Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first. Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DoTheEducations)
    Wouldn't cutting the spinal chord first hurt, as it detects pain and hence would feel it?
    i don't know but what i do know is that the blood flow is basically the blood emptying from the brain, this means that with precision and speed, the animal experiences an immediate loss of consciousness, and doing it this way around means the animal has no sense of the pain and since there's no delay between when it's stunned and then dies, the animal can't regain consciousness so as to feel the pain again in any way

    also in british slaughterhouses, they use things ilke gassing and electrocution and it paralyses the animal but this merely stops the animal from displaying outward expressions of pain, we can't tell if it's feeling pain inside or not

    As a muslim i'm perfectly fine with there being non-halal and halal meat in this country, the biggest thing i ask for though is to make it routine to label on a packet if something is halal or not
    because while we go by the vegetarian sign, this doesn't always apply as there might be alcohol in something
    Sharp pain maybe, but unlikely. It would be far easier to adapt this method to become less stressful painful for the animal.

    Think of it this way, you've been sentenced to death. You can have the axeman slit your throat and be hung upside down to bleed out or take to the guillotine and have your head taken off in one swoop.......... it should be obvious which is worse.

    We could go into further detail, I did a quick google and it turns out that Kosher also entails not letting the animal have a 'sense of fear' or impending doom. As it is believed to release impurities/toxins. So letting them see other animals die is supposed to be avoided.
    Not so in Halal, animals are often stewing in the blood of their friends as they have their throats slit.

    But the methodology becomes a moot point, Jews take care of themselves. The rest of us aren't forced to eat Kosher unknowingly, Jews don't try and have non-Kosher removed from supermarkets - essentially trying to get the monopoly on the production of everyone else's food.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymοοse)


    There is no "humane" way of taking away life.

    Either you condemn all forms of animal slaughter or you sit down and be quiet. You really have no leg to stand on otherwise as the so called "humane alternatives" to halal and kosher aren't all that pleasant either.
    For all those people who are irrationally against Halal/Kosher slaughter, please read this and reconsider.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    Goodness me, death is painful regardless of how an animal dies. The Islamic method ensures that as much blood (which contains pathogens and all sorts of impurities) is drained from the animal and this helps meat to stay fresh for longer when stored. Annoys me how some people, especially those animal welfare supporters, criticize the Islamic method of slaughter. I ain't against animal welfare but it just annoys me how they cant see the true nature of this method. The Islamic method is the most peaceful way to put an animal to death. A question to those people who criticize this method: Is there a method that will kill an animal more quickly and peacefully? Any answers? I don't think so.
    Yes there is - while it is stunned.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymοοse)
    There is no "humane" way of taking away life.
    Consider a hypothetical:

    If you knew a family member (let's say your mother) was doing to die, would you rather it would be a quick death while unconscious, or, being consciously torn limb from limb until she bled out?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by r.zia906)
    However stunning, ironically, causes extreme pain for the animal, some are still left alive to suffer after the torture, and some animals', such as chickens, brains explode because of the current fired through them.
    I'm not sure you get what stunning is at all.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    Yes there is - while it is stunned.
    Death is painful however an animal dies. Stunning an animal isn't exactly pleasant for the animal is it. It gives it more unnecessary pain.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    Death is painful however an animal dies. Stunning an animal isn't exactly a pleasant for the animal is it. Its gives it more unnecessary pain.
    No it doesn't...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    No it doesn't...
    Try getting stunned and see how it feels.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    Try getting stunned and see how it feels.
    That is a shoddy attempt at an argument. Do you even know what pre stunning is?

    RSPCA

    On the first of these issues, FAWC (Farm Animal Welfare Council) concluded that the levelof restraint required to expose the throat, perform an effectivecut and hold the animal still until it had bled out was fargreater than that needed for conventional slaughter.

    With regard to the potential for pain and distress, FAWCconsidered the representations it had received, some of whichhad argued that a neck cut is not painful provided it is a rapid,uninterrupted movement carried out with an extremely sharpknife. FAWC came to the view, however, that when a largetransverse incision is made across the neck a number of vitaltissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea,oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nervetrunks, plus numerous minor nerves. They concluded thatsuch a drastic cut would inevitably trigger a barrage ofsensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious)animal. FAWC stated that: “we are persuaded that such amassive injury would result in very significant pain anddistress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.
    Recent research undertaken in New Zealand (Gibson et al.,2009) has provided further evidence of the welfare problemsassociated with neck cutting of conscious animals. The workshowed that brain signals in calves indicate that they doappear to feel pain when slaughtered without pre-stunning. Apain signal lasting for up to 2 minutes was detected followingthroat cutting. The researchers also showed that when theanimals are concussed through stunning, brain signalscorresponding to pain disappear.



