Should we ban the Kosher/Halal method of killing unstunned animals?

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

But for people like that animals don't feel pain...I think there are still people around who think that chicken don't feel pain, etc. Even if it's God's creation this is just some stupid animal that they're going to eat, but before consumption they have to clean the dirtiness of this lowlife away..they could catch rabies or some other pathogen if there'd be too much of this sticky red liquid in their steak. Poor them, we'd rather not ban this killing method otherwise you'd have Jews and Muslims all suddenly look paler than usual.

 

[Michael]

So it seems that from an scientific POV stunning, when properly performed, is the more ethical and humane method of animal slaughter.


What I'm wondering is if Jews and Muslims would eat ethically slaughtered meat if it wasn't "purified" in a Bronze Age religious blood ritual (so could not be considered Kosher/Halal)?

This is interesting. Being atheist I can't imagine why anyone would purposely choose to support a more painful method (and thus immoral and unethical) means of animal death? Of course any moral person would go for the more moral option. Surely so? But here we are.

The implication are profound ..... and go way beyond animals and the meat industry.

 

[GeoffP]

It's idiotic when you consider the range of "sinning" people of every religion don't mind so much in practice. A little lying? Well, maybe God won't notice. But I better eat meat that's been properly talked over or I'm cooked. Even more ridiculous when you consider that the most likely reason for these rituals is the lack of any more humane method at the time.

 

[Michael]

As far as I know there is no objection to animals being stunned before slaughter for halal meat.

And what if they had decided it wasn't Halal? It was "dead meat" as BigChiller put it. Accordingly, God only likes it when the blood ritual on live meat (aka: the animal must be scarified ALIVE and it's actual death is what venerates your God, any other way and it's not a ritual blood sacrifice - just "dead meat". Welcome to the Bronze Age.

I wonder if this is a part of why "Islam just makes sense to me"? Yeah, and Xenu makes sense to Tom Cruise.

Just think about the implications of BigChillers "dead meat" hypothesis. Ever wonder why Islamic societies never made Slavery illegal?

If this is seen as correct, it is following the Kosher mode: offering less pain. Nothing else is happening here.

While completely off your rocker. It's good to see you have the common decency to reinterpret stunning as compatible with your Bronze Age animal sacrifice rituals. For some people (like you and SAM) being an Apologist is as high as you're going to be able to stretch. That said, it's still much higher than 786 and BigChiller. They'd probably be on sale at a discount warehouse as low level field Slaves ... if not for good Apologists like you and SAM seeing that Bronze Age magic can be pasted over with some level of rationalization and societal progress slowly made in the forward direction. :shrug:




OMG get this from SAM's link: Is stunning meat harem?

The stun used is a very low voltage that knocks the animal out for around 15-20 seconds. After 20 seconds it is potentially back to normal and during that 20 seconds it is alive and breathing. This means that when the animal is cut it still bleeds the animal properly.

If any animal is stunned and as a consequence dies, it would be haram to eat. However the chances of this happening are extremely slim if not impossible. As we personally slaughter we are also able to see if signs of life still exist in the animal and that it has been bled properly.

I know. Isn't it positively Bronze Age? Shocking. The compulsive need for Jews and Muslims to ritualistically sacrifice animals to their God while alive. Can you imagine?!?! It's almost unbelievable that people can really be so superstitious in this day in age. Bronze Age animal sacrifice in 2010???

Is there ANY OTHER religion in the entire world that venerates a God that demands blood sacrifice? I can't think of any. Jesus, even the Christians only go so far as to metaphorically speak of turning red-wine being blood. It's really just shocking.

 

[Michael]

Again from the website:

The Halal Meat Authorities

Many people in the UK are now obsessed with the issue of stunning having been given the impression that it is haram. What has in truth happened is that some within a certain UK halal meat authority have taken a disliking to stunning and as a consequence people have been (mis)informed that it is totally haram. In fact, the meat is still halal - all it means is that businesses can not get that authority's logo on their produce.

If one reads their literature or website carefully one will note that they do not term stunned meat as haram anywhere. What one finds is that they have implemented a "blanket policy" against stunning on the basis that there may be some doubt over whether or not an animal is alive at the time of slaughter. This shows that they agree that if a stunned animal is alive at the time of slaughter it is halal.

We asked the authority, the Halal Monitoring Committee, for their response on this matter and they kindly responded with the following proving that just because an animal is stunned it is not haram:

"HMC is erring the side of caution by adopting a blanket policy to the issue of stunning and not certifying it. HMC has never claimed that all animals die due to stunning or that stunning the animal renders the animal Haram automatically."

Is it just me or is this asinine?

