Originally Posted by Cherie
To compare eating a class of livestock that one personally does not want to eat to cannibalism is pretty far out there -- kind of like giving them human emotions and 'rights'. No one is saying that anybody HAS to eat their horse or send it to slaughter. It is just not their right to tell others what they can eat or do with their horse that THEY OWN.
I am not completely anti-slaughter by the way, just FYI. I have made it pretty clear I would like to see steps taken to reduce the number of horses unnecessarily sent to slaughter...not eliminate it all together.
Scientifically speaking...protein is protien, meat is meat in the manner it is digested..protien structure and content varies between animal class a bit - but not significantly. My point was, if excess meat is the only basis for slaughter - then why draw ANY line. Cannabalism is taking it to extremes to make a point? Which part, the emotional, the nutritional, or the "too much freedom" part?
Steps should be taken to limit unnecessary slaughter. The key word there is "unnecessary". And I am totally w herd, no animal should ever suffer during any slaughter process. I go back to chemical warfare .... it is prohibited by treaties in a WAR theater where the idea is to kill people - but I am guessing it is the manner in which people will SUFFER that was at hand when the treaties were signed. Taking it to extremes again?