A cow, unperturbed, in her natural state, as nature would have it.
Editor’s Note: People in the animal rights movement long ago advanced the slogan: “Meat is Murder”. It was designed to shock a largely indifferent and willfully ignorant public into recognizing that the eating of animals is not a normal thing, no matter how we wash the matter and our consciences, that it involves very much the involuntary, painful death—for our pleasure or convenience— of a creature who has as much a right to live on this earth as any of us.
Some people will never change, and we understand that. But we do hope that the arguments presented here by Dr. Abelow, along with the video (courtesy of Mercy for Animals), will make those who read this piece think twice before continuing unperturbed with the habit of eating animals. Simply put, it’s ethically wrong, and since we’re not tigers, lions or crocodiles, and we do have many choices, quite unnecessary. What’s more, eating animals is not only an ethical question of great importance; it’s also an ecological issue. Factory farms are today one of the biggest—if not the biggest—contributors to climate change, and all that this dreadful shift in the planet’s temperatures entail. In any case, after examining this article, and watching the images on this video, ask yourself honestly: are these animal rights activists so extreme? Are they so unreasonable? And, isn’t meat just a fancy name for murder?—Patrice Greanville
The reality of meat-eating
By Benjamin Abelow, M.D.
New Marlborough, Massachusetts
A recent lead story in The Berkshire Eagle on the ammonia-treated hamburger filler known as “pink slime” drew attention to the integrity of our food supply [“Meat markets’ pink boon,” April 4, 2012]. But as consumers, we need to ask a basic question: Where does hamburger come from and, ethically or otherwise, is pink slime really any worse than the meat itself? Continue reading »
Did you like this? Share it: