Ohio's governor and HSUS

The guvmint is in WAY more stuff than it needs to be. This is one.

Not saying it is a good thing, just that the guvmint should not be involved.
And don't get me started on PETA.....

__________________
Roger

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. I would prefer to live in a state that believes in the sanctity of life and will protect all creatures from abuse. The way a human values other forms of life is a window into his/her moral character.

You need to educate yourself on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare.
Then you need to educate yourself on the goals of the leadership of the HSUS.
Then you need to ask yourself why on earth you would trust a group whose goal is the end of all animal/human interface to be in charge of your states agriculture laws.

__________________
Deja Moo; The feeling I've heard this bull before.

All domestic animals are raised confined. Just some are contained in a larger area than others. Nothing wrong with that, the people have to eat and not many can raise their own. Many hobby farmers cannot raise enough for themselves much less feed others.

See these web sites for background on HSUS and related groups:

http://activistcash.com/organization...-united-states

http://activistcash.com/organization...ent-of-animals

http://HumaneWatch.org

http://www.google.com/search?q=evil%20HSUS

http://www.google.com/search?q=vegan+HSUS

http://www.google.com/search?q=pets%...-site:hsus.org

__________________
SugarMtnFarm.com -- Pastured Pigs, Poultry, Sheep, Dogs and Kids

I assume you you are refering to the Bible. If you are then I would refer you to the passages that deal with how we should treat animals. God obviously has a heart for them and how they are treated. I would say that banning cruel practices lines up very well with scripture. God had no problem banning cruel practices now did He?

Ethically means the pig or cow or chicken or sheep or goat or rabbit I eat got to live it's life as naturally and happily as possible. The eat what the are made to eat, they live in as much comfort as possible, they are treated like living breathing animals who have needs and feelings, not like little machines to be crammed in wire cages and force fed whatever crap is currently cheap and in vogue just so they can roll out an egg a day or a couple of gallons of milk or some piglets.

Yes I do pay more for my meat when I buy it. I buy from people I know, that I hang out with and whose farms I have visited.

Interesting turning it into a "choice" issue. I am not dictating that anyone eat less meat. They may have to rearrange their budgets and pay a little more but nobody will die of eating less meat. Heck they may even actually live longer and healthy lives!

You are obviously working with a new and interesting definition of "Democracy", last time I checked it meant the people get to vote for everything, not "qualified respresentatives" get to make decisions for we the ignorant. I think most people would consider this a win for Democracy.....

Ok I actually went and read the HSUS press release and I think you may want to re-word your post. You are correct this was a loss for Democracy because instead of allowing the measure to go on the ballot to be voted on by everyone in Ohio the decision was made by a few people at the top to avoid letting the people vote on it. Which is not right.

I cannot let this go unanswered. I do not know Lyra's position on the issue of the sanctity of human life, so this is a more general response rather than specific to Lyra, as, I repeat, I have no idea of Lyra's position on human life.

You read this type of moralizing all the time when issues of animal welfare are discussed, and it seems to ignore how we do or do not value the sanctity of human life. So does protecting all creatures from abuse include unborn human beings? Last I checked, abortion was legal in my state and OH, so... where's all the care and compassion for the baby people being taken apart with surgical instruments without benefit of anesthesia? Seems very, very abusive to me. I think based on a standard of valuing life, the entire United States of America is doing a really bad job of it. No surprise that animals would be abused as well.

__________________
The three divine teachers of man: worldly calamity, bodily ailment, and unmerited enmity, and there is but through God alone a deliverance from them. Maine Farmer's Almanac

It isnt inherently cruel to keep an animal captive just by virtue of its DNA. Sorry but if I cant have my fox and serval then you shouldnt be allowed to have a housecat or dog. The "domestic" cat is only domestic by title. Just because some people do not understand or desire a species doesnt mean I should be told I cant care for it.

I do not support abortion. I believe we should respect the value of every life form.

double post

Meat should cost whatever it costs to humanely raise and slaughter the animals. If people have to eat less of it then so be it - there's nothing in the Constitution that guarantees the right to eat cheap meat.

__________________
I'm not easy to live with, I know that it's true. You're no picnic either baby...

Don Henley

I knew what I was saying... and I'm not working with a new definition. My comment was not about democracy so much as that we allowed a misinformed public who only knew what they heard for a few weeks before the ballot. They were swayed by slick ad campaigns who only told a decietful side of the story. HSUS is not about animal protection so much as it is about political (leftist) power grabbing.

BTW.... We are a constitutional REPUBLIC not a democracy. That's why we elect representitives that we are supposed to be able to trust to do the right legislating for us.

If you want me to quote scripture so we can have a basis for discussion I can... but what I would really like to know is the answer to the Ethics questions. Please excuse me for repeating myself but...

Who's ethics are we to abide by in our animal protection laws?

Who's ethics, Mine, Yours, or someone elses?

Who gets to decide on these ethics?

These are the important questions that affect laws and how they are enacted and enforced.

Ohio's Issue 2 was not about cost. It was, and is, about commitees of various groups to dictate to anyone with livestock how they should treat their animals.

The fallacy of this whole business is the ASSUMPTION that the animals are being mistreated. It seems that certain groups with a leftist political agenda want to take the rare exception of some animal being malnurished or <insert sensational sob story> and impose all sorts of controls on liberty loving citizens.

People who raise animals for their own consumption and perhaps for local markets inherently have every reason to treat animals very well. But that's not of much concern to bureaucrats with their golden parachutes provided by the public treasury. LIMIT GOVERNMENT before they limit YOU!

And on this 234th Independance Day.... LET FREEDOM RING!!!

We the people ultimately decide on these ethics and they are influenced by our personal worldviews. My ethics are influenced by the fact I am a Christian and by the Bible. Another Americans may be influenced by the fact they are Buddhist or by a wide assortment of things. In the end it is majority rules.

Oh for goodness sakes! I seem to remember that being a good argument for slave owning too.......

Interesting that you would bring up slavery. Animals are not human beings. The HSUS is using animals and an emotional appeal for ends that have to do with the enslavement of human beings to the control of a certain ideology. As best I can determine from the direction of their efforts in recent years, HSUS wants to end all keeping of animals, hunting and possession of firearms by private individuals. Talk about slavery... Issues around children, "education," family, sexual proclivities, weather and natural disasters are all used as excuses to "protect" some group or resource. That "protection" or "safety" for whatever issue is just another front for control - have you not noticed there is ALWAYS something being stirred up that just has to have government step in and make it safe? or prevent abuse? And each step toward greater "safety" includes more intrusion into our private lives? This is real and it's really happening.

BTW, HSUS gets a C- rating from the American Institute for Philanthropy and the AIP notes on its website that HSUS will not provide AIP its standard list of documents for evaluation of a charity's use of funds. HSUS has over $100 million. It operates zero animal shelters and spends tens of millions on advertising for initiatives that were not brought forward by the people of the targeted state. In the county we lived in before we moved here, we passed tougher animal cruelty laws with a grass roots effort that cost very little, and we didn't lie to donors to do it. HSUS appears to be something it is not.

__________________
The three divine teachers of man: worldly calamity, bodily ailment, and unmerited enmity, and there is but through God alone a deliverance from them. Maine Farmer's Almanac

My only point with slavery was that the same talking point was used: slave owners wouldn't mistreat their slaves because they were too vaulable. It was a load of hokeum then and it is now too for animals. Animals are cheap and they are used up and are born, live and die in misery. So in a lot of ways the 2 arguments have much in common.

I don't think animals on on the same level as humans and within certain bounds human life always has to come first. That does not mean human comfort or greed comes first though.