Comments on: Confessions of a Meat Eater

By: chicken herd theologian

chicken herd theologian — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 16:49:53 +0000

i agree that the word humanely doesn’t quite fit. what i’d like to say is treat animal “animally” or “like animals” but that doesn’t seem to work so well either because it implies “do whatever you want to animals.” i do see a hierarchy in God’s creation whereby animal life and human life do not/should not carry the same value. if it were to be a choice between an animal’s life and a human’s life, human life trumps all others.

animals should not be treated like humans, but they should be treated with caring regard for the needs specific to their species.

thanks for checking in, ashli.

By: ashli

ashli — Wed, 06 Jun 2007 18:47:10 +0000

I know that the Whole Foods and Sprouts grocery stores in our area carry free-range animal products, so I have that resource and should use it. It should be that easy for me, but most of the time I end up going to the grocery store closest to my house.

I do think it’s a little funny to talk about treating animals “humanely”, but i do like that in the article Puck talks about “responsible ranchers and farmers.” Like you said, God put Adam in charge of the animals and we know that His plan was for Adam (and us) was/is to be responsible for them. To me that doesn’t mean to me not to eat them. And in addition to the responsibility part, the free-range products seem to be proven healthier for us. That seems like a more whole aproach to me…good for the animals…good for us.

By: chicken herd theologian

chicken herd theologian — Mon, 07 May 2007 03:39:33 +0000

Mike,

Your points (a & b) are both valid. As I ponder the whole issue I’m asking myself the same questions. Thanks for writing them down. Maybe someone else has some suggestions?

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 07 May 2007 02:42:22 +0000

I had this whole reply written and by the time I got to the end of it, I didn’t really agree with what I was saying…or to put it more accurately, I may have agreed with what I had written, but it didn’t really have anything to do with what this post is saying! I blame it on the end-of-semester papers and finals.

Anyway, great thoughts, I’m not sure exactly how one could a) find out how our meat is raised and b) avoid all forms of maltreatment without actually abstaining from meat. And let’s face it, those vegetables are getting a raw deal too; talk about being raised just to be consumed! A friend of mine is a vegetarian; her email signature is this quote from some other really witty person: “I’m not a vegetarian because I love animals. I’m a vegetarian because I hate plants.” I thought that was hysterical! Anywho, great fodder for thought, thanks!

By: sprocket23

sprocket23 — Sat, 05 May 2007 13:22:56 +0000

I agree completely, as always. I like the way you put it about the bookends of the narrative being vegetarian. We were free to eat of any tree in the Garden (with that one exception), but after Noah gets off the ark God allows us to eat meat. So, there is nothing wrong with being a meat-eater (and, conversely, absolutely nothing wrong with being a vegetarian).
But, I gots to agree with you: we can eat meat in a more responsible way, eschewing forms that involve mistreatment and waste.
The problem is going to be changing the system. To feed as many of us as we are we have to have a industrial form of providing meat; if we knew what went into getting that steak to our Outback, I doubt many of us would eat nearly as much meat. Ironically, it is the hunter who takes his meal from an animal who has lived in the wild and died suddenly and then eaten completely that is the most eco-friendly. Good discussion, and something we should all think about the next time we sit down to eat!