"Forbidden to you (for food) are dead animal, blood, the flesh of swine, and that over which has been invoked other than the name of Allah, that which has been killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a headlong fall or by being gored to death, that which has been partly eaten by a wild animal, unless you are able to slaughter (in due form), and that which is sacrificed on stone (altars)." (5:3)

I wonder if PETA has ever considered getting a jobs at meat factories and invoking the name of another God during the ritual blood sacrifice. And the video recording it - thereby making all that meat haram. No one could prevent them from invoking their God's name. That would be religious discrimination. A meat packing facility could probably be sued into oblivion if it didn't allow people of ALL faiths to invoke their God's name during the blood sacrifice.

:shrug:

Fatwa about Stunning

For example, one fatwa oft cited is that of Muhammad Usman, Darul-Ifta, Jamia Sarul Uloom, Karachi. His fatwa has been used to say that stunning is haram, whereas if one reads the fatwa in full you will see that he in fact does not say it is haram at all but in fact that it is completely halal. A few of his comments include:

Gee, Karachi Pakistan - big surprise there :bugeye: I mean, I'm flabbergasted. Who'd of thunk Pakistan wouldn't be the leading light of ethical behavior??? Who'd of ever guessed it could be Pakistan that was leading the charge back to the Bronze Age. Yes. Truly shocking.

 

[Big Chiller]

I wonder if PETA has ever considered getting a jobs at meat factories and invoking the name of another God during the ritual blood sacrifice. And the video recording it - thereby making all that meat haram. No one could prevent them from invoking their God's name. That would be religious discrimination. A meat packing facility could probably be sued into oblivion if it didn't allow people of ALL faiths to invoke their God's name during the blood sacrifice.

In Islam there can be no "blood sacrifice" because muslims believe God cannot actually be pleased with anything at all as if He could take pleasure in something it's only sacrifice as in doing as told by God.

 

[Michael]

Big Chiller, invoking a God's name as you slit an animal's throat IS an Animal Sacrifice.
Call a spade a spade.

 

[Big Chiller]

Did you even read what I posted I didn't say it's not sacrifice.

 

[Michael]

Did you even read what I posted I didn't say it's not sacrifice.

Good, then we agree, Islam and Judaism are the last Bronze Age cults that still sacrifice animals to a God in the modern world. Even Christians only refer to blood in the metaphoric.

In Islam there can be no "blood sacrifice" because muslims believe God cannot actually be pleased with anything at all as if He could take pleasure in something it's only sacrifice as in doing as told by God.

I'd re-word this last part as: it's only blood sacrifice as in doing as told by God.

Well good for you Big Chiller, your religion has moved from the Stone Age (where humans simply clubbed animals to death) all the way up to the Bronze Age - where humans recite magical incantations to a God while slitting an animals throat. How positively progressive of you. Gee, who knows? Maybe in another 1000 years your religion will have progressed to stunning?


Big Chiller, we now have scientific evidence that stunned animals are knocked unconscious almost instantaneously - don't you think that armed with that information, your God would want you to move into the modern era and slaughter animals in a humane and ethical manner? Do you really think a creator of the Universe insists you continue to ritualistically slaughter animals? How big of a douche bag do you presume your God to be???

 

[Michael]

We should ban animal slaughter without prior stunning. It's as simple as that.

This is direct evidence of Religious Clerics unethically giving inhumane immoral guidance. Why? Because of some silly superstitious magic book says this archaic blood ritual must be performed to appease a Bronze Age sky-daddy.
It's ridiculous. These same "Religious Clerics" grandfather's taught that Slavery was also a part of God's plan.

The end result is we have otherwise sensible ethical people (who would without a doubt chose the moral prerogative) instead arguing for inhumane treatment of animals (or 80 years ago supporting Slavery)?!?! My Gods, the mind just boggles.

Another clear example of how modern humanity is progressing past ancient superstitions. Perhaps we need to take an active role in the reformation of some of these superstitious practices. Morally through public education and Legally through public vote. Just as we had to ban Slavery we may need to ban ritualistic blood sacrifice. Hopefully in a generation people will come to see slitting an animals' throat while reciting religious incantations as backwards as was the Institutionalization of Slavery.

 

[S.A.M.]

We should ban animal slaughter without prior stunning. It's as simple as that.

I'll agree with that, as soon as you provide the evidence that stunning is not painful in itself and mitigates the pain of slaughter. I find it very revealing that a second stun is protocol in animal slaughter facilities and that too for the purpose of sustaining unconsciousness - which shows that the likelihood of regaining consciousness and feeling the pain of stunning more than once is both higher .

Got any? Or is everyone to use your feelings as the guideline for making rational decisions?

 

[S.A.M.]

Here is what we know about the stun bolt [from Temple Grandin]:

A captive bolt stunning gun kills the animal and reduces it instantly unconscious without causing pain. (*without pain?) A captive bolt gun has a steel bolt that is powered by either compressed air or a blank cartridge. The bolt is driven into the animal's brain. It has the same effect on the animal as a firearm with a live bullet. After the animal is shot the bolt retracts and is reset for the next animal. A captive bolt gun is safer than a firearm.

