things that "everyone knows".
And no, just because A is true, does not mean the opposite of A is true. There's lots of 'grays' and 'nuances', aren't there, you can't just look at the world in black and white. Except for conversatives, of course--all conservatives want to kill animals [hmm, I don't recall seeing Adair or whatever at the local RNC meetings], starve Grandma, and beat kids.
 
It is a branch that exists at the extreme end of the spectrum, just like how PETA is at the other extreme.

I know about 4 hardcore republicans who hurt animals, and one who actually SHOT a hamster.
 
Oh, so based on personal experience you've had with 5 people who happen to share two traits, you are expanding that trait to all members of that class.

Isn't that, well, bigotry?

I know some extreme liberals who hurt animals. Like Andrew Cook and Adria Hinkle, for a couple. I also had a liberal "friend" [acquaintance] when I was younger who would do shit like set up logs in the road for people to run over; yet I'm not saying all liberals are sociopaths.
 
Not to get back on topic or anything, but fuck PETA! Crazy tactics that only put them further and further out on the fringe. You should see Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on PETA.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']And I think PAD is turning liberal, actually caring about animals.[/QUOTE]

Yay! More stupidity out of the keyboard of kitten killer.

Animals should be treated as humanely as possible. However they are still put here on Earth as a renewable natural resource. Whether its as a laborer, food, clothing or pet animals should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. However PETA is really a bunch of screwed up people. Least of which is their stance on animal medical testing that may advance or lead to discoveries that save human lives.
 
I am going to have veal for lunch.

Maybe some endangered Sea Bass. I won't eat that. I will just buy it and throw it out.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yay! More stupidity out of the keyboard of kitten killer.

Animals should be treated as humanely as possible. However they are still put here on Earth as a renewable natural resource. Whether its as a laborer, food, clothing or pet animals should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. However PETA is really a bunch of screwed up people. Least of which is their stance on animal medical testing that may advance or lead to discoveries that save human lives.[/QUOTE]

Except for the animals that go into creating medicine for diabetes [which Ingrid Newkirk has]. *Those* animals are okay to kill, to get *her* medicine, but those lowly AIDS or leukemia patients, their illnesses--and they--aren't important enough for this caring liberal.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Except for the animals that go into creating medicine for diabetes [which Ingrid Newkirk has]. *Those* animals are okay to kill, to get *her* medicine, but those lowly AIDS or leukemia patients, their illnesses--and they--aren't important enough for this caring liberal.[/QUOTE]

In the interest of being "Fair & Balanced", those patients aren't important enough for Bush to support more federal funding of stem cell research either. Both of the extremes here are wrong.
 
In the interest of "Fair and Balanced" it could be argued that the goverment has no right to spend taxpayer money on 'charitable causes'. And, of course, that doesn't mean that Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or George Soros or even YOU can't give money to whatever charitable causes you want to, it just means *my* money isn't being spent on it without my consent. Or that stem cell research cannot continue.
And, again, more Fair and Balanced, there is no evidence that "embryonic stem cells" are some Manna from Heaven to suddenly cure all ills, like many of the left have been implying. Oh, poor Chris Reeve could have walked, if only evil GWB had spent more of our money on embryonic stem cells.
If it was truly realistically percieved to be this Holy Cure-All, Glaxo Wellcome, Pzifer, all the other medication companies would be investing millions into stem cell research [if they're not already] for the most productive of reasons--the profit motive.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']If it was truly realistically percieved to be this Holy Cure-All, Glaxo Wellcome, Pzifer, all the other medication companies would be investing millions into stem cell research [if they're not already] for the most productive of reasons--the profit motive.[/QUOTE]

They are, just as much as auto companies are investing in hydrogen fuel cells.

The probem is that half of the American public literally HATES stem cells, and medical research labs are afraid of massive boycotts brought on by overzealous religious leaders (and the entire catholic church), just as automotive companies fear a backlash from the oil companies.


What is going on now can be referred to as "limited research".
 
It's the government - you don't always get to pick and choose what they spend your money on. If so, there are lots of places I would pull my taxes from.

No one has said that stem cells are a panacea, but they do hold a lot of promise that should be supported with federal money for research. I'm not sure that stem cell treatments would lend themselves to lucrative patents so I don't know how interested drug companies are.