    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Perhaps we should just ban all Halal and Kosher meat from the UK? Personally I think it makes no sense to appease and tolerate religious ritual slaughtering methods in a country as humane and advanced as Britain.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...hem-first.html

    As far as I know SubWay in the UK is now all Halal. Many UK hospitals now serve only Halal slaughtered meat in their visitors restaurants. How can Britain be so Halal when the vast majority of it's citizens are purportedly non-Muslim? Aggressive bullish campaigning I gather. It appears they don't care a damn for what British non-Muslims prefer to eat, as long as their wants are met. The situation speaks for itself and it's about time British non-Muslims grew a backbone and stuck up for their human rights too. I'm all for soundly reasoned improvement and change but Britain seems to be sliding all too easily into a dystopian alternate reality, becoming increasingly disconnected from itself.
    So, not sure if you have remotely any experience of slaughtering animals. It's not a nice process non-halal or hallal. To be herded roughly on mass before being electrocuted or banged on the head before having your throat cut is not a good experience. For me the whole debate about what is more humane is a largely academic, funding futile PhDs. If you really cared you would become vegetarian, or indeed vegan. Any of course the whole topics leads to veiled racism and religious prejudice.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    That is a shoddy attempt at an argument. Do you even know what pre stunning is?

    RSPCA
    Think want you like, all I'm going to say is that all those illogical arguments about stunning an animal before slaughter is good makes no sense as the animal dies in pain anyway.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    Think want you like, all I'm going to say is that all those illogical arguments about stunning an animal before slaughter is good makes no sense as the animal dies in pain anyway.
    These aren't thoughts, this is evidence. What you're saying is illogical - it's essentially: 'the animal dies in pain so who cares how much pain it experiences.' Would you rather a family member who is murdered have it done brutally or quickly? Yes it's still murder but with an iota of compassion you'd prefer the latter.

    You originally asserted that there is no peaceful or more humane way to slaughter an animal other than halal slaughter and now you're fallaciously backtracking over that assertion because you have no evidence to support it, but evidence on the contrary.

    Also, that is tautological to say that 'illogical arguments' make 'no sense.'
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    These aren't thoughts, this is evidence. What you're saying is illogical - it's essentially: 'the animal dies in pain so who cares how much pain it experiences.' Would you rather a family member who is murdered have it done brutally or quickly? Yes it's still murder but with an iota of compassion you'd prefer the latter.

    You originally asserted that there is no peaceful or more humane way to slaughter an animal other than halal slaughter and now you're fallaciously backtracking over that assertion because you have no evidence to support it, but evidence on the contrary.

    Also, that is tautological to say that 'illogical arguments' make 'no sense.'
    There is no evidence that stunning gives less pain. Evidence based just on pure science isn't enough to determine whether the animal does with less pain or not. Scientist don't know much about death and the nature if it. Some scientist are not even sure if a soul exists or not. No one had died and then come back to say how it feels. Its not like the animals dies and comes back alive to say; 'oh that felt less painful than when I died with without stunning'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    So, not sure if you have remotely any experience of slaughtering animals. It's not a nice process non-halal or hallal. To be herded roughly on mass before being electrocuted or banged on the head before having your throat cut is not a good experience. For me the whole debate about what is more humane is a largely academic, funding futile PhDs. If you really cared you would become vegetarian, or indeed vegan. Any of course the whole topics leads to veiled racism and religious prejudice.
    I personally believe that having a religious exemption for something society has deemed unethical isn't acceptable and the academics have shown it causes additional suffering for some animals, for those reasons alone I think it should be banned. However I do agree with you that the general meat eater who is passionately anti halal is in complete denial about standard slaughter and think if they use the word 'humane' enough to describe it then it must be so.

    For those people I'd invite them to watch this footage filmed undercover in 8 randomly selected uk abattoirs (none religious) - it's obviously contains scenes of animal slaughter so viewer discretion is advised - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TFdHAnpTYI . It clearly shows the worst but malpractice in abattoirs in my experience is not unusual. Notice how stunning equipment is actually often used as a weapon against animals. There are a lot of problems in the farming/slaughter industry and religious slaughter is only a part of it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    There is no evidence that stunning gives less pain. Evidence based just on pure science isn't enough to determine whether the animal does with less pain or not. Scientist don't know much about death and the nature if it. Some scientist are not even sure if a soul exists or not. No one had died and then come back to say how it feels. Its not like the animals dies and comes back alive to say; 'oh that felt less painful than when I died with without stunning'.
    No. The evidence is based on using ECG's to monitor the pain signals in animals brains while they are slaughtered. With stunning there are no pain signals, without stunning the signals can be measured for sometimes over two minutes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    No. The evidence is based on using ECG's to monitor the pain signals in animals brains while they are slaughtered. With stunning there are no pain signals, without stunning the signals can be measured for sometimes over two minutes.
    An animal can suffer when it loses its soul. It doesn't have to be all about neurones.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    There is no evidence that stunning gives less pain. Evidence based just on pure science isn't enough to determine whether the animal does with less pain or not. Scientist don't know much about death and the nature if it. Some scientist are not even sure if a soul exists or not. No one had died and then come back to say how it feels. Its not like the animals dies and comes back alive to say; 'oh that felt less painful than when I died with without stunning'.
    That's not how it works :rolleyes:

    The electrical pain signals to the brain are monitored. You compare the electrical pain signals to the brain when an animal is stunned and slaughtered, to the signals when an animal is slaughtered consciously. It's always significantly less for the former because stunning disrupts neurotransmitters and consequently nerve impulses.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    An animal can suffer when it loses its soul. It doesn't have to be all about neurones.
    Lol

    Prove animals have souls
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    An animal can suffer when it loses its soul. It doesn't have to be all about neurones.
    Pain is a neurological response and we don't need to resort to hocus pocus and superstitious nonsense to understand it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h3isenberg)
    Lol

    Animals dont have souls
    And how do you know?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 14, 2015
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.