:: DDN: Define "health study". Define "proof". Define "define". The only reason anyone would request a defintion of "humane" in this context would be to rationalize wrong thinking and behavior. :: Pigs screaming like children in pain and terror as they are hauled off to slaughter houses to watch their relatives put to death as they await their turn, veal calf in a 2 x 6 unlit enclosures from birth to death, starved and sleeping in their own feces, chickens pecking each other to death from the stress of their torturous confinement then having their beaks chopped off with no antisecptic. These kinds of things, most people would agree, could be classified as inhumane. Not doing them would obviously be less inhumane i.e. MORE humane. And eating more vegetables and fruits and less meat would, in all likelyhood, result in a reduction of these inhumane practices (although, no, I don't have the scientific study to PROVE it. I usually prefer to use a special little device called a "brain" to arrive at such conclusions.)
I just wanted to know if the mere act of killing them was to be considered inhumane. Your litany of atrocities is quite athropomorphic though. Your brain arrived at the conclusion that an animal suffers as you would under the same conditions? I think not! I expect your heart went there and you left your brain in San Francisco or some other leftist conclave:)
Stuart Gort