My point is that, just like the Far Left, the Far Right is equally opposed to research that could end up saving millions of lives. Both are still wrong.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']The probem is that half of the American public literally HATES stem cells, and medical research labs are afraid of massive boycotts brought on by overzealous religious leaders (and the entire catholic church), just as automotive companies fear a backlash from the oil companies. What is going on now can be referred to as "limited research".[/QUOTE]

Actually it's little less than a third (31%) directly oppose stem cell research with 58% supporting it according to this poll. This poll does seem to be in line with most I have seen.
 
It's still enough to make a difference.

Another major concern if fear of terrorism. A biological research laboratry (and it's staff) costs a LOT to repair and/or replace, not to mention an attack could set research back years.

And you and I both know that if stem cell research began full swing there would be a lot of bombings.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']It's still enough to make a difference.

Another major concern if fear of terrorism. A biological research laboratry (and it's staff) costs a LOT to repair and/or replace, not to mention an attack could set research back years.

And you and I both know that if stem cell research began full swing there would be a lot of bombings.[/QUOTE]

That kind of thinking lets the (domestic) terrorists win. :)
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']That kind of thinking let's the (domestic) terrorists win. :)[/QUOTE]

It is stupid to die for a cause that is widely accepted in Europe (with better pay even).
 
PETA are idiots. There's a goose pond near my folks home where the geese are snapping at kids and pooping on everything. The residents want these non-native geese thinned out(they were encouraged to migrate here by the dept of the interior)

However because of a bunch of PETA "activists" (IE hysterical middle-aged housewives) don't want the geese harmed in any way. Instead the residents must pay exaggerated amounts so a dog patrol can scare them away. However the geese aren't stupid and when they realized that the dog wasn't biting, the geese just came back and ignored him.

It's a shame too - because inhumane meat packing plants are places where animals are left suffering for years and years.
 
Oh yes, because Christian Republicans are bombthrowing terrorists. You're approaching trolldom here, Quacker. You're "presenting wishful thinking as objective reality,", and of course grandstanding and of course, being utterly shameless.

The 58% who support stem cell research have every right to give as much money as they want to. How about California? California is taking its taxpayers money to fund stem cell research--unless it was voted with 100%, then it's the same situation there.

I'm quite aware you can't pick and choose what 'your' money supports--except by voting.
Lots of things hold a 'promise'. Should the federal government be funding *all of them*?

If a stem cell solution was created that, oh, cured cancer--there would be a way to make money off of it.

More "fair and balanced":

"Public funding of adult stem cell research and private embryonic stem cell research were left untouched.

Meanwhile, an article in the May/June issue of Foreign Policy by Robert L. Paarlberg, reports that America is still leading the world in embryonic stem cell research. "

Leading the world...because private research, which is virtually always more productive than government funded, is not hampered in any way.

"Many European countries - which were supposed to have eaten our lunch in this area - actually have vastly more restrictive laws than our own. "

Not only are they not giving as much money, but they've got tighter laws regarding it.

"And many states, led by California, are spending billions [of their citizens' money] to make up for the perceived shortfall from the feds."

"This is the great irony of the whole debate. What offends some liberals is that the federal government isn't involved - and the federal government should do whatever they think is good. Leaving this to the states and the private sector is just too unsatisfying. Meanwhile, some pro-life conservatives who would like to see a far more comprehensive ban on the practice are largely powerless to affect the course of the research at all now that it's out of Washington's hands.

And that's as it should be. Federalism - sending tough issues to the lowest, most local levels possible - is the best compromise one can ask for when dealing with such issues. The alternative is to ask the federal government almost literally to split the baby. "

Wow, was he reading this thread? Truly prescient. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20050617.shtml

The "Far Right" [Surely you don't think GWB is "far right"?] is *not* 'equally opposed to research'. Many members of the Republican party, including/especially those who hold strong religious values, are against using embryos for research. Many of them dont' necessarily have a problem with adult stem cell research.

"To date, adult stem cell research, which is federally-funded, has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases...[E]mbryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results."

