Why Agricultural Animal Cruelty is and Issue today?
Agricultural Animal Cruelty is an ongoing issue today all around the world. In the article, “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty”, Muslims are required to kill the animals by cutting their throats while the animals are conscious. Some of the animals throats were cut up to thirty-three times causing them to become distressed while laying down dying with repeated vocalizations. In Australia, the animals are being stunned with a bolt stunner causing the animals to be unconscious when their hung in order to sever the blood vessels so the animals will bleed out.
On May 30th, 2011, ABC from Australia broadcasted an investigation of the treatment Australian cattle that was being exported to Indonesia of animal cruelty. The footage included: the animals were repeatedly kicked and beaten, their tails were broken, the eyes and nostrils were gouged, they were made to slip and fall on wet concrete, and were forced to climb over fallen animals that led to the casting box. The animals were being filmed watching the other animals being abused and slaughtered right in front of them. One of the animals was abused so bad that it fell and broke one of his hind legs. Instead of being euthanized, the animal was physically abused in a vain attempt to try and make the animal stand. (pg. 871)
In the article, “Don’t Be Cruel (Anymore): A Look at the Animal Cruelty Regimes Of The United States And Brazil With A Call For A New Animal Welfare Agency”, defines cruelty to animals a malicious or criminal negligent act causing the animals to suffer pain or death. The United States enacted an anti-cruelty statue for animals so the society would exploit the animals without regard to ethical or moral consideration. Even with the statutes in place, the animals are still being mistreated and not given a second thought to the animal’s well-being. Animals are being exempt from anti-cruelty statues in many states because of their protection from these laws. The results that animals suffer have reached an almost incomprehensible scale. (pg. 2) The article compares the United States and Brazil because of their respective regimes have a global significance and impact in the agriculture and are dissimilar in the approach having similar results. Both countries do not necessarily explain the institutionalized indifference to the animals suffering but can profit clearly in serving as a driving force. (pg. 3)
The United States and Brazil recognize the need for laws that will protect the animals for cruelty but neither provides the protection for the animals within the agricultural industry. The agricultural animals are needed for food and being food is needed for life, the animals that are raised for food have been viewed as unavoidable so these suffering animals. With the anti-cruelty laws being in effect for the agricultural animals, the outlaw is usually inflicts upon the unnecessary suffering. (pg. 5) The only way an animal should be killed under the legal necessity concept is if the potential victim in protecting themselves. Anyone being attacked by an aggressive animal has the right to inflict suffering upon the attacker to avoid a potential worse income such as death. (pg. 6)
In conclusion, animal cruelty in agriculture or non-agriculture animals in unnecessary and should require some sort of punishment. The animals have feelings just like human beings and should not be tortured or suffer on the expense of humans. There is a better and much painless way animals could be put down without being beaten or having their throats cut to lie down and suffer while dying.
Work Cited
Cassutto, David N., and Cayleigh Eckhardt. “Don’t Be Cruel (Anymore): a Look at the Animal
Cruelty Regimes of the United States and Brazil with a Call for a New Animal Welfare
Agency.” Revista Juris Poiesis, vol. 21, no. 25, 2017, doi:10.5935/2448-0517.20180010.
Tiplady, Catherine M., et al. “Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.” Journal
of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 26, no. 4, 2012, 99. 869-885.,
doi:10.1007-s10806-012-9412-0.
Comments
Post a Comment