Horse Slaughter Terrorists Never Ponyed-Up
RT Fitch and I each placed $1,000 on the table as an award to anyone who can prove that equine slaughter has a basis in need other that sticking money in the pockets of the pro-slaughter crowd. Without fail, the customary propaganda spewed forth like sewage from an overflowing cesspool. Not a single statement held any factual backing. Several tried to turn the tables, challenging us to provide the answer to, “Why not?” Nor was a word uttered on this blog by the high and mighty “authorities,” although some person named “Wallis,” who thinks she is a leader of some sort, did post on several other blogs that I was an idiot and should be “investigated.”
Meanwhile, I was proud to have a large number of comments posted against horse slaughter by this who see through the fallacies, lies and misdirections. One person, Faith Bjalobok, PhD, asked if I would like to post one of her articles that fit perfectly and answers the question about the proven “Facts” on horse slaughter. I am honored to present it to you:
There is much debate about the best way to deal with horses whose owners no longer seem to have any desire to care for them. In terms of the solutions proposed by horse owners there are those who support slaughter and those who oppose it. Group A who view horses are mere property much in the same way one views a farm tractor tend to be pro-slaughter. Group B who view their horses as a part of their extended family believe they have a moral obligation to care for them in their old age and tend to oppose slaughter.
Currently there are no operating horse slaughter facilities in the United States. American horses destined to be slaughter are shipped to Canada or Mexico. It is estimated that about 95,000 horses annually are shipped to slaughter (Animal Law Coalition).
The proponents of opening U.S. horse slaughter facilities employ numerous informal fallacies as the cornerstone of their position. In relying on the fallacy of hasty generalization, they label all anti-slaughter people as animal rights extremists. In employing the slippery slope fallacy, they would have you believe that banning horse slaughter will inevitable lead to the end of all agriculture in the United States. Pro-slaughter arguments also tend to rely heavily on the naturalistic fallacy (it is the case therefore it ought to be the case). Although polls indicate that nearly 70% of Americans polled are against horse slaughter, Wyoming State Rep. Sue Wallis and her supporters claim they are taking the moral high ground in their fight to bring horse slaughter back to the U.S. The Animal Welfare Institute lists organizations and individuals opposed to horse slaughter. Included on the list of those opposed are such equine industry giants as the American Thoroughbred Association, Blue Horse Charities and the New York Racing Association.
Currently, two states California and Florida have adopted laws that make the sale or transport of horse for slaughter a crime. HR 503 (Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act) awaiting a vote would place a federal ban on the purchase or transportation of horses for slaughter.
There is a much larger issue at stake in the horses slaughter debate that says a great deal about who we are as Americans. Ronald Dworkin (1986) argues that while justice and fairness are distinct from the law integrity in the law requires that the law reflect justice and fairness. He also argued that integrity in the law requires citizens who are committed to justice (Dowrkin, 1986 ).
Justice is not something that occurs in a state of nature but rather it is a human construct that exists only in human society. While some societies actually place great value on justice others value justice only when its implementation is cost effective. The question then becomes why is it the case that some societies have a greater propensity to value justice than others. This discussion is not new and can first be found in Plato’s Republic.
In terms of the 18th century thinkers upon which our political system is built, the writings of Immanuel Kant hold a place of distinction. Kant addressed that very question concerning justice in his Lectures on Ethics and in the Metaphysics of Morals. Kant did not believe that we have direct duties to animals because they are not, according to his definition of person as a rational being, part of the moral community. However, he believed that we have indirect duties to animals because Kant like Hogarth and many other thinkers believed that cruelty to animals undermines our own humanity and leads to cruelty to humans.
Click (HERE) to Read the Rest
- Congress Considering Ending Horse Slaughter Once And For All (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Trucker tells chilling account of driving horses to slaughter (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Horse Trainer Sold Over 100 Horses To Canadian Slaughter House (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Texas Mayor Paula Bacon Kicks Some Horse Slaughter Tail (rtfitchauthor.com)
- The $2,000.00 Horse Slaughter Challenge (rtfitchauthor.com)
- America’s Youth Appeal to Obama to End Horse Slaughter (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Treachery of Congressional Horse Slaughter Cabal Exposed in Ad Campaign (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Horses Aren’t The Only Victims (rtfitchauthor.com)
- Congress considers ending horse slaughter for human consumption: please contact your congresspeople (our-compass.org)
- From the Mouths of Babes the Horses are Saved (rtfitchauthor.com)