Wow....more fair and balanced:

"The President also stated that in FY2001, the government will spend $250 million on research involving stem cells from other sources, e. g., umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal tissues." Only 250 million? Why, that's not enough!! But wait:
"Prior to President Bush's stem cell announcement, and over the past years, federal law has prohibited HHS from funding human embryo research. No federal funds have been used to support research on stem cells derived from human embryos. Research in this area has been done through private funding. Subsequent to several phases of action, in December 1994, President Clinton, through an executive directive, prohibited federal funding on research to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes and directed NIH not to allocate resources for such research."

NONE. NO Federal Money was spent on embyronic stem cell research. Per His Holiness, King Liberal Bill Clinton. Where's the outrage? Where's the gratitude that GWB supported legislation to allow this research to continue, and to actually *spend money* on it? Or since he's got a R next to his name, is no amount of money enough?

http://www.policyalmanac.org/health/archive/crs_stem_cell.shtml
 
[quote name='dtcarson']"The President also stated that in FY2001, the government will spend $250 million on research involving stem cells from other sources, e. g., umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal tissues." [/QUOTE]

Talk is cheap, it never happened.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Talk is cheap, it never happened.[/QUOTE]

Even if it didn't, it's a hell of a lot more support than Clinton did.

I should know better than to ask this, but: Source?

"note that almost $25 million in NIH grants went to embryonic stem cell researchers last year. "
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/issues/2004-10-26-stem-cell-research_x.htm
2003 is later than 2001, but surely even you would concede that it's not "never". I can't find anything specifically for 2001/2002.

Found another quote from wanna-be JFKerry
""It is wrong to tell scientists that they can't cross the frontiers of new knowledge. It is wrong morally and it is wrong economically"

To an extent, I agree. [of course, that's probably exactly what Hitler said. "Sure, Dr. Mengele, find out what happens to human bodies being flayed alive."]
But. the implication is totally wrong. NO ONE said scientists 'couldn't cross the frontiers'. You just couldn't do it with federal funding. That is, if you want to do it, pay for it yourself.

How to argue like a liberal [or at least, like Quackers].

* Watch Monty Python's "Argument Clinic".
* Repeat that in any 'debate'. Ad infinitum.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Oh yes, because Christian Republicans are bombthrowing terrorists. [/quote]

Surely those abortion clinics didn't spontaneously combust.

[quote name='dtcarson']"To date, adult stem cell research, which is federally-funded, has resulted in the development of a variety of therapeutic treatments for diseases...[E]mbryonic stem cell research has not yet produced similar results."[/quote]

I guess that shows that federally-funded research gets better results. That's why I want embryonic stem cell research fed-funded.

[quote name='dtcarson'] NO Federal Money was spent on embyronic stem cell research. Per His Holiness, King Liberal Bill Clinton. Where's the outrage? Where's the gratitude that GWB supported legislation to allow this research to continue, and to actually *spend money* on it? Or since he's got a R next to his name, is no amount of money enough?[/QUOTE]

Bill Clinton was far from King Liberal and while Dubya may not personally be Far Right, his administration kowtows to them in regards to gay rights, abortion and stem cell research often opposing what polls show a majority of Americans prefer.
 
Somebody is living in Oz if they think Clinton is King Liberal and Bush Jr. is not pushing the line between extreme christian right and fanatic.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Surely those abortion clinics didn't spontaneously combust.
[/QUOTE]

I see. A couple of psychotics who take the law into their own hands via their own hypocrisy = all Christian Republicans are bomb throwing terrorists.

[quote name='MrBadExample']
I guess that shows that federally-funded research gets better results. That's why I want embryonic stem cell research fed-funded.
[/QUOTE]

Or that it shows that, well, embryonic stem cells aren't this magic potion they're supposed to be. Or that lots more research goes on with adult stem cells than embyronic. Perhaps because *most* people don't want to support it by giving money to the researches, so the researchers have to beg for government [our] money.


[quote name='MrBadExample']
Bill Clinton was far from King Liberal and while Dubya may not personally be Far Right, his administration kowtows to them in regards to gay rights, abortion and stem cell research often opposing what polls show a majority of Americans prefer.[/QUOTE]


He doesn't kowtow enough to the strong but silent fiscal conservative wing of the party.
Gay rights? Gays have rights, all the rights non-gays have.
Abortion? Lots of non-far-right folks believe abortion is killing an unborn human being.
Stem cell research? Yes, by making it legal and funding it.
And of course GWB himself has strong religious beliefs which certainly come out in his focus on issues.

