Posted on 05/19/2004 6:22:07 AM PDT by billorites
SPRINGFIELD -- Horse slaughter opponents applied star power Tuesday when they brought in a Hollywood movie star to lobby their cause. Actress Bo Derek, national spokeswoman for the National Horse Protection Coalition, visited Springfield to present complaints from animal-rights activists. Horses, she said, are companions not cuisine.
"They deserve better. It's not humane. We don't raise them for food. We raise them as pets or for sport," said Derek, famous for portraying the woman of Dudley Moore's dreams in the 1979 hit "10."
The House narrowly rejected banning horse slaughtering in March, but supporters in the Senate have resurrected the campaign to close a controversial horse slaughterhouse in DeKalb.
Opponents of the ban say horse slaughtering should be a choice. Currently, horse owners can sell their horses for slaughter to Cavel International in DeKalb or pay to get rid of them when they die.
In addition, supporters say the Belgium-based company helps DeKalb's economy.
Cavel, which is scheduled to open sometime this week after rebuilding from a fire two years ago, will employ 40 people, add $90,000 in property taxes for local government and pour more than $1 million into the economy, said state Rep. Bob Pritchard, R-Hinckley.
"It will allow them to support and care for their children. It will allow them to be active members of society," said Pritchard, who represents DeKalb. "I feel that as this state is losing jobs by the thousands, ... that we need this source of revenue."
Pritchard didn't think Derek's movie-star status would help efforts to end the practice of slaughtering horses.
"I know a lot of people in the drama and movie industry have tried to impose their values on other people, but I think people across Illinois will make that decision based on the respect for choice," he said.
State Sen. Todd Sieben, R-Geneseo, wasn't star-struck. Derek pulled him aside for a five-minute debate after her press conference.
"I'm still a 'no' vote," Sieben said.
Cavel is one of only three horse slaughterhouses in the country. The company sends the meat to Europe for human consumption.
"I'm not going to judge another culture and what they choose to eat, but I don't know why they have to eat our American horses," Derek said.
If the state institutes the ban, Jim Tucker, a Cavel manager, has said he could challenge the law in court because federal law allows the slaughter of horses for human consumption. Also, he said he could file for an injunction, meaning the law wouldn't apply to his company.
Congress also is considering banning horse slaughter for human consumption. The so-called American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act has 180 co-sponsors while only 218 votes are needed to pass the U.S. House.
House Bill 649 is currently pending in the Illinois Senate and could be called for a vote sometime this week.
This is a real issue that is difficult enough without obfuscating the discussion with trying to act as if you alone speak for God on the issue of horse slaughter.
We are also commanded to be good stewards of what we have. Good people may argue the definition of cruelty, but if we could come to agreement on what that is, then it is ~not~ immoral to attempt to prevent cruelty to creatures, it is immoral ~not~ to.
I agree with Bo on this one.
And add an extra shot of ginger.
In the words of the great philosopher, Alan Jackson...
"I like my sushi southern-fried...
I just got a new Vietnamese cook book, "101 ways to wok your dog".
I didn't know about this. Some countries think we are barbarians for eating deer and cattle. I guess if horses are raised for consumption and treated humanely, and their special needs are met it's acceptable. I don't think this is right for animals that have bonded with and trust their owners though. However, it would be a last resort but if me or mine were starving...:'( Bo's wrong. She would be better off dealing with how the process is handled IMO.
The measure of right and wrong is not in whether people have made a business of it. Ending slavery also closed down an industry that supported lots of families. Slavery was also supported by close reading of scripture. But equally God-fearing people fought against it.
You have an ethic that says this is basically OK. No law is needed to enable your ethic. You are arguing that it is a pro-choice situation. My ethic says it is ~wrong~. If it is wrong, then allowing it to happen is also wrong.
Ummm,, I love veal. I didn't see the recipe in the bible though. Come to think of it, I didn't see any recipes.
The reason people rarely eat horses is because they are more useful for other purposes.
I have a hard time throwing away any tool that has served me well. And I did fall in love with my tractor. ;-)
I did NOT check on this thread for the pics. Nope! Not me -- no way!
Sashimi.
Others try that route and have had some success.
I guess if horses are raised for consumption and treated humanely, and their special needs are met it's acceptable.
The trouble is that it isn't that clean. An adult horse would bring $300-$400 by the pound. Even a mediocre riding horse is worth more than that. People aren't raising horses for slaughter, the supply of horses comes from wasted riding horses. Few slaughter horses are horses who have not been broken by people. The truth is in the slaughter pen at your local auction. After all the riding horses have been run through, come the meat horses, horses limping under the pain of injuries, the sick, the 30 old horse that has taught it's last child to ride and just can't do it anymore. They are horses that have been used up... Who many horsemen feel are fine to be thrown away. Horses that my ethic says deserve to be humanely put down at the end of their life, not run through chutes, trailered long distances, and made to stand and fight with other horses with devastating injuries to look at. I watched them run a horse through that had a flopping dangling break in one leg. That horse was several ~days~ at the least from peace.
I can't tell you the name of the movie, but a line in it went:
KID TO COWBOY: Good looking horse Mister, what is its name?
Cowboy: I never name anything I might have to eat, kid.
Welcome to the female mind.
; )
Those opposed? NEIGH!
Heh heh, when I first saw the title of the thread, I thought it said "Bo Derek Lobbies Against Horse Laughter"!
LOL,,great line.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to side with Analog on this one, with all due respect HairoftheDog. You make a convincing argument about the morality of the situation, but bottom line, these aren't humans we're talking about, they're animals. I'm not "for" the torture of human companion animals, of course not. But this factory could add, as Analog pointed out, revenue to some people, instead of making them be unemployed and living off the gov't dole. As a conservative, we should support this.
It basically comes down to an issue of whether or not humans or animals are more important, and I choose humans every time.
You make a convincing argument about the morality of the situation, saying basically how can we treat companions like this, when they only give loyalty. But where does that logic stop? What if someone forms a bond with a cow? Does that mean that eating cows is wrong? Or sheep?
Bottom line again, to me, humans rule over animals. That doesn't mean we should treat them cruely JUST to treat them cruely. But if our survival depends on a few animals getting hurt, I say go for it.
If the beef used for hamburg patties is ground at a local butcher or at least not at the meatpacking facility, the risk of e-coli is largely eliminated. Most e-coli outbreaks can be traced to patties made at meatpacking facilities where prior to preparation the beef came in contact with material from the intestines of the slaugtered animals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.