Denmark bans ritual slaughter, upsetting Jews and Muslims

[Tonington]

Denmark is now the sixth European nation to ban ritual slaughter. Muslims and Jews seem most upset that they weren't in discussion with the government before this ban was announced.

Denmark Just Banned All Kosher And Halal Meats, Leaving Jews And Muslims Outraged | Elite Daily

 

[Liberalman]

Ritual slaughter or traditional slaughter it's still killing but it just shows that animal rights activists are really a mixed up bunch like most animal rights activists are pro abortionists. This means Fluffy's rights are more important than baby Jane's rights.

 

[taxslave]

Ritual slaughter or traditional slaughter it's still killing but it just shows that animal rights activists are really a mixed up bunch like most animal rights activists are pro abortionists. This means Fluffy's rights are more important than baby Jane's rights.

You are an idiot.

 

[Liberalman]

You are an idiot.

A lot of tax dollars go into killing babies I am surprised that you support the wasting of hard earned money

 

[Tonington]

You are an idiot.

Lol, blunt, like a good stunning blow!

 

[Machjo]

Denmark is now the sixth European nation to ban ritual slaughter. Muslims and Jews seem most upset that they weren't in discussion with the government before this ban was announced.

Denmark Just Banned All Kosher And Halal Meats, Leaving Jews And Muslims Outraged | Elite Daily

Nothing would be stopping them to go vegetarian.

What's ironic though is that slaughter by exsanguination is sometimes less painful to the animal than other methods, so clearly this has nothing to do with any kind of consideration for the animal. If I ate meat and wanted to reduce the suffering of the animal, I'd rather eat halal.

 

[taxslave]

A lot of tax dollars go into killing babies I am surprised that you support the wasting of hard earned money

lot more go into raising an unwanted and neglected child.
What has abortion got to do with the OP? Or are you trying to derail the thread from the start?

 

[Tonington]

Nothing would be stopping them to go vegetarian.

What's ironic though is that slaughter by exsanguination is sometimes less painful to the animal than other methods, so clearly this has nothing to do with any kind of consideration for the animal. If I ate meat and wanted to reduce the suffering of the animal, I'd rather eat halal.

The issue is with exsanguinating before or after the animal is stunned.

 

[Liberalman]

lot more go into raising an unwanted and neglected child.
What has abortion got to do with the OP? Or are you trying to derail the thread from the start?

I just responded to your comment Taxslave and this has to do with slaughter of animals both human and other types

 

[Goober]

Bet this is off to the EU Courts. Which will overturn the laws.

 

[Liberalman]

Bet this is off to the EU Courts. Which will overturn the laws.

If they do that the EU might crumble just because this is a domestic issue

 

[Tonington]

Bet this is off to the EU Courts. Which will overturn the laws.

It's been the law in Sweden, since 1937. Poland did so last year, and the Constitutional Court threw out an amendment which would have allowed the Jewish and Muslim communities to do so under religious freedoms.

 

[Machjo]

The issue is with exsanguinating before or after the animal is stunned.

Why would anyone stun it after exsanguination. It would already be dead.

Now as for stunning it before hand, why would you want to do that when stunning can cause more trauma than exsanguination.

I'm not denying that the animal likely suffers at least in some cases through exsanguination, but stunning only increases the chance of trauma.

 

[Sal]

Why would anyone stun it after exsanguination. It would already be dead.

Now as for stunning it before hand, why would you want to do that when stunning can cause more trauma than exsanguination.

I'm not denying that the animal likely suffers at least in some cases through exsanguination, but stunning only increases the chance of trauma.

no they slit it's throat first and then they stun it, it is still alive at that point

 

[Machjo]

no they slit it's throat first and then they stun it, it is still alive at that point

Slitting its throat is exsanguination. It loses consiousness pretty quickly, so what's the point of stunning if it's already unconscious?

 

[Tonington]

Why would anyone stun it after exsanguination. It would already be dead.

'Exsanguinating' is what I said. It's a process. You can certainly stun an animal once you've severed an artery that is going to cause them to bleed to death. That's really what this whole ordeal is about. Ritual killing doesn't allow it before exsanguination, well at least the Halal version doesn't. Not sure about Kosher.

Now as for stunning it before hand, why would you want to do that when stunning can cause more trauma than exsanguination.

The trauma is kind of the point, exsanguination is trauma too. If you stun an animal properly with percussive stunning, then it is unresponsive. There is no nociception-the pain processing pathways- when the brain can't process signals. If you start to bleed an animal while it is still conscious, then it will sense the trauma of bleeding to death....from a humane standpoint there is no better method than to stun quickly and efficiently before doing anything else.

I'm not denying that the animal likely suffers at least in some cases through exsanguination, but stunning only increases the chance of trauma.

Trauma is just a physical injury caused by something external. Exsanguination is trauma. Anything you do to kill an animal will involve trauma. Trauma is not the issue, the issue is the animals awareness and processing of physical stimuli related to what is going on. Stunning before bleeding is far more humane.

 

[MHz]

A lot of tax dollars go into killing babies I am surprised that you support the wasting of hard earned money

Is that compared to the tons of money that would be spent treating (and is spent on children who were supposed to be loved) a child that grew up in a home where he was not totally loved?

 

[gerryh]

Is that compared to the tons of money that would be spent treating (and is spent on children who were supposed to be loved) a child that grew up in a home where he was not totally loved?

So, you support abortion?

 

[MHz]

For families where a child would suffer trauma, neglect and other abuses certainly. You would sentence a child and mother into something that benifits neither just because prevention of the pregnancy didn't work? If you aren't under a Doctors care you should be and the rest of your family that is would probably agree but then you don't have to listen to them do you, because there is nothing wrong with you.
Do you support child abuse or you looking for new clients for the RCC School that got shut down?

 

[gerryh]

For families where a child would suffer trauma, neglect and other abuses certainly. You would sentence a child and mother into something that benifits neither just because prevention of the pregnancy didn't work? If you aren't under a Doctors care you should be and the rest of your family that is would probably agree but then you don't have to listen to them do you, because there is nothing wrong with you.
Do you support child abuse or you looking for new clients for the RCC School that got shut down?

Good to know, murder of innocent children is no problem for you.