Proposition 2: Confining Farm Animals
43 Comments Published by clay October 3rd, 2008 in State and Local Politics.Citizens in California may amend their constitution or simply adopt a new state statute through the initiative process. Click on this link for more info!Since anybody or any organization can collect signatures and put laws on the ballot, sometimes, Californians vote on potential laws where we do not have the background. For instance, take a look at Proposition 2. Here is some additional information.
I would vote yes on this prop. because it the right thing to do. Wiki claims that many farmers will leave and relocate their farms to other states in five years because their farming costs would go up. Most of these facts are for the hen farmers that mass produce eggs, there are not many cons for other branches of farming. This prop. should be passed because it also helps the animals live better. Most animals can’t even turn around or stretch completely becuase the spaces where they are kept are so small, this prop. would change that and demand that the animals be farmed in a more humane way. The animals will be able to at least move around. The wellness of animals will also make the food taste better.
I would vote YESSSSIRRR on prop 2.
However, the passing of this Prop would not make factory farming cruelty-free or humane. All it says is that animals will be able to have enough room to turn around, lay down and stretch their limbs or wings. This does not mean they will be cage free or allowed outdoors. It would still be a horrible, cruel life. The opponents of Prop 2 state that there is a higher risk of Salmonella in “free-range birds kept on dirt floors”. Wouldn’t there be a higher risk where there are birds stacked on each other, laying eggs in their own excrement with infestations of flies and rats? It doesn’t make any sense at all. Hens are so crowded together that they start to peck and attack the other hens around them. To prevent this, workers slice their beaks off with a hot knife. It is sick. Completely, completely sick. Are we that selfish? That we would torture an innocent creature just because we can?? Because we feel like it?? This Prop. does not justify the meat industry. It does not make it right, or better, or fair. All it does is make us feel like we are being kind. But if it makes their lives slightly, slightly less miserable, then I am all for it.
It’s time we start caring about something other than ourselves.
I’m going to have to say yes to this prop!
One opposition to this is that it’s unhealthy…but having animals not stuffed in boxes together sounds a lot healthier to me!
The argument of salmonella’s risk doesn’t change my opinion much either… for the same reason.
This Prop doesn’t make the animals perfectly happy (all they get is some space to actually move around), but it’s better than what it is now. Until we get a prop to let the animals skip around on sunny, green meadows, prop 2 is the best we have right now.
Oh, and not letting veal move around? it does SO not taste that much better.
I would vot yes on this proposition just becauise it doesnt really hurt anyone or cause that much controversy. The only downside that iI can see is that the government will probably have to spend a lot of money to hire people t enforce this law because if they do not, then whats the point of the law anyway? It also seems wierd tome that we care so much about how the animals are treated when they are alive, and how many rights they should have right after we take them to be slaughtered, hung up side down, throats slit, and left to bleed out. It just kind of bothers me that people are so concerenced with it.
But everything aside I would vote for the animals to be able to strecth out and do a little turn in their pens right before they have to be killed. They deserve tha much.
Yes to prop 2. Im not a big fan of farm animals and of they are treated but they make great food and it would b nice if they can treated with some decent respect, and also the relocation of them will do us all good. Most farmers stat that they are going to have to relocate because the expenses are going to to severely rise any way so this prop will do us good.
I definitely would vote for Proposition 2. What is there to argue about in this proposition but only the living standards of farm animals. I don’t consider myself as a person that’s all about saving the animals but in this occasion I’ll make an exception. If a hen or pig was to become pregnant, of course they need a much bigger space where they could at least move around. They should at least get spaces that are 2 times bigger than the current spaces they live today. Plus while being in crowded places animals tend to start violence with one another so in order to prevent that each animal should have their own distance from one another. This might not make a big difference but its the first step in making sure farm animals have the same health and living conditions as other animals.