There have been some questions about whether or not a captive bolt actually kills an animal. Practical experience in slaughter plants indicates that cattle shot correctly with a penetrating captive bolt have irreversible damage to their brain and they will not revive. If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly...



There has been renewed interest in the use of non-penetrating captive bolt due to concerns about BSE (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy). The elimination of stunners that injected air into the brain greatly reduced the amount of brain or spinal cord tissue that could be spread to other parts of the body. However, research has shown that even when air injection had been removed, small amounts of brain tissue may enter the body and brain tissue may contaminate plant equipment. The effective use of non-penetrating captive bolt requires much more accurate aim than a penetrating captive bolt. This may require the use of equipment to hold the animal's head. Designs for head holders can be found in the religious slaughter section of www.grandin.com and in the restraint for stunning section. Mushroom head non-penetrating captive bolt stunners inflict varying degrees of damage to the skull. Non-penetrating captive bolt that fractures the skull is more effective than a stunner that does not fracture the skull. Effectiveness increases as the degree of skull fracturing increases. It is likely that reducing the spread of at risk brain material is reduced when fracturing is minimized. Unfortunately, effective stunning and reducing skull fracturing are two opposite goals. As the amount of damage to the skull is reduced, placement of the shot must become more and more precise to achieve instantaneous insensibility. Shooting on a slight angle may result in failure to induce instantaneous insensibility. A mushroom head with a larger diameter may be more effective with less fracturing than a mushroom head with a small diameter.

In plants using a non-penetrating captive bolt animal welfare should be evaluated with the American Meat Institute scoring system in the same manner as penetrating captive bolt. The plant must be able to stun 95% or more of the cattle correctly with a single shot. They must be able to attain an acceptable score of 75% of the cattle moved with no electric prod and 3% or less of the cattle vocalizing. If a head restraint is used, a vocalization score of 5% is acceptable.

Heavy mature bulls are more difficult to stun with captive bolt compared to cows or fed beef. Practical experience in plants indicates that heavy bulls are most effectively stunned with either a perfectly maintained cartridge fired penetrating captive bolt stunner, a fire arm with a free bullet, or one of the new powerful pneumatic penetrating captive bolt stunners. Stunning mature bulls correctly has been a continuous problem that has repeatedly shown up in restaurant audits. The stunning of bulls with a non-penetrating stunner will need to be carefully monitored and audited to maintain a high standard of animal welfare.

For large bulls and other heavy livestock such as bison, some plants routinely shoot them twice with a captive bolt. To verify that 95% or more are rendered insensible with one shot, the auditor or inspector should check for signs of return to sensibility BEFORE the second shot is done. A stunner shot that shoots in the air and does not touch the animal does not count. If the bolt of the stunner touches or partially penetrates the animal it is counted as a missed shot.

http://www.brokenearth.org/slaughter/captivebolt.htm

 

[Big Chiller]

Not to mention beef is not even the most consumed meat for good reason, chicken is.

 

[GeoffP]

Which percentile are you in?

I'll agree with that, as soon as you provide the evidence that stunning is not painful in itself and mitigates the pain of slaughter.

Have you perhaps been stunned yourself? I've already illustrated that: zero brainwaves in stunned animals. I've re-attached the post for reference, with the salient bits bolded.

But, dealing with your quest for evidence, I recommend the following slide series and the cited reference therein (Gregory and Wotton 1986).

http://www.nifa.usda.gov/nea/animals/pdfs/bioethics_buhr.pdf

The slicing of both carotids apparently causes brain functional failure in 2 1/2 minutes. Now, note the changes in brainwave function post-stun on slide 26. Stunning eliminates brainwave function immediately. (Still, maybe their soul is suffering: for unbelief, presumably.)

Next time, read the links instead of stepping on the accelerator as you run past them.

I find it very revealing that a second stun is protocol in animal slaughter facilities and that too for the purpose of sustaining unconsciousness - which shows that the likelihood of regaining consciousness and feeling the pain of stunning more than once is both higher .

First, you'd have to prove that an animal actually feels pain from the stunner. Let's see if you can use my reference to do that. Second: your argument is retarded from the get-go: "higher" than what? Than having their neck slowly sawed open without any form of anaesthesia or interruption of neural response? In 5% of stuns? So now the pain associated with a rare requirement for re-stunning (assuming that such pain occurs in the first place) somehow trumps having one's neck sawed open?

Again, a retarded argument. Second stunning may be required if the animal starts to revive.

Got any?

