[Susan9608]

This thread is supposed to be dealing with free range vs. non free range farming. I'm not quite sure how it got so derailed ... but I suppose it's beyond saving now.

With regard to advocacy ... yes, everyone has to choose the level of advocacy that they are comfortable with and everyone has to choose what areas of their lives they are comfortable being advocates in. When talking about free-range farming, though, I don't think it's such a stretch to assume that we're all talking about advocacy on the same issue.

You - the collective you - could be human rights advocates ... alternative life style advocates ... workers rights advocates ... advocates of one of a thousands different causes ... but here in THIS thread the assumption, at least on my end, was that we were talking about advocacy in the form of boycotting factory farming/meat industry.

Obviously assuming that fact wasn't the best idea ... and that's something I'll certainly keep in mind in the future.

However, I do stand by what I said in regards to if you're eating meat, you're not advocating for farm animals. With very rare exceptions, terms like "free range" and "free roaming" mean very, very little. Most of the labels aren't subjected to any government regulation, and the little regulation the USDA applies is easily manipulated. For instance, "free range" animals are required to have access to the outdoors. So theoretically, a farmer could open up the door to the henhouse with thousands of chickens inside, but close it before any of them had a chance to get out, and he could *still* be considered free-range.

Is that any kinder? Any better? Aren't those animals still subjected to the same mutilation, long arduous trips to the slaughter house, and genetic manipulation as their "closed-range" counter parts? Of course they are. So really ... who benefits?

The label "organic" only means that the animals must not have been given any anti-biotics or any growth hormones. It has no bearing on the way the animals are treated.

So ... in the end, with all these different labels with inconsistent regulations, how do you decide what's most humane? And since *none* of these labels apply to the very worst cruelty involved in the animals for food industry (transport, slaughter, and bodily mutilation, such as debeaking, tail docking, ear notching, and dehorning) it remains totally unregulated.

I think stephenlawerence had an excellent point that for most people the act of doing most things is not a moral choice. Most people don't sit down to a big steak and think, "I'm making a moral choice to eat meat." The majority of people eat meat because it's a learned life style, because they're ignorant about what really happens to create their meat, and because they don't know of any alternatives.

And for some people, becoming vegan isn't necessarily a moral choice either. Some people do it for their health. I suppose that could be considered a personal moral choice ... but that seems like a bit of a stretch.

I wouldn't say veganism is the only moral choice, but it is *a* moral choice. Vegetarianism is another moral choice. And advocacy is about moral choices.

I *know* how hard it is to give up eating meat (and cheese and sour cream and ice cream and ice cream and ice cream and ice cream and did i mention ice cream?), and I have tremendous respect for people like Ly, who are slowing eating less and less meat. I consider that a great success. While she may still eat some meat, I think she makes the *moral* choice to eat less, rather than hiding behind labels that might make her conscience feel better while not really helping the animals all that much.

That's my opinion on the matter.

Of course everything has to die at some point. Wasn't it some Star Trek movie (Wrath of Khan, maybe?) that said, "Death takes place in the shadow of new light" or something like that? But there is - to me - an inherent and important ethical difference between dying of natural causes and being killed, especially if you're being murdered just to become dinner for someone else.

Many people, including myself, have said things at various times on the forum about how we need to let people die; we need to quit keeping the living dead alive. And I believe that's true. I believe those people with terminal, incapacitating illnesses and those without the capacity for quality of life should be allowed a death with dignity, rather than a prolonged artificial life.

But again, that's different then purposely cutting down the healthiest and strongest members of a society of any species, just to eat them for dinner.

(We'll just leave the killing of plants out of it, since that will rehash the whole deal about plants being alive in the same sense that animals are alive.)

No one can lead a totally blameless life; we all know that. But that doesn't mean we should give up or that we should be okay with causing suffering and/or death just because we can or just because we honor it afterwards.

Obviously, there are philosophical differences here. And that's fine. We don't all have to agree - we all *won't* agree, that much is evident. So perhaps it's just time to move on.

ETA:

Just have to touch on this ... human euthanasia is not legal in this country, at least not that I'm aware of (outside of capital punishment, which is a totally different issue and something I'm totally, totally against), but I think - from my medical perspective - that the driving force behind the idea of human euthanasia is more about allowing terminally ill human beings to have a dignified and pain-free death, than about a population control measure.