Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hither & Yon
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
|The human appetite for sentient protein - food that flinches - is an ethical puzzle that many of us solve by deciding not to think about it. But those who lament the exploitation of God's creatures for human consumption and fun should be careful not to spend all their pity in one place. There is, after all, a vast universe of discomfort and death in American agribusiness, which processes 9 billion chickens and 98 million pigs a year, often in close confinement, ending in slaughter on a monumental scale. Against this backdrop - not to mention the misery of the veal pen, the mass agony of the trawler net, the sadness of the pet shop and circus - the sum of animal unhappiness in Hudson Valley's tidily run operation, which kills 250,000 ducks a year, seems trivial.
What seems brutal in isolation can be mitigated in context, as any parents who have had a baby circumcised might tell you. Singling out the foie-gras duck for salvation in Albany seems unwarranted and unwise, particularly when doing so would threaten the livelihoods of farmworkers and only drive foie-gras production somewhere else.
Originally Posted by AntoninBeGonin
I hope I don't sound dumb, but I don't really understand the point the author of the article is trying to make. If mitigated means "relieved" is he saying that parents who circumcise their sons should be relieved they have done so, even if it seems painful at the time?
|Also, is it too late to send a letter?|