Got any what? You don't even say what you want him to have, although one can infer what you mean. Evidence? Yes. I just posted on it. Have you got any evidence regarding the relative pain of the two procedures? Or is everyone to use your feelings as the guideline for making rational decisions? Utterly absurd.

Here is what we know about the stun bolt [from Temple Grandin]:

http://www.brokenearth.org/slaughter/captivebolt.htm

Let's examine a phrase from that. "If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly." Which is why they also bleed them. Even if they didn't - if no other form of euthanasia was used, which is incorrect - again, 5% (maximum) restunning rate is worse than 100% of all slaughtered animals feeling incredible amounts of pain for 2.5 minutes or possibly longer.

Fuck me, but ignorance really is not an argument, Sam.

 

[GeoffP]

Not to mention beef is not even the most consumed meat for good reason, chicken is.

And?

"We only cut a few necks. What's the big deal?"

Gee, too ethical for my standards. You should suggest that argument to the ICR.

 

[S.A.M.]

Fuck me, but ignorance really is not an argument, Sam.

Exactly, which is why you have to read the whole argument properly. For example

"If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly."

is not an argument since the stun bolt commonly used is penetrating and fractures the skull, not only contaminating the blood with brain fragments [something to consider if BSE is an issue for you] but if I may perhaps say so, likely to be excrutiatingly painful. Unless you think having your skull smashed into your brain is somehow superior to having your throat slit. The fact that a second round may be required in the other kind of electric shock into the brain somehow does not make the argument more valid. Note that in your case study, we are talking about animals killed by stunning, which is not the case with the stun bolt. For all we know the animal is incapable of thrashing around because the skull has been smashed into their brains but is still capable of feeling pain.

Meanwhile, if bleeding stops a stunned animal from reviving and you are substituting a smash into the skull with a slit in the throat, oh wait, you are adding a smash into the skull with a slit in the throat, what is the argument for the mitigation of pain? What exactly makes the pain less? The fact that bleeding stops the animal from reviving? After being whacked in the skull with a bolt of electric shock? Twice? With or without having the skull smashed into its brain?

 

[spidergoat]

So why aren't activists trying to get the government to mandate in vitro meat?

PETA advocates it, but the process is still experimental.

 

[GeoffP]

Exactly, which is why you have to read the whole argument properly. For example

"If a non-penetrating captive bolt is used the animal may revive unless it is bled promptly."

Very good. So you see why this refutes your argument, as you think bleeding alone - and very horrible bleeding - is somehow as painful.

is not an argument since the stun bolt commonly used is penetrating and fractures the skull, not only contaminating the blood with brain fragments [something to consider if BSE is an issue for you]

As I generally eat well-cooked meat, not so much, really.

but if I may perhaps say so, likely to be excrutiatingly painful.

How many nerve endings does the brain have, Sam? The dura has a few, but how many does the brain have?

Unless you think having your skull smashed into your brain is somehow superior to having your throat slit.

Yep.

The fact that a second round may be required in the other kind of electric shock into the brain somehow does not make the argument more valid.

It certainly does, since commercial stunners are required to have a maximum number of required re-stun rate of 5%. (The re-stun rate could be considerably lower as well.) Meanwhile, throat-slitting produces roughly the same abominable amount of pain each and every time, apparently. At 2.5 minutes to death, it's an insanely long time in which pain could still be transmitted to the brain, whereas stun - if you'd ever bothered to read my link - produces a brain-null state instantly. It's no contest.

Note that in your case study, we are talking about animals killed by stunning, which is not the case with the stun bolt. For all we know the animal is incapable of thrashing around because the skull has been smashed into their brains but is still capable of feeling pain.

Regrettably for your point, my link refutes this argument. Brain-wave activity in stunned animals appears to be nil. What's the brain-wave activity in animals that have their throat slit? Do you have any evidence - any at all - for your absurd claims of parity?

Meanwhile, if bleeding stops a stunned animal from reviving and you are substituting a smash into the skull with a slit in the throat, oh wait, you are adding a smash into the skull with a slit in the throat, what is the argument for the mitigation of pain?

Oh, lord.

Stunning renders the animal inert. It is combined with bleeding to ensure that the animal doesn't have the chance to regain consciousness; the latter might be possible given enough time. But we don't give them enough time. It works on the same principle as ketamine/bleed in other animals. Consult the charts in my links if you still don't understand. Read-the-link.

 

[Big Chiller]

And?

"We only cut a few necks. What's the big deal?"

Gee, too ethical for my standards. You should suggest that argument to the ICR.

I wasn't making any excuses if that's the impression you got.

 

[GeoffP]

I wasn't making any excuses if that's the impression you got.

Well, it certainly sounded like it. In fact, to make the same level of basic protein supply for chicken compared to beef, wouldn't you correspondingly have to slaughter a hundred times as many chickens? Doesn't this translate to several orders of magnitude more suffering for the same output?