It sounds to me that Ms Friend is a clone of Alaska Governor and GOP VP candidate, Sarah Palin, who applauded the rescue of a baby Moose while drooling over mooseburgers when the baby was grown.

This is one of many reasons I've chosen to go vegetarian because people like this make me ill.

Because the blatant question begging nature of the "compassionate carnivores'" argument is manifest. It is self-defeating and hypocritical and it is these individuals who are the most passionately opposed to the ethical consistency of veganism; their self-righteousness is belied by the inherent contradictions in their own reasoning. It's infuriating.  

Consider this Jake. What if we replaced these calves with human beings. Name the reasons why that would be wrong and then you will see why this kind of reasoning is obviously born of prudence and prudence alone; not morality or any real, consistent ethical reasoning.

You do realize that this is an animal rights blog, no?

I do realize that, and if there were an animal welfare cause I would join it.  This is as close as I'll get on this site though.

@Kelly, Sorry, lol, I was skimming back down to look at replies from my comment, caught "You do realize that this is an animal rights blog, no?" and assumed it was at me.

Cole,

Please give me a call. I would like to meet with you to discuss me shooting you in the head NOW to save you from the possible slow and awful death you may experience LATER. Sound good?

Lisa

I'm not sure about slaughtering your own cows is illegal, as I found out you actually can from a few farmers, as they ship them nationwide.

Whether it is criminal or not, I would like a legal stance on this.

Anyone? Somebody?

Which is why I'm a member of this cause, despite how people like me are treated here.  You cannot stop death, but you can stop torture, even tortuous death.  And yes, I believe in human euthanasia, nobody deserves to suffer.  I believe in pulling the plug.  I don't believe we should go around killing things just so they don't have to die at the hands of something worse later, and certainly not just because their lives suck.  Lives can be made better.  But we're never going to stop death.  And we're never going to stop the gross things that happen after we die.  "... limbs hacked off, their bodies skinned, and pieces of them sold as beef and leather..."   Because rotting in the sun until your a putrid, swollen, purple and blue meat-bomb is so much less disgusting and humiliating.

"I don't believe we should go around killing things just so they don't have to die at the hands of something worse later, and certainly not just because their lives suck."

But that's exactly what this Friend woman is doing, only deferring it for a year: "beef" instead of "veal".

Cole,

Compassion like yours makes me belief that we should entertain such notions as regards all the millions of suffering and dying human animals around our world. Ought we extend this kind of "compassion" -- saving them from their "natural deaths" -- to the slowly dying in Africa? One shot to the back of the head is the preferred method?

Friend did not kill those steers just to save them from a worse death, she saved them from a bad life and a bad death THEN killed them BECAUSE she likes beef.  Unfortunately, we may never be able to communicate with animals in such a way that we could truly know how much an animal is willing to suffer before they would rather die.  But we can know how much a human is willing to suffer, which is a whole heck of a lot.  So putting the people of Africa (as if Africa is the only place in the world people die of starvation and disease) out of their misery by death is not a good solution because they would rather not die.  We know this, they can tell us.  Animals can tell us sometimes in a way we can definitely understand, but usually we can't understand, so it's best to err on the side of caution when dealing with suffering.  But there's no need to compassionately kill something when instead you can make its life better.  But making everything's lives better won't end death.  And really, we can't end all horrible deaths because things in the wild will still die of disease and at the paws of carnivores like cats and dogs.  But just as humans can choose to eat meat, they can choose to inflict suffering instead of trying to make lives better.  And we come back to my real argument which is a point people here miss.  Friend did not save the steers from a horrible death just so that she could kill them more humanely, as you think I have been suggesting, but rather she saves them from a bad life and a bad death then killed them more humanely so she could eat beef.  Which is selfish, but killing to eat always is.  I don't suggest we go around collecting all the animals of the world and putting them in giant zoos so we can make sure they always die a good death, because it's terribly impractical.  But I do think it's a good thing to save animals from the horrors other humans inflict upon them.  And I don't think eating meat is bad.  So if one is going to eat meat, we have a duty as humans to kill humanely.  Because death is not the worst thing that can happen to you.

Cole-

Can you explain to me how you kill something humanely? I don't think there are 2 separate slaughterhouses...one for evil factory farms and one for hypocritical carnivores who want a humane label slapped on their meat. Killing is killing and is done in a cruel, inhumane fashion.

