Religious slaughter evidence

[Citereh]

Hey everyone,

New here folks so greetings from Telford in the UK!

My first post is a question to you all about religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims.

I have been trying to find evidence to suggest or prove that the slitting of the throat of an un-stunned animal causes unnecessary pain compared to the practice of stunning the animal prior to dispatching.

Do any of you know of any references you can give where through scientific study they can suggest or prove the above please?

Many thanks,

Citereh

[Napoléon]

For me it's a darn no brainer that it causes unnecessary suffering.

But if you really need some 'evidence' a wiki article I have used before has some sources of investigations into the act:

In the United Kingdom, the government funded but independent advisory body Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that conventional Ḏabīḥah (along with Kashrut slaughter) without prior stunning be abolished. The FAWC chairwoman of the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, said, "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous".

Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhab%C4%AB%E1%B8%A5ah

It has a section on 'controversies'.

[Citereh]

Hey Napoleon,

Thanks for your reply. I too agree that as far as I can imagine an animal that has not been stunned prior to slaughter would feel a great deal of pain or at least more than it would if stunned.

However the problem with imagining is that doesn't it stand up to argument when Jews/Muslims claim that at least one scientific study show's that it is more humane technique than stunning.

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm

In the United Kingdom, the government funded but independent advisory body Farm Animal Welfare Council recommended that conventional Ḏabīḥah (along with Kashrut slaughter) without prior stunning be abolished. The FAWC chairwoman of the time, Dr Judy MacArthur Clark, said, "This is a major incision into the animal and to say that it doesn't suffer is quite ridiculous".

I came across this article on a different website and although useful and reputable to quote it doesn't explain how they concluded their findings. Although one should be able to assume that due to the nature of their organisation they would act according to the best interests of the animals not towards any prejudices they have towards a religion or it's rituals.

Various research papers on cattle slaughter collected by Compassion In World Farming mention that "after the throat is cut, large clots can form at the severed ends of the carotid arteries, leading to occlusion of the wound (or "ballooning" as it is known in the slaughtering trade). Nick Cohen wrote in the New Statesman, "Occlusions slow blood loss from the carotids and delay the decline in blood pressure that prevents the suffering brain from blacking out. In one group of calves, 62.5 per cent suffered from ballooning.

Thank you for this source I shall look into "ballooning" more for further information.

I am still supprised there isn't more widely available information on the internet regarding this controverscial issue, most sources I found were in favour of religious slaughter. Not so surprisingly they were nearly if not all from religious site/forums. I had hoped I would find more scienctific studies condemning the practice and explaining exactly why.

[Minimalist]

My first post is a question to you all about religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims.

I thought you were going to talk about them killing each other.

[The Grand Nudger]

As far as suffering goes. Well, it's illegal for anyone else to slaughter an animal in such a manner. That should be all you need to know. Believe that these animals may be stunned (but not to the point of death) so I imagine that's what's happening right?

[Napoléon]

However the problem with imagining is that doesn't it stand up to argument when Jews/Muslims claim that at least one scientific study show's that it is more humane technique than stunning.

Tell them that when I whip out my knife and start hacking away at their throats. They'll change their tune.

http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/halal.htm

You do realise this is a blatently pro-muslim site? Bias also factors into arguments.

I came across this article on a different website and although useful and reputable to quote it doesn't explain how they concluded their findings.

I'm sure the info you need is out there somewhere. Perhaps if you are REALLY curious you could write to the organisation or e-mail them. I'm sure such an organisation wouldn't make these claims without the evidence you seek.

Although one should be able to assume that due to the nature of their organisation they would act according to the best interests of the animals not towards any prejudices they have towards a religion or it's rituals.

Exactly.

I am still supprised there isn't more widely available information on the internet regarding this controverscial issue, most sources I found were in favour of religious slaughter. Not so surprisingly they were nearly if not all from religious site/forums. I had hoped I would find more scienctific studies condemning the practice and explaining exactly why.

I'm curious about this also. The pro muslim sites are blatently bribing google so that their shitty information comes up before the real deal

---

As far as suffering goes. Well, it's illegal for anyone else to slaughter an animal in such a manner.

Rhythm has the best point, there are double standards as far as the law is concerned when it comes to animal welfare and slaughtering animals. In fact when arguing about this topic in the past, this seems to be the strongest angle against the apparent 'humane-ness' of halal and kosher foods.

[Citereh]

Tell them that when I whip out my knife and start hacking away at their throats. They'll change their tune.

LOL yeah I could try this...better yet why not slaughter all Jews and Muslims in this manner!... I jest of course

You do realise this is a blatently pro-muslim site? Bias also factors into arguments.

I do not doubt its narcissistic bias but it supposedly has links to a scientific group study of both slaughter methods and that found stunning is less humane. I do not believe for one second the content hasn't been twisted to meet their religious needs but it's still adds a possible credible source to their firepower unless this study is authenticated by a independant body.

I'm curious about this also. The pro muslim sites are blatently bribing google so that their shitty information comes up before the real deal Wink

This wouldn't supprise me either, however there isn't really anything morally or legally wrong with paying google to put you at the top of the search results. It's what most companies do if they have the capital to do so, I still agree with you though

As far as suffering goes. Well, it's illegal for anyone else to slaughter an animal in such a manner.

Yes that is a very good point actually, and you can find it in almost all areas of life. From people not being allowed to wear a cross necklace to work in fear of, "god forbid" offending someone. To not being allowed to sing this little piggie went to market to school kids due to supposedly pigs being impure and just the word PIG might taint their souls.