Dairy Farming is Inconsistent with Modern Western Ethical Norms

I will finish off my opening remarks and conclude with a small rebuttal as I'm short on characters.Lactation, Separation and VealLike all mammals, cows lactate after they have given birth in order to nurture their young. Dairy cows are repeatedly forced into pregnancy throughout their lives in order to keep them continually lactating. The maternal need to care for children is denied to dairy cows immediately after they give birth. The mothers milk, intended for the calves, is diverted for human consumption[10].It is evident that this episode of separation, which is repeated over and over in a dairy cows life, is traumatic for both mother and baby. Upon separation, the mother cows become frenzied and desperately bellow; searching for their children[6]. Her sons are drug from her, forced to live in darkness for 15-16 weeks, terrified and desperate for their mothers. Within months her sons will be turned into veal steaks. Her daughters will be taken as well in order to replace her after she has been killed and her body converted into dog food and other low quality meats.Mothers are emotionally bonded to their children for obvious, Darwinian reasons. We humans are aware of how strong this bond is in our own species. However, it must be emphasized that there is no evidence to suggest, or reason to believe, that the strength of this bond differs among mammalian species. Therefore, it is most likely that the emotional pain felt by cow mothers during separation is as acute as the pain felt by human mothers during separation.VealThe dairy industry and the veal industry are essentially one and the same. Since dairy cows must be repeatedly impregnated in order for them to lactate, each produces numerous calves which would otherwise be worthless were it not for the veal industry. The dairy industry subsidizes the veal industry.Pre-slaughter treatmentThe cruel treatment of calves in the veal industry is a result of its need to produce soft, pale meat. After being taken from their mothers, calves are kept in darkness and confined in wooden creates for 15-16 weeks. They are tied by their necks to prevent any movement[1].Their diet is designed to make them iron deficient. Calves will chew on straw and lick their own urine, so great is their desire for iron. To combat this craving, no straw bedding is provided to them and their crates are designed so they are unable turn there bodies lest they access their own urine[1].Calves are castrated and de-horned. There teats are sometimes cut off and their ears are tagged. These are all painful forms of mutilation for which anesthetics are not provided[2]. Third degree burns known as "branding" are administered - often times on their faces[3].SlaughterCows have natural lifespans of around 20 years, though dairy cows are considered "spent" after 4 years of being milked[4]. Once spent, dairy cows are killed and turned into low quality meats[4][5].Slaughterhouse operators are under tremendous pressure to kill cows at very high rates. This results in a number of problematic issues for the cows.Typically in slaughterhouses a "knocker" shoots a steal bolt between the eyes of the cow. This should renders the animal unconscious or dead, however, there are a variety of reasons this device may fail to function properly. For example, the equipment itself can become week and ineffective. Notably, some plant operators don't want the animals to become "too dead" because it slows the exsanguination process. If the animal bleeds slowly, plant efficiency is diminished and the quality of the meat is reduced[6].Because of these issues, cows are often bled, skinned and dismembered while conscious. Cows will sometimes remain conscious even by the time they reach the "skinner", a line operator tasked with peeling the skin off the cows head. If the cow is discovered to be conscious when she reaches the skinner, he will shove a knife in the back of the cows head in order to paralyze her. However, this leaves her fully conscious to experience having her skin removed from her head[6].Once the skin has been peeled off the conscious cows head it is sent to the "legger". The legger clips of the lower parts of the cow's legs which causes her to flail wildly[6][7].The reader may think that mishaps as gruesome as this could only occur in the most poorly managed slaughterhouses under the most psychopathic of managers. However, plants that have been cited for this have defended themselves on the grounds that this is common industry practice[6].In a 1996 audit performed by Temple Grandin, it was found that the vast majority of slaughterhouses were unable to regularly render cows unconscious. A 1999 audit found improvements but still indicated that 1 in 4 cows aren't rendered unconscious by the first blow[8].The government takes no action when plants dismember cows alive and wistleblowers are fired.[6].The slaughter of veal calves is no different than the slaughter dairy cows[9].RebuttalI think Con has strayed a bit from the resolution and I want to take this time to get the debate back on track.Firstly, this debate concerns itself with the resolution which was written to connote no more than its literal meaning. Con wrote: "The entire argument of the opposition rests on the claim that agricultural farming of animals in unethical for the average westerner." My arguments strickly concern themselves with the dairy industry in accordance with the resolution. Con's arguments should do the same.Con's first contention is that "the wants of many outweigh the needs of the few" and "The strong have dominion over the weak". He does not say this is what Westerners believe and therefore it is irrelevant to the resolution. If he did mean to imply that Westerners believe this then it would be absurd. Were it the case, we would have no laws against rape, assault or theft, slavery would still be legal and women would still be the property of man.In Con's second contention he writes: "Therefore, humans do not require to be stewards of animals OR Some humans believe they have stewardship rather than dominion over animals. Therefore, the reverse is also true." As the reader is aware by now, Con's prose can be difficult to decipher. I ask Con to reread his R1 to identify where he has been unclear, incoherent and/or illogical and re-present his case, in accordance with the resolution, so I can be clear on what I'm arguing against. There are 72 hours for Con to respond so there is no need to rush things. I'd like to make R3 a robust exchange of ideas. Thanks. 1 The Ethics of What We Eat, Peter Singer and Jim Mason (page 57) 2 http://www.fawc.org.uk... 3 Improving Animal Welfare: a practical approach By Temple Grandin (page 26) (http://books.google.com...) 4 http://www.livestocktrail.uiuc.edu... 5 http://books.google.com... 6 Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer (pages 228-233; search for "skinner" http://books.google.com... 7 http://www.vnn.org... 8 http://www.grandin.com... 9 http://books.google.com... 10 http://vetextension.wsu.edu...