Should the slaughter of animals that have not first been stunned be banned?

  • Make it cruelty free.

    Yes, I do believe that we should completely ban the slaughter of animals that have not first been stunned. While the ideal solution would be banning the use of animal products and enforcing vegetarianism worldwide, that's not going to happen. The most we can do is make their deaths as free from suffering as possible.

  • Are We Still Living In The Stone Ages?

    By a resounding yes, you ban stunning practices on the slaughter of animals. We need to eat and all that, but why not treat the animal with dignity since they are literally saving your life. I do not care what your religion says. It is not very godly to torture an animal right before you kill it, now is it!!!

  • Yes ... For Now.

    The most humane solution, not necessarily the most popular solution, would to be stop consuming animals all together. Obviously, this is hypothetical and it wouldn't work for various reasons I wont get in to. If you watch the documentary Food Inc. It gives great insght into where our food really comes from. The meat industry is owned by four or five companies. These companies certainly don't care about the ethical way, they care about the inexpensive way. Since stopping consuming animals all over the world is impossible, we need to find more humane AND inexpensive ways of slaughtering animals, because right now, there is not a single humane factory farm or slaughterhouse, but as a short-term solution, stunning should be mandatory.

  • This Is A Preventable Form Of Unnecessary Pain

    Stunning, whether done through the standard bolt pistol method or by some other action, is a quick and inexpensive way of ensuring the painless death of an animal that may not have been shown any other kindness in its life. Considering that these animals were bred and born purely to end up on somebody's plate I don't think it is unreasonable to at least give them a quick and easy end. Europe has already adopted mandatory stunning laws. It's time we followed suit.

  • Just plain killing something is just WRONG

    They should be given a chance first, which is being stunned. Killing the animal first is just cruel. It should be banned. That is just not right. What if someday, you go home and find that a bunch of animals had killed your friends/family when they hurt them because of them freaking out. That's how the animals feel. Some people are just plain HEARTLESS

  • Slaughter without stunning is cruel

    It is cruel to slaughter any animal while they are fully aware of what is going on, including pain. Animals feel pain just as humans do. People may say that this is not cruel, or that it is just a part of life, but this is not so. Yeah, this may cause a little more outgo, but I believe that it is worth it. I'm not saying that we need to completely stop killing animals to feed ourselves, I just think that the process should be more humane.

  • Why is this even a question?

    Of course! We live in a modern world with highly advanced technology and we should use it. Inunderstand that " it's the food chain,and that this is how it was before." but, I don't believe that we live in "before" do we? Without this vital step animals feel more pain than needed! If you are going to kill it make it as pain free as possible!

  • Yes, otherwise it is too cruel.

    Animals may not be self aware but they are conscious and they do feel pain and they do suffer. So not to stun an animal before it is slaughtered just seems too cruel. The extra step and perhaps extra money needed to do this is well worth it and should be required.

  • Stunning animals is actually the real cruelty

    Researches have shown that slaughtering animals save them the pain they have to suffer by being stunned. Stunning them shocks their nervous system which is very painful, while slaughter is a matter of a few seconds. On a humane level though, I believe animals should not be killed for our own benefit.

  • Fail to see the Difference.

    How exactly does stunning the animal take away from the fact that its about to be slaughtered? All that stunning the animal does is it makes more helpless and unable to resist its fate. Also mankind has been slaughtering animals without stunning them for millennia. Whats the point of stopping now? Taking the resources and time and personel it takes to stun an animal is just another excuse by corporations to reaise prices for their product. Unless all that they do is hit the cow on the head with a really big stick in which case you might as well kill it with said stick.

  • It isn't going to make a difference

    Stunning an animal doesn't stop the pain. Plus it isn't just the death that makes it cruel. I want everyone that has participated in this topic to search on Google the following words: "What really happens in the chicken cages."
    Do this correctly and you will be sure to change your opinion to "we should stop it all together

  • It is the food chain.

    No, the slaughter of animals that have not first been stunned should not be banned, because it is the food chain that some animals live and die. As long as the animals are not allowed to suffer, there is nothing wrong with killing them swiftly. Killing the animals is something that must happen for us to be able to eat them.

  • Will not improve much

    Slaughtering animals without stunning them first will not have a huge effect on animal cruelty or the treatment of animals as a whole. Slaughterhouses that are well maintained will be able to slaughter animals effectively in painlessly, while rundown slaughterhouses will have been inhumane to begin with - no need for more needless rules.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.