This Little Piggy Goes to Market

Ah, the law of unintended consequences. In November Florida voters passed a ballot initiative aimed at improving the lives of pregnant sows confined to tiny crates. However, instead of frolicking in luxuriant pastures as the voters no doubt hoped they would, the sows are losing their lives.

Comments

[Steve]

More like "Flor-idiots". Fact is, the "crates keep the sows from rolling over on the piglets (this may have been addressed if I had been able to get past the AT&T ad the second link sent me to-yes, there's a hint there). That notwithstanding, the pigs are too damn stupid to know better anyway. I know. I helped raise them.

[Jason McCullough]

Wow, I didn't know anyone would actually defend contained pigfarming. For a better description of what's this is about, check out Dominion, by Matthew Scully, Bush's ex-speechwriter.

[Jason McCullough]

Hmm, link no work. Here's the url:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312261470/reasonmagazinea-20/

[Kevin Parker]

Put animals in crappy conditions and call them stupid when they fail to flourish socially--not sure I buy the earlier comment. In any case, death is surely preferable to severe or extended torture. So I'm not sure this consequence was necessarily wholly unintended.

[tom scott]

Swear to Christ that some of you sound like this guy.
Some men use hens as a sexual object, inserting their penis into the cloaca,
an all-purpose channel for wastes and for the passage of the egg. This is
usually fatal to the hen, and in some cases she will be deliberately
decapitated just before ejaculation in order to intensify the convulsions of
its sphincter. This is cruelty, clear and simple. (But is it worse for the
hen than living for a year or more crowded with four or five other hens in
barren wire cage so small that they can never stretch their wings, and then
being stuffed into crates to be taken to the slaughterhouse
Peter Singer, prof of Bioethics-Princeton. His book review of Heavy Petting done for Nerve.com

[Micha Ghertner]

Hmm...I too don't see the law of unintended consequences in this case. It seems from reading the article that the supporters of the amendment either knew the possible consequences or don't really care either way. From my past experience speaking with animal rights activists, their primary concern is the elimination of suffering, not the extention or existence of life. Peter Singer, referenced above, believes the world would be a better place if animals were not bred for food or companionship.

[Jason McCullough]

'It seems from reading the article that the supporters of the amendment either knew the possible consequences or don't really care either way. From my past experience speaking with animal rights activists, their primary concern is the elimination of suffering, not the extention or existence of life.'

Quick question: is it better to torture millions of animals in the future, or kill a few of them slightly earlier now?

[Anonymous]

how the hell do you think wild even tame pigs are still high in numbers.they seem to be alright keeping them in a crate that they cant even move around in is f!#!'n crule

20 11 03