I would vote yes on proposition 2. I agree with giving animals more space and better care. I think prop 2 will improves the health standards. Will decrease the risk of disease. I read the pro’s and con’s and the pro’s side says disease can spread easily due to the over populated cages. The con’s say that there will be a high risk of bird flu since the birds would be allowed outdoors. I think that they should be allowed outdoors I think it would increase the quality of the eggs and other products. As for the bird flu, the prop doesn’t say anything about going outside it just enforces more space given to the birds and animals. Even though I think it would be more humane if they could have access outside. The farmers would just have to check for signs of disease and give the animals regular check ups. It says that the animals suffer psychological damage from being confined in small spaces for there whole life. I think prop 2 would free animals of the stress they would receive, this will cause the animals to produce better milk, eggs, and other products.
I would vote yes on Prop 2.
I would vote NO on this proposition.
I think it it unnessesary to spend so much time or money to fulfil this prop.
Like the replies above, the government would need to hire lots more people to enforce this law. Why spend so much money to make sure animals get their comfort when they will just be killed the next day? They’re going to die a horrible death anyway. There would be no use.
I also beleive that animals have no conscience. So whats the point? They arent going to know the difference. They have nothing to look to. They dont know about death or torture like a human does. So, why waste so much energy? Its not like chickens or pigs have heaven or hell to look forward to. Death is death. We dont think twice about slaughtering and eating the peice of meat on our plate so why worry about the animal before?
As for the sicknesses, I havent heard of or seen anything crazy yet.
We could always just send the sick cows to a leather factory. =P
I havent heard of any extream cases where a person died because they ate meat or got sick from eating chicken.
Until then, maybe I’d change my mind about Prop 2.
I sound really harse but I still vote NO on Prop 2.
I would vote yes to proposition 2. I think animals should get more space. It is very cruel to obtain animals in a little space. The environment for the animals right now isn’t very clean or healthy. Not everyone who takes care of the animals cleans and cares for the animals. There might be diseases and other infections inside the little space and the people might just inject medication or something into their systems that harm the animals. When we consume the meat, we might consume the diseases too. They can be very harmful. For example, the diseases in the animals can be like the poisonous milk in China that caused many babies to get sick, become deformed, and even die from it. I believe animals have feelings. Just put yourself in their shoe, what would you feel like if you were to be put into a claustrophobic space with no clean air and dirty environment?
i would vote for prop2. i dont think its fair to the animals to have to be crowed together. i just saw videos of current animals in cages and theirs literally no space to move. its better to because the animals wont have to be ontop of their own waste and stuff and theyll get a chance to run around more freely. i dont think that sominalla will appear just because the animals are seperate and no other illnesses as well as long as the animals dont eat something polluted or chemically. i dont think that their eggs will be unhealthy as well. i think the farmers might not have money to provide for the new coups so i think the government should pay for them so then every one is happy. so yes on prop2.
I would definetly vote yes on proposition 2. I think that animals do deserve respect. It is very sad to realize what kind of conditions farm animals are put through. We are in great need of this proposition. Animals should have the right to move around and even though this proposition doesn’t offer necessarily the best treatment for the animals it is much better than what is going on now. Though this will have an affect on farmers because they won’t have the money to provide for the new laws requirements, it is much better for all of us overall. We already have high risks of diseases being spread so I don’t believe that these conditions will worsen because if the animals have more space, it means they are not going to be all over each other so the risks of a disease spreading should minimize a bit. I think it would make the animals much healthier for human consumption. Even though the meat industry is really harsh on the animals when it comes to killing them, I think they at least deserve that much.
I would definetly vote yes on proposition 2.
i would vote yes on proposition 2.
i guess Mr. Purther was trying to make a point with this topic and that anyone can put an initiative on the ballot because giving that animals a couple inches to move around a little isn’t really a major problem. my opinion would be that someone or a group concerned with animal cruelty made this law then founds some reasons to justify making the animals more comfortable, rather than being concerned with the quality of the food first.
but yes i think the animals do deserve to be as comfortable as possible.
I would vote yes on this proposition because it would benefit us in a good way. Animals carry diseases and when that many animals are crammed up into one place, it might transfer to the humans and it would affect us greatly. Even though there isn’t a high chance of that happening, it’s happened before and it could definitely happen again. Like it says in the Wikipedia article animals that undergo stress have their immune systems weakened and when that happens, diseases are formed a lot easier than they would be if they weren’t under so much stress. Since we sometimes eat the animals that are infected, it transfers disease-causing micro-organisms to us and we can be greatly affected.
