“Humane?” Oh, you mean that liberal-loved, relative term?
The one that apparently is simply defined by a majority of people at any given moment. For instance, it is “humane” to kill human fetuses as late as is needed. It is “humane” to let terminally-ill people die at the hands of a doctor. It is “humane” to kill people on death row via electrocution. It is “humane” to slaughter animals if they’ve been killed with an air hammer. It is “humane” to let your animals roam free, rather than keep them confined as house pets.
I could go on.
As you will note, each of the above use your relative term of choice, “humane,” to justify some way of handling a living being.
As it is relative, you have no merit on your own definition of what “humane” is, as everyone else is using the benefit of its relativeness to their own advantage.
Only absolutes should matter, and then within those absolutes, peer pressure, rather than laws, should help influence behaviors toward ones own animals.
If you own the animals, you should be able to eat it or kill it. Killing shouldn’t be left only to the liberals at your local PETA or ASPCA group to perform, but, in fact, to all animal owners, to do it in whatever fashion they so desire.
Within that, social pressure should be allowed to be administered to promote certain behaviors, perhaps like Kosher killing, that seek some semblance of kindness toward an animal. That said, killing an animal, as with a fetus, is killing another life. At least with humans, we have a Constitution to help protect us. Animals don’t.
I don’t discriminate.