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. In the following essay, I wish to address these positions with a logical and socially conscious take while maintaining that the only appropriate place for animals is free of human pressures to the maximum extent possible for our own survival.

I ask if it is ever "right" to strap an animal to a cage because it gives us pleasure. I ask if it is ever right to rob from it health and joy for personal desire. Do we have the "right" to use animals to please us? Were it a child, the answer is obvious. Were it a friend's child, there is still no distinction. Were it a handicapped adult, we have no doubt that such abuses would be wrong. Non-human animals, however, have no human advocates in the mainstream. Only vegans demand justice for ALL sentient beings. Why do we count some things as repulsive while considering equally horrendous things as acceptable and good? We suffer from a moral schizophrenia that gives us great displeasure in needlessly caging animals to harvest a few ounces of pleasure at the expense of their physical and/or emotional well-being while finding no fault with draining the teets of a mother cow while starving her infant for profit. To inflict this upon something because we want to see something pretty or because we want to capture some stray hairs from her or to rape her and steal her babies and kill her is morally repulsive.

These organisms feel pain, joy, fear, hunger, tired, horny, and grades of emotions in between. They wish to preserve their lives both as a matter of instinct (as do we) and as an act of volition. They express individuality through a set of character traits specific to them which we in the human realm consider a personality. They are able to bond with others and exhibit fits of rage, just as humans. While they may not have the ability to plan or troubleshoot to the extent that we do, they show obvious signs of cognition which indicate an ability to understand basic things about the world.

Where does cow milk come from? Plainly, cows who have given birth. These cows are not naturally impregnated. These cows are not given the luxury of living out their pregnancy as they see fit. They are not given time to cuddle their new loved one. Generally, they are not even allowed to suckle their babies. The benefits of physical contact with the child they bore is robbed from them within hours to a few days in the name of higher survival rates for the calves. In nature, this is called life. It is understandable that people could be moved to care for these newborns, but it is necessary to recollect that this animal is not a natural animal. She has been modified by humans to fit their needs, not hers nor her children. Moving from that, one may ask where the males go. Of what benefit is a male to the dairy industry? Very few males are needed to perpetuate the dairy line; the rest are specifically used for profit. Those unlucky enough to make the cut for endless ejaculations into mock heifers are usually sold within one week of their births. The main industry that benefits from the male problem of the dairy industry is that of veal. Some state boldly that there would be no veal industry were it not for dairy, even the veal industry itself. "Virtually all veal calves are the male offspring of dairy cows. Dairy cows give birth once a year in order to continue producing milk. While female offspring serve as replacement animals for the milking herd, male calves had little value to the dairy farmer prior to the establishment of the special-fed veal industry." (1). Why do they have little value? Because they do not bring a profit. It is fine to kill animals for money. It is fine to steal babies for money. It is fine to impregnate cows for money. It is fine to dehorn then, brand them, and confine them for money. To the industry, these animals mean nothing but money. "Go back to work"??? "Both male and female offspring of dairy cows are normally separated from cows within hours of giving birth. This separation allows dairy cows to "go back to work" producing milk for human consumption." (2) These are not the words of a crazed vegan, but the words of the desensitized farmers who use, abuse, and slaughter animals for profit. They do not love these animals. There is no love in senseless killing. To willingly participate in this is barbaric at best, yet it is culturally accepted and will not go away without a shift. Refusing to eat veal does nothing to the male animals or the mothers who have their health leached away as they are drained "for human consumption". Consuming dairy is DIRECTLY linked to veal just as purchasing clothing produced in a factory known for raping women is DIRECTLY linked to raping those women.

It does not matter if the products COULD be obtained in other manners, and yet I suggest that it is appropriate to go beyond these obvious atrocities. True, the egg and dairy industries do not have to enslave animals, killing the vast majority of its male population for lack of a need for them. They do not have to abuse the hens by debeaking them or caging them in cages too small for them to stand or stretch their wings. Having eradicated these things, what is to be done with the males? What is to be done with the hens and cows annually killed after a decline in their production IF we discontinue this practice? Truly free-range and organic eggs and dairy produced in a manor that is careful to care for the sickly, the unprofitable females, and the unnecessary males will be drastically change the market. The cost to the consumer will greatly increase to the point that the industries will either crumble or resort back to more profitable practices. It seems apparent from history that the latter is more likely.

Where we get the idea of the right to use, abuse, frighten, maim, burn, char, depelt, dissect, grind, or cook animals perhaps originates in our distant history in which survival depended on our ability to digest animal products. In this era, humanity compels those willing to listen to cease from such practices. Animals are not our products, property, or slaves. They hold no moral obligation to serve us, and we hold the power to liberate them from the hand of humankind. To ignorantly consume a meal or wear a product that involved the exploitation of a feeling organism is an abuse of that power. We stand at the cages and look at those animals who deserve freedom and yet we hold our empty hand expecting to take rather than give. Our greed wins over their right to freedom. We share this planet with an astounding array of sentient creatures, all of whom deserve to live free of the childish desires that lead us to trap, handle, and mishandle them.

Links
========

1. Where does veal come from? - http://www.vealusa.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.html
2. How long does a veal calf stay with the dairy cow? - http://www.vealusa.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.html

General statements regarding farming practices are specific to the vast majority of cases. While animal products may come from more "humane" sources, most will be obtained through factory farming and the by-products produced thereby.