Halal method or stunning?
-
?
According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter
your Opinion?
-
Peace
There is no harm in stunning the animals before the slaughter because that will reduce the pain of slaughtering.
Thanks
-
I vote for stunning..
The reason for (some of) Buddhist / Hindus sect on becoming vegetarian is they don't want to cause pain/suffering to the animal.
And the reason for "islamic cleric" to insist on "Halal method" is because it relate to their revenue/income from the "Halal certification process". The "halal certificate" has a 'date of expiry' ensuring 'continuing revenue stream' to their pocket.
-
Stunning is a misnomer. Data collected suggests over a third of 'stunned' animals are actually killed from the act of stunning, which would mean a cut to the throat would be pointless.
It will be debated throughout time whether a cut to the throat, electrocuting, drowning or punching a metal rod into the brain leads to more pain to an animal.
Personally, I don't see how slitting the throat is any worse than any other method, the animal dies. We should be grateful that we are even allowed to slaughter another being for as petty a reason as consumption.
-
?
According to FAWC it can take up to two minutes for cattle to bleed to death, thus amounting to animal abuse. Compassion in World Farming also supported the recommendation saying "We believe that the law must be changed to require all animals to be stunned before slaughter
your Opinion?
As far as I know, cleeding to death is not painful at all. It is the most peaceful way of dying, which is why the ancient romans used to cut their veins, lie in a bathbasin and die sweetly.
On the other hand, are we sure animals do not want to know the experience of dying, when it is not painful, you simply feel that you are going?
Aren't we substituting our own geeling of guilt feeling for what the animals really feel?
The fact that we do not want to know that we are dying does it mean that the animals do not want to feel that they are dying?
Is stunning really less painful and bleeding? How do we know?
I think that many things that are being promoted as charity for animals are in fact projections of feelings of guilt and of god-like dictation of how creatures should feel in any circumstance as if all animals or lap-dogs or as if we did know and were the best suited to determine how they feel or shiuld feel. I think we need to take a few steps down from our God-like stand.
There are things that are manifest cruelty, but there is a lot of pride, arrogance and ignorance in some stances. We are not the ultimate knowers of everything, and because of that, many times, rather than examine a question, we should examine and question ourselves as to our own motives deep-down, about our own authenticity. We can hardly decide for other cretaures when we do not even know much beyond clich? goodness and politically correct goodness. We should not delude ourselves that we do something out of piety for the animals when in fact we are after assaginf our own feelings of might and guilt, might and guilt make for a very impure mixture. We do not have might over other people or over ourselves, so we compensate being gods for animals and "protecting" them like if we were the gods almighty, it flatters our egos, but the animals do not give a damn for human egos.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Salaam,
Well. Mission accomplished if the animal dies from the stunning procedure. And reflexes will keep the body running for a short while after so they will have time to cut the throat and let the animal get drained of blood according to traditional belief.
God bless you