Research labs may 'fear' boycotts from the Church or whatever, but if they could make a decent enough ROI, they would release the results regardless.
 
Not surprisingly, Clinton did more to expand stem cell research than Dubya.

Since human embryonic stem cells are not themselves embryos, however, different rules apply. The accepted view is that research with the cells doesn't fall under Congress' federal funding ban. In 2001, however, President Bush extended the ban to cover all human embryonic stem cells—making an exception only for certain cells (currently estimated at 22 stem cell lines) that had already been created by the time of his announcement. A "line," if you're wondering, is any group of cells that all come from the same original embryo.

...


The Clinton legacy

President Bush's stem cell decision, like the many state measures, is part of a long history of lawmakers grappling with the ethics of human embryo research. In fact, since the advent of in vitro fertilization, which produced the first "test-tube" baby in 1978, the federal government has avoided funding any work with human embryos. Many scientists say that this has hobbled research into infertility, birth defects, cancer, and methods for diagnosing genetic disease in embryos.

In one sense, Bush's administration is a turning point. He has presided over the first flow of federal funds to a promising area of research that relies on destroying human embryos. And yet Bush's repeated claims to be "the first president ever to allow funding" for human embryonic stem cell research (made, for instance, during the second nationally televised presidential debate in fall 2004) are not accurate. Here, he lays claim to a stem cell legacy that isn't his. Truth is, Bush's immediate predecessor, Bill Clinton, was a far greater supporter of human embryonic stem cell research.

Recall the political context. In 1993, with something called the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act, Congress and President Clinton gave the NIH direct authority to fund human embryo research for the first time—ushering in what seemed like a new era. In response, the NIH established a panel of scientists, ethicists, public policy experts, and patients' advocates to consider the moral and ethical issues involved and to determine which types of experiments should be eligible for federal funding. In 1994, this NIH Human Embryo Research Panel made its recommendations—among them, that the destruction of spare embryos from fertility clinics, with the goal of obtaining stem cells, should receive federal funding. Embryos at the required stage are round balls no bigger than a grain of sand.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I see. A couple of psychotics who take the law into their own hands via their own hypocrisy = all Christian Republicans are bomb throwing terrorists.[/quote]

You never saw me say that all Christian Republicans are terrorists, but you seemed to deny that any of them were. I was just reminding you.

[quote name='dtcarson']He doesn't kowtow enough to the strong but silent fiscal conservative wing of the party.[/quote]
I would like that better than his current kowtowing.

[quote name='dtcarson']Gay rights? Gays have rights, all the rights non-gays have.[/quote]
Except marriage.

[quote name='dtcarson']Abortion? Lots of non-far-right folks believe abortion is killing an unborn human being.[/quote]

Lots - yes, a majority - no. Most Americans support Roe vs. Wade.

[quote name='dtcarson']Stem cell research? Yes, by making it legal and funding it.[/quote]
See post about how Clinton is more responsible for SC research and Dubya restricted it.
 
Sure there have been people who bombed marriage clinics who call themselves Christian. But my comments at the beginning weren't directed at you, they were to anti-Christian bigot Quacky, who said that if stem cell research were federally funded, "And you and I both know that if stem cell research began full swing there would be a lot of bombings." which is assumptive, ignorant, and bigoted.

Marriage isn't a [federally guaranteed] "right", and it's not a privilege without limitation. As a straight male, there are *lots* of restrictions upon my "right" to marry.

I don't see how Clinton "giving authority to fund" the research is 'more responsible' than GWB's involvement. How does what you posted square with this, which I posted?
"in December 1994, President Clinton, through an executive directive, prohibited federal funding on research to support the creation of human embryos for research purposes and directed NIH not to allocate resources for such research."'

First he let NIH decide what to do, then later he said "never mind"?

I don't think most Americans "support" Roe v. Wade. As of May 05, according to Gallup, 53% of pollees think abortion should be "sometimes legal". Which is exactly where I stand.
A Zogby poll from 2004 said "by a 53% to 36% margin, the public supports the statement, "Abortion destroys a human life and is manslaughter.""

