I find it disingenuous at best to claim that using animals for milk and eggs is not wrong since they can be obtained, though rarely are obtained, in "more humane" ways. What is essentially being argued is that the temporal ends justify the means even if they DIRECTLY produce reprehensible final results. This first passes over the obviously necessary but unanswered question of whether or not we have any right to use animals for our own pleasure. Secondly, it neglects the question of animal sentience. Ultimately, it overlooks common decency toward all things living.

Animals, as individuals, have peculiarities and personalities unique to themselves. They feel and think, fear and mourn. Desires not much unlike our own compel them to action, driving them to seek pleasure or attempt to avoid pain. The possession of these traits places them clearly in the realm of the sentient organisms -- a class of organisms who are aware of their world, feeling, thinking, and who possess the desire to manipulate their condition to their favor.

After having spent the last year and a half toying with the notion of a godless world and finally loosing myself from the bondages of my Christian days, I have found myself often questioning the persistence of animal "husbandry" and of human dominance over animals for selfish gains. In the following paragraphs, I will attempt to make clear the link that I see between religion and the inhumanity toward animals that we so eagerly tolerate. It is not my intention to suggest that animal abuses are solely the responsibility of religions, nor do I wish to suggest that humans who consume animal products cannot otherwise follow the profitable tenants of their religions for which religions enjoy marginal favor even among the irreligious. I simply wish to clarify my opinion that a major contributing factor of animal abuses in religious countries is the religion they practice, while maintaining that neither religion nor irreligion leads directly to a life dedicated to the respect of animals.