When it is done quickly and without pain.  Yes, that is possible.  Tell me how a natural death by starvation, disease, drowning, heat stroke, infection, having your throat ripped open, or hypothermia is more humane than a shot to the head?  Because few animals in the wild just die peacefully in their sleep.

Are you under the impression that that's how it happens in slaughterhouses?

No, I am not, and I never claimed I agreed with the way things were done in slaughterhouses.  You people like to make the assumption that because I eat meat, and eating meat is evil, I am in league with the evil slaughterhouses that torture animals.  You put everyone who kills an animal in the same big box so that you can say we must all be stopped because we do exactly the same things.  You only hear the things you want to hear, so when someone says they want to change the way farms and slaughterhouses run so that animals live and die more humanely all you hear is "farms and slaughterhouses kill" so you can jump straight to how evil they are and how they don't care about animals.  You don't want to hear about the good things people who eat meat do, no matter what they do you will bash them.

The issue of this post is not about wild animals or mistreated farm animals. Nor is it about the broad spectrum of compromises and limits and weaknesses we must all navigate. It is about killing well treated, trusting, even loved and loving, young healthy animals and calling that "compassionate" or "rescue".

It is not surprising that you feel put upon trying to defend that, that you have to lash out at made-up caricatures of everyone else on this forum and what they say, that your rationalizations become ever more complex, contradictory, and meaningless.

What else could you do?

To begin Cole, how do you know that the Africans wouldn't prefer my solution -- or rather, the logical extension of your argument? You don't; you assume it. You must say, therefore, that A) we can make a similar assumption about nonhuman animals (i.e., autonomy is preferable to slavery) or B) it is ethically acceptable to take the Africans from their home and put them to work -- your compassion at work. "Death is not the worst thing that can happen to you" Cole...or the Africans.

What evidence do you have to support your claims about how terrible death in the wild is? Or rather, that an autonomous life doesn't negate a bad death? Are you just assuming it Cole?

Finally, we are talking about an inherent contradiction in Friends argument. She is neither a carnivore (she's an omnivore) nor is she a "compassionate rescuer." She is merely more politely treating a sentient being as a "thing."

It's like a bully who takes pity on his victim because it makes the bully feel better about himself. If he were compassionate, truly compassionate, he wouldn't unnecessarily bully; Friend wouldn't unnecessarily kill her "happy animal" if she were truly compassionate.

Don't 4 get Farm Sanctuary in NY rescues calves 2 :)

Why do your answers always come down to killing something? "Evil" is about choices. Humans can choose. Wolves can't.

Wolves are moral patients and to the best of my knowledge, obligate carnivores. Therefore, your use of the word "evil" is quite misplaced. It would be equally absurd to label a rattle snake "evil," or a human animal incapable of moral reasoning "evil" (e.g., human babies).

I would not find moral error in a lion for eating an antelope any more than I would find moral error in A) any other natural carnivore for eating from their only possible source of nutrition (i.e., flesh, by definition). Nor would I begrudge a B) human child for causing harm to another human because that human child isn't capable of understanding that Ethics place moral constraints on her actions and therefore certain things aren't allowed, ethically (i.e., she isn't a "moral agent"). Therefore, on two fronts Cole, your argument is deeply flawed. 

Then I propose we find a word specifically meaning "human carnivore" so that it's more clear what you really mean when you say no carnivore is a good carnivore.

We are not the only omnivores in the world, many other animals can get by just fine without eating meat, but do anyway.  And from what I've seen of the world, and especially what I've seen from an insider's perspective in moral and ethical philosophy, I question whether human are actually capable of moral reasoning.  In the end, I too prefer to think that we really are, and there's plenty of proof for it, but I do like to think of the possible biological reasons behind every moral decision.

That's what's so offensive about the claim of "compassionate carnivory": Friend and her ilk (e.g., Michael Pollan and Eliot Coleman) pretend to be moral agents but then plead biological necessity. We could dismiss it as obvious nonsense, except that it makes a mockery of true morality and compassion.

Their arguments justifying their way of eating other animals are infantile and self-rationalizing.

In fact, since they recognize the animals as sentient beings deserving of good pastures and comfortable beds, even giving them love, their decision that they "must" kill them anyway is all the more disturbing.