Without reading through the entire Roe case to verify the details, I think:
"Most" Americans do not support "abortion on demand" or "abortion as contraceptive.
"Most" Americans do support abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's life.

"Since polls have consistently shown considerable support for laws such as parental notification, informed consent, and unborn victims legislation, the Zogby poll confirms America are moving in the direction of ensuring that sensible limits are placed on legalized abortion." And I'm fine with that. I personally abhor the idea of abortion, just like I abhor the idea of killing a human being, but sometimes they are 'justified' or 'understandable'.

Camoor: feel free to join in if you have something intelligent to add. Clinton isn't the most liberal, no, but GWB is *not* a "conservative Republican."
 
Clinton started the federal funding of embryonic research. He banned cloning new embryos for research, not using spare embryos from fertility clinics. Bush banned using the spare embryos except for the lines that were already in production.

As far as Roe v Wade goes, this was the first poll I found and 63% don't want to see it overturned entirely. Roe does not allow "abortion on demand" - it permits it in the 1st trimester, doctor's approval for the 2nd and prohibited under the third with exceptions for the health of the mother.

Dubya is a social conservative just not a fiscal one.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Camoor: feel free to join in if you have something intelligent to add. Clinton isn't the most liberal, no, but GWB is *not* a "conservative Republican."[/QUOTE]

No - he's extremely to the right - I align him more with an imperialist then a conservative republican (if we are going by classic definitions)

However if we are talking about American political parties, then since he has hijacked the Republican party with his christian crusader agenda, his reign is both conservative (morally - he talks like some of the puritans who landed on plymouth rock) and "Republican".
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Don't forget PETA's ecoterrorist links..
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Fumento20050615.shtml

PETA is a bunch of hypocritical misanthropic sychotics.

And I don't believe 'caring for animals' is necessarily a 'liberal' trait. My family has always leaned right, and we have always had animals/pets that we have treated well. They become a member of the family. Apart from 9/11 charities, the only charities we have given to consistently have been no-kill animal shelters. Actually, it could be argued that caring for animals is a conservative trait--teaching responsibility, focusing on someone/something external to yourself, etc.
That said, I'm all for [sane] animal testing. I don't know if we need to test makeup or whatever on animals, but until we're able to test on death row inmates, if testing a drug on 200 monkeys or bunnies will help find treatments for AIDS or cancer or other powerful, widespread diseases, I'm all for it.

They "exposed how cruel Kosher slaughtering methods are"? What exactly are "Kosher slaughtering methods,", and are you saying the 'ends justify the means,' since they made 'a point' [which they didn't, if they were trying to make a point the video would be on their webside, they wouldn't have gotten busted trying to toss animal corpses in a dumpster], it validates what they were doing?

I'm still wondering how lethal injection is "more humane" than gassing. Now, 'shooting behind the shed', okay, that's pretty bad. And I'm sure lots of animal shelters do that. But lethal injection versus gassing + the animals still dead. Killing a healthy, young, adoptable animal, in any way, doesn't seem very "ethical" to me.[/QUOTE]

Well put. I'm in agreement with pretty much all of this.
 
In kosher practice, you have to slit the throat of the animal and let it bleed to death. I've seen it in videos - it's pretty insane when done at a factory level, and the saddest part is that the chickens sitting in cages for hours see the heads getting knocked off, get spattered with the blood of their peers, and know that they are next.

I'm sure that regular meat packing plants have their own horrors, I try to eat organic meat when I can but I know that it doesn't necessarily mean the animal was killed humanely.

That's why I support hunting for meat - those animals lived a good life, and by killing an animal you have no illusions about where your next chicken burrito is coming from.

(I'm still against 38 specials in big cities but that's a different topic)

Anyone know if you can buy meat that lived a legit free range life and wasn't killed in a mass factory lineup style?
 
Killing a healthy, young, adoptable animal, in any way, doesn't seem very "ethical" to me.
Click to expand...

You need to understand that there is a horrendous overpopulation of cats and dogs in this country. For every 1 pet that is adopted there are 100 roaming the streets or sitting in a cage in some shelter.

Anyway, loving pets is one thing and wanting to give them the same rights as humans is a totally different insane thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top