Animal Rights/Animal Rights Q's from The Other Side
Mitzi wrote at 2012-06-22 00:14:43
Tina..I appreciate your response. The questioner obviously had a chip on her shoulder and expressed HER opinion first rather than just asking a question. This format is not a chat room...she (he) should just asked you about artificial insemination...
You can also quote Thoreau and Schweitzer..."A nation is judged on how it treats its animals", (paraphrase) and so on..Keep up the good work!
Karin wrote at 2013-07-13 22:28:23
@Mitzi: You clearly did not understand my intentions. You seem to be one to read my response in a biased manner, rather than as an unbiased one. I did not have a chip on my shoulder when asking about such questions. Yes I expressed my opinion, because that was something I needed to get out of the way first to show where I stood. In no way was this format even close to being a chat-room...Mitzi I have no idea where you got that sort of insight from.
I suggest you fully re-read the correspondence between Tina and I before you spite me of indifference and arrogance again.
Karin wrote at 2013-07-13 23:34:42
Though I respect your opinion, as there's nothing wrong with expressing your views like me and mine, however I have to counter what you had pointed out.
Artificial insemination does not, by itself, manipulate animals, but the events leading up to the action of artificial insemination may be considered, by you, as such. These methods are "heat synchronizing" which is injecting females with a luteinizing (sp?) hormone to alter their estrus activity. Unnatural, yes, but the whole of agriculture is unnatural. LH in itself is a hormone naturally found in females, and though often a synthetic version is used, it does not harm the animals.
AI can be costly if improper techniques are used, resulting in more open (unbred) females than what is needed. It is cheaper, but in the sense of keeping and looking after a potentially dangerous bull--a testosterone-hyped, no-fear-of-humans, I'm-the-boss-of-all-you-humans-and-you-know-it kind of dangerous bull. But does it keep the cow continually impregnated, I highly disagree with that. AI is often only a one-time deal. Once the cow is bred, that's it, she's bred, no need to keep putting frozen bull semen into her. Also, majority of dairy cows (beef cows too) get a break of around two to three months after calving so that their uterus will involute--or shrink back to normal size--before being bred again. That should not be considered being "impregnated continually" at all.
A lot of dairy farms don't remove the baby right away because there's no need. One or two days is best because right after the cow gives birth she starts producing colostrum which is crucial for her calf's health, and produces it for a couple of days before she starts producing "regular" milk. Indeed it is the very liquid produced to feed her baby, but the thing you don't seem to understand is that those cows produce way too much milk for that one calf to sustain itself on. One dairy cow can easily produce enough milk to feed four calves at one time. And all cows usually birth one calf at a time, rarely two. So, what would you do with all that extra milk? It would be a real waste to throw it away. So why not use it or give it to a species that has made it a privilege and a luxury to be able to make such a precious liquid a part of the daily meal?
It's the same question I'm going to bring up (and I know you've thought about mentioning) with the dairy business: What do you do with all those male calves that have no use to the dairy farm? What genius solution can you and other vegans/ARAs come up with that will "save" these calves from having to be killed for meat? So far I haven't gotten any response, so I guess the only really useful thing we can use them for is for veal and rennet for making cheese. Animals were put on this earth for man to use in some form or other. Just like other animals were meant to be used and exploited by other animals that are not humans. It's just Nature, and quite natural. So why question something that you claim is unnatural then turn around and ignore what Nature is really all about? That's what I don't understand or get about ARAs.
Karin wrote at 2013-07-13 23:59:50
RE:Nature and Eating Meat
Once again, your opinion is valued. Unfortunately for you, so is mine. That's why I have to vehemently disagree with your statement, "Animals were not meant to be eaten, period." The problem with this statement, as I mentioned at the last of the 2nd response to my "question," is that you ignore what Nature is all about. It is a governing stance of the Natural Order that animals were
meant to be eaten. Your reasoning behind this statement is a fallacy. Nature thrives on such things in the natural world, such as mass breeding, mass production and mass slaughter, as it is natural to have a large group of animals in their natural habitat to be breeding all at once, and just as natural for a large group of animals to feast on an even larger group of animals. No different with other living beings, such as plants and protozoa. It's just brought ever more to our attention because of the more unnatural way that humans carry out such processes with more man-made structures and stationary places called "farms."
Saying that "we were supposed to be their friends, guardians, etc." also shows you are un-insightful, uneducated and ignorant about the natural world. You are telling me that humans are supposed to be animal's friends or guardians when this just simply does not work out in the natural world. Yes, I've heard of animals that are otherwise enemies becoming great friends and living in peaceful co-existence with each other, but that's because humans enabled it that way. With humans out of the equation, these animals in the wild would be out to defend themselves or kill each other. A human in survival mode would make it a death-sentence if he tried to befriend a wild animal that is more keen on survival than becoming pals with another species that is out there to compete instead of unite. Leading back to the acknowledgement that different species of animals can befriend each other, this is only because they are not focused on survival: there is no survival--no need for it at all, quite frankly--because all their needs in terms of food, water and shelter are met. They no longer need to kill or compete for food, water, shelter or even space because they already have what they need as that served to them by humans. Actually I think these animals exploit the compassionate side of the human to get these very things!!
Eating meat is not the sole reason for our health crisis. Once again, ignorance and lack of education is at play when you mention this. There are much bigger factors, such as laziness, access to better technology, imbalanced meal plans which grossly oversizes the amount of meat and dairy we need to get everyday into what we want
on a daily basis, far better access to factory-prepared foods or "TV dinners," intolerance to exercising and physical activity (blame the video games and computers), among many other things. Oh yeah, I also forgot to mention many, many foods vastly exceed our daily recommendations for the amount of sugar, salt and fat we need. Foods with these three ingredients are highly addictive foods, and such foods--which are much easily accessed due to their lower cost compared to more wholesome foods--are what make us fat, sick, poor and otherwise unhealthy.