3 ms·
If it's to put an animal out of misery when there's no way of treating an injury or illness surely it qualifies. But I agree the word "humane" gets somewhat ab
by wizofaus 4y ago
If it's to put an animal out of misery when there's no way of treating an injury or illness surely it qualifies.
But I agree the word "humane" gets somewhat abused when applied to situations where animals are more useful to us dead than alive. I don't mind "cruelty free", and that really should be a minimal criteria for how we treat other species.
- boston_clone 4y agoI should have added a qualifier for humane slaughter in regards to meat processing. Yes, there are times when euthanasia may be appropriate - but it’s tough still to mete out the morality when no intent or consent is communicated, no? Most “cruelty free” labeling is also farcical, unfortunately. The amount of suffering involved with animal agriculture is repulsively shocking when fully grasped, and difficult to unsee unless willful ignorance takes the proverbial wheel.