Animals have a right to life, too
I have no doubt that Wendy Warren reared her "livestock" – why not say animals? – "to the highest standards" ("Emotive views on factory farming", Mailbox, May 3).
It is mainly through the determination of animal welfare organisations that many cruel practices and appalling conditions have been revealed. Many of these organisations promote vegetarianism. Others consider that the only way to rear animals for food humanely is for people to reduce their meat consumption and pay more for it.
Even if animals are reared and slaughtered more humanely their most basic interest is no different from ours – to continue to live.
All animals reared for food are slaughtered at a young age. Organically-reared pigs are killed at four to five months for pork, lambs between three to 10 months and organic poultry at 18 weeks. Organic beef is slaughtered at 12 to 16 months. Ethically produced milk still requires cows to be in an almost continual cycle of pregnancy with their offspring taken from them after 24 to 72 hours. Six thousand new-born males are culled on organic dairy farms every year.
Do we have the right to bring life into the world only to end it prematurely? Is a human's right to eat meat of greater importance than an animal's right to live, especially as meat is not necessary for our survival?
Unfortunately, the trend is for greater intensification in animal farming in order to provide affordable food for an increasing population.
Although a plan for an industrialised dairy was withdrawn, there are plans for a 250,000 pig factory farm. In 2012 battery cages should be replaced across Europe by "enriched" cages. Although there is some cursory "environmental enrichment", they are still cages.
No matter how animals are reared for meat, milk or eggs, animal suffering occurs.
The only way to reduce animal suffering is to consume fewer animal products. The only way to eliminate it is to follow a plant-based diet.
Mrs Elizabeth Allison, Aylestone.







18 Comments
View all
by jon, aylestone
Sunday, May 08 2011, 8:48PM
“You are forgetting Opinion8ed that for hundreds of years we in this country did slaughter animals to eat ourselves....pigs, sheep, chickens, you name it, someone lucky enough to own an animal would dispatch it his or herself. It was certainly of limited availability due to cost and the high energy inputs needed to raise meat, but when you live on a meat free diet most of the time a chicken or other animal was a treat and not to be wasted. And no squeamishness either. It is the excessive availability of calories for the last 100 years that has permitted certain people to develop "morals" about right-to-life etc...it's nothing to do with a conscience, just having a full belly.
Take away all easy food sources to a population and people would be eating their pets at the drop of a hat. It happened during the 1950s in the great chinese famine, and that was just 60 years ago. People got so hungry they ate each other's children. Anyone can proseletize about the right and wrongs of meat eating when you have no concerns about where the next meal is coming from.
So yes, as you say, if I want to eat meat I;ll go ahead. And if you want to be a vegetarian you go ahead. I don't actively encourage vegetarians to take up meat eating, so why the control-freakery from people like Ms Allison try to encourage vegetarianism?
P.s. Gillian, having owned a cat for the last 10 years I don't think you can justify the "let's hope you never get a puppy/kitten" comment. Quite silly. And yes, actually, the right to life is by definition determined by which animals I chose to eat. i.e. I choose to eat meat, this necessarily entails ending an animals life, ergo I exercise my right to end an animals right. With that goes certain responsibilities, but as a member of the species at the top of the food chain....that is my right! Lions etc at the top of their respective food chains exercise their rights too....just without the responsibilities”
by Opinion8ed, Oadby
Sunday, May 08 2011, 7:28PM
“@jon aylestone. Whose is the lazy argument now? What pride of lions has access to cheese and tomato pizzas, nut roasts or beans? Of course they kill flippin' zebras. It is that or starve. We have been gifted with consciousness and a conscience and to some of us that means our appetites do not necessarily justify killing. You want to eat meat go ahead but I stand by the fact that most, if they had to slaughter their own, would opt for a veggie diet.”
by Gillian, Leicester
Sunday, May 08 2011, 3:49PM
“Sorry I meant 'jon' I dont know where I got Lee from LOL”
by Gillian, Leicester
Sunday, May 08 2011, 3:47PM
“Jon, Aylestone to say no animal has a right to life is wrong. Everything has a right to life the same as you although for some this right will be taken from them. Lets hope you never obtain a puppy/kitten etc as that would have no right to life or do you save that view for whatever species you decide to eat. The lion/Zebra argument holds no water and in fact adds weight to my argument...If you had to kill your own animals would you do it...I suspect you would Lee but thousands of others wouldn't...”
by m, le3
Sunday, May 08 2011, 1:22PM
“"I have no moral compunction against slaughtering an animal to eat" - and I am sure that is the case for many meat eaters, but not necessarily all. Meat is not just another commodity - hunters and farmers have a lot of respect for the animals that they kill or breed to be killed. Anyone that eats meat should have the same respect, whether their meat comes packaged and processed for them, or not.”
by jon, aylestone
Sunday, May 08 2011, 10:37AM
“"I do understand what the people who are anti-meat eating are saying about slaughter. Basically if you genuinely feel too squeamish at the prospect of killing something then should you really be hiring contract killers to do your dirty work"
That's quite a lazy arguement put forward by vegetarians though. If you feel squeamish about unblocking your own drains then should you really be hiring professionals to do the job? Far better to go in your garden.
It has nothing to do with squeamishness, it is due to economies of scale, health and safety, skills and experience, safe disposal of non-edible parts and fluids.....I have no moral compunction against slaughtering an animal to eat, I just suspect the first few animals I hone my skills on will suffer unncessarily as I do not have the equipment or knowledge to perform the task responsibly. Nor could I guarantee that the contents of the alimentary canal would not contaminate the meat due to clumsy gutting.
Ms Allison actually shows great resentment to those who have made an informed choice to eat meat, yet becuase that choice does not match her own she is intolerant and lecturing.....trying to force her will upon adults as though they were uneducated, unruly children.
Will it ultimately a difference? No.
Is it an obnoxious and objectionable attempt at control? Yes
But that doesn't seem to stop her.
No animal has a right to life. Tell a zebra being eaten alive by a pack of lions that, really, his right to life is greater than the lion's right to eat meat and I am sure Ms Allison will find the zebra in total agreement! The lions may offer her a different opinion though.”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Saturday, May 07 2011, 8:53PM
“@Arden,
I hope you are on about livestock... ;)”
by Arden, Braunstone
Saturday, May 07 2011, 8:43PM
“Google advert on right:
Well Hung Organic Meat”
by Opinion8ed, Oadby
Saturday, May 07 2011, 8:38PM
“I do understand what the people who are anti-meat eating are saying about slaughter. Basically if you genuinely feel too squeamish at the prospect of killing something then should you really be hiring contract killers to do your dirty work. Seriously, if it was slaughter a beast or open a tin of beans which would it be? I think I know the answer.”
by CGLee, near Melton
Saturday, May 07 2011, 7:54PM
“I knew just from the title of this letter who had written it! When will Ms Allison realise that all her crusading will not change the meat eating habits of one single reader?”