Yet, I can see the biological necessity in the moral reasoning that killing is bad.  Human have, for a long time now, been prone to over-hunting, even in times we had to get close enough the animals could kill us, we still did stupid things like driving entire herds of mammoths over cliffs as a means of hunting without putting ourselves in as much danger.  We also make a habit of seeking out other carnivores in the area to get a jump on them and kill them before they can surprise and kill us.  This has led to extinction and consequently environmental devastation.  We've been able to see how this effects the world around us, and consequently, us, for thousands of years now.  Mentally, humans are able to evolve as quickly as dogs can physically.  We've also made extinct lots of plants, but eating too many plants has more long-term and less immediately apparent consequences.  So we really only notice what happens when animals go extinct (until recently, when we discovered plants make oxygen and get rid of carbon-dioxide).  So the moral concept that killing animals is wrong, is a biological reaction to the consequences of over-hunting and what it does to our environment.  The reaction against farming animals is also for ecological reasons since too many of one animal in an area also upsets the balance.  In the end, it's still a biological need, since it's to prevent your own suffering and possible death due to the negative impact killing and farming to kill can have on the environment around you.  It is the best short-term solution for some people, but it is not necessarily the best long-term solution, and certainly doesn't work for everyone.

Why is is removed from animal slaughter?  Why are we the only things on the planet capable of "killing"?  Why can it never be humane?  I know this is all because you think death is so terrible that if you are capable of moral reasoning, which only humans are, you would do everything in your power to prevent everything you can from dying.  And the only reason other animals are allowed to kill is because they are incapable of moral reasoning and therefore cannot be held responsible for their actions.  I agree that only humans can be held accountable for their actions, because only humans are capable of moral reasoning, but I really wish someone, ANYONE, on here would just answer the question of why death is bad!  Please, anyone, I don't care if you quote me a religious text, a philosophy paper, nothing at all.  I don't care if you're a Christian saying God says it's wrong, a Buddhist saying killing is against the precept of non-harm, an Atheist saying there is no afterlife so we should live as long as possible.  Just someone on here have the guts to stand up and say why you believe this, instead of running in circles saying "it's wrong because it's wrong because it's wrong".  Because if you have no other religious or moral reason, then I have to assume it's based on logic, and as logic it is FAIL.

In my opinion (and I haven't read the other comments yet, so maybe someone already said this), death in itself is not bad. What makes killing animals bad is that the killing (causing of death) is unnessecary. We (as I and other vegans prove every day) can easily and healthfully get all the nutrients and calories we need without intentionally causing death (or, as meat-eaters do, paying someone else to cause death. I think, since we cannot comprehend animals' desires, we have to assume that as living beings, they have a desire to not die (biologically, this makes sense, right?). So who are we to kill them when we don't need to?

It's true that nobody ever said those exact things in this exact post.  What is an unnatural death, though?  Why is it that humans can never do anything naturally?  Everything we do is unnatural, apparently, except for living in the wilderness being vegans.  People seem to have this concept that human are inherently unnatural.  Why is it that when we kill something it's unnatural, but something like a bear kills something and it's natural?  Bears are omnivores that don't eat much meat, they are usually pretty well-fed on an entirely vegan diet, but they eat meat anyway.  Chimps hunt lower order primates and use their meat as a "social tool."  They choose to eat meat.

Again, who said anything about bears or chimps? This is about you. You want to eat meat -- fine. But you might as well give up trying to reconcile your claim of caring about animals and your desire to kill them to eat their corpses.

Again, that's what this post was about: hypocrisy. Extending a calf's life 1 year for "beef" is not more compassionate than raising it for "veal". Or do you think it is?

No, I do not think extending something's life one year is compassionate.  I will never give up my fight to end the suffering of animals, nor will I give up the fight against vegans who say I could never care about an animal because I eat them.  You can vilify me all you want but it will never change the fact that I do things to make life better for animals AND humans.  I know people like you, I know what you're really thinking, that humans are evil and animals are the ultimate good, that we can never be as good at the animals and the world would be better off without humans.  But humans are nothing but animals, no better and no worse.  Heck, if animals are the embodiment of all that is good then carnivorism is nothing but good.  This isn't even a true animal rights blog, I see all the pictures of people with their pets, their slaves.  You all save animals by putting them in cages, tagging them so they will always be brought back to you no matter how hard they try to get away.  They come when you call, they roll over for you, beg.  They eat whatever you give them, when you give it to them.  And then you have the nerve to call yourself better than me because you LET those animals live.  Who says they want to live with you?  Who says they wouldn't rather just die and be eaten then live another minute with you?

You are still making things up and raising other issues in an attempt to justify the blatant hypocrisy behind the claim of "compassionate carnivore".

You may be a nice guy in every other matter (I don't know you, any more than you know me or others on this forum), but you can hardly claim that killing an animal simply to eat its corpse is a compassionate act.

I never said it was a compassionate act.  All I said is that it was not an evil act.  I find it completely neutral.

But it's not neutral, is it? Friend decides that after a year it's time to kill her "rescues" and eat them.

But to understand why it is that it is morally wrong for humans to kill but not other animals we must first explain what these "moral consequences" are in the first place.  Saying it's wrong for a human to do it because a human can make moral decisions doesn't explain why it is morally wrong.  We go in circles.  And stealing only matters if possession matters.  It's not always wrong to steal, only in societies that have created the idea of possession.  And why is it better to "own" something and not steal the things other people "own" than to simple not own anything at all?  And you are not arguing about life, you are arguing about death.  The only way you can steal life is through slavery, otherwise you have simply chosen something's death and taken control of it.  The only way to take control of your own death is to kill yourself.  Otherwise it is entirely out of your hands.  Life is good, as long as it lasts, but it doesn't, so with the knowledge that our lives end, it is better to focus on how lives are lived, and how they will end, rather than when they will end.

Wow. I think the conversation here has been really mature and fun actually. I don't see anyone trying to alienate or insulting you, and I am sorry if you feel that way. This blog is a space for people to voice their opinions, no matter how different from others'. I think everyone here would agree that dissenting opinions are encouraged. If not for different views, how would any of us learn or grow?

I think the first insult thrown here was actually yours. To say "all you people care about is your moral high ground, you care nothing about the actual animals" is a ridiculous claim. Take it back. :)

I think what everyone is trying to say is that nobody has to eat meat in this world anymore.We have evolved (most of us) You talked about mammoths we drove over cliffs,well we have come a long way since then.We have to utilize the knowledge and progress we have made.

You may feel its a more "normal" way to live being a carnivore but the meat is not treated normal.It has growth  hormone,antibiotics,fungicides,pesticides etc 

Livestock outnumber people 5 to 1.Grain and soybeans it takes to feed and fatten them could feed billions! Not to mention the effect all those food animals have on the environment.They create more green house gas emmisions then all the cars ,trucks,planes,and trains on the planet!

Check outhttp://start.enviroweb.org or call #314 851 0928.

Good luck .

Cole it would seem that you are spamming this discussion? Especially as you constantly fabricated insults against you. Very strange. You say that "we" are morally right and that you are morally wrong? So why are you even arguing?

btw whenever your name has come up thus far it has been to point out flaws in your argument. You are not educating anyone, except as proof that some people are very ignorant and arrogant. You will not convince any vege or vegan to suddenly eat meat, so what is your point? All you have done is be offensive and demanding.

Also no human is a natural meat eater, you dont have a fixed jaw and thus you were not designed to eat meat. Every part of your body is that of a herbivore, even the mind and way that it processes thought is based on herbivorous instincts. Check Milton Mills MD leture on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFROlwe-m3Y .

Can you not also see the complicity in the fact that you fund the suffering caused to animals by paying for meat? Fine if you want to help some animals here and there, always to be encouraged, but your logic and reasoning about eating and killing animals is very questionable and flawed. 

Why only help animals in a few ways but not help animals in every way you can. Its like saying you help some abused children but dont oppose child abuse, or help some rape victims but dont oppose rape, its inconsistent and doesn't really help in the end because you are not opposing the thing which creates the victims in the first place.

Geez, Glenn, Lisa was simply applying Cole's own argument to show how absurd it was.

Also, you must know that humans do not need to eat animal corpses to survive. That is not a question, that is a fact.

I can't believe I wrote "Piece" instead of "Peace." Thanks so much for the welcome correction, Bea. And also for filling in the co-author's name: Tina Volpe. I remembered Judy's name from her previous book, "Peace to All Beings." (Not "Piece to All Beings"!!!!) Smiles. I'm so glad you already know about Zoe and her work; I love your description of the indoctrination that it counters.