I also think that the animals should at least have a semi decent life before they get slaughtered. As I’ve heard, humans who are sentenced to death sometimes get whatever kind of food they want the day before their execution and they are treated very nicely. Even though animals aren’t human, they should still get some kind of dignity before they die. They deserve a little bit of respect for feeding all of us humans. I vote yes for this proposition.
Along with most people on this proposition, I would have to vote yes. The main reason why is that letting farm animals have a few more inches of ‘moving’ space won’t harm anyone. Sure the farmers themselves may not like having to expand where there farm animals are help by a few feet. Over all this proposition does not seem like a big proposition like most of them on the ballot. The only down side to this would be that the state needs to either higher some people to enforce the law, or add it to someone’s job description. So the state will need to spend a slight of money to enforce it, to make sure people are doing what the law says. When it all comes down to it, I am for animal right to a point and farm animals should have a little bit of a good ‘run’ before they kick the bucket (aka going to the slaughter house, etc.). All in all I would vote yes on Proposition 2!
After reading about Proposition 2, I would vote yes to this. First of all, having more space for the animals is a good thing for them and for us as well. It might be a little more increase in space if this proposition does pass, but a little does everything more. Having them confined in cages would mean that there would be unsanitary things on the ground and it is true that there is a possibility that a disease can happen within these animals, but if this prop passes, then they are able to roam around, meaning that it would lessen a chance of diseases from these animals and that would mean that we wouldn’t have to worry about what we have to eat.
I vote yes in Prposition 2. Having more space for animals is a great idea. It is known that the more over populated the more diseases can spread. So with the space these animals will have, they well be able to move around more and even live more. As an living thing in this earth, they all need space to be able to vent more. All these farm animals eventually have to be killed for food or for any other reason. So its an advantage for these farm animals to have space to grow, that way they produce more with nothing in tha way. In this here Preposition is really nothing to argue or make a big deal about, but it helps for the animals to have space.
I would vote yes on Proposition 2 because it isn’t fair to have animals confined in such cramped areas. We wouldn’t put our pets, our puppies and kittens, in tiny cages where they can’t move so why would we put other animals in the same predicament? It is animal cruelty in my eyes. Many other people agree with me; in November 2002 Florida voters banned the confinement of pigs in crates and the entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 2012. We should follow their lead and stop hurting animals.
Free range hens produce better tasting, bigger, brighter yellow yolk, the eggs stay fresher longer and the shells are thicker. It is better food, more humane way of raising animals. We should switch to this method of raising animals. Free range means that there is no cage the animals are cramped in. Instead of forced molting, starving the animals, making animals mate in a two foot big cage they are free of cages and live happier.
I would vote YES!! on prop 2. I basically grow up around farm animal. My dad is a vet and since I was little he show me that even a born cow needs its own space and it has to be treated with a lot of respect. He always was telling me how I should respect them and treaded them as good as any other thing but that I had to know that they were animals. This animals provide us food and in order for that they have to be treat them good so they dont get any illnes or anything like that. Farm animals are a living thing on earth they need to have there own space be free. The better we treaded animals the better cuality we get in our food and the farm animals can grow more. Its not a big deal letting animals have there own space is just like an other living thing on earth that needs to be free and happy in life.
Like most people that have replied, I would vote yes on this proposition. Not only do we need to give the animals some space because of the possibilities for diseases spreading, but for humane reasons, as well. I don’t care that these animals are going to die anyway, they deserve to be treated without cruelty. If we allow this much to go on, where does it stop? Where will the line separating what is acceptable and what isn’t be drawn? Some people argue that the way animals are treated haven’t been responsible for any diseases spread yet, but are we going to wait until a disease has spread before we do something? The living spaces in which these animals are kept are disgusting, inhumane, and possibly dangerous to our health. Even if the risk of spreading diseases is minimal, like some argue, it is just cruel when animals are sitting in their own filth and crammed in with each other so tightly they can’t move.
To agree with most of my peers, I would vote yes on Proposition 2. I feel that is very inhuman to keep a living breathing thing cramped up in a tiny cage where they can’t even open their mouth;that is just cruel! We as people need to protect those who do not have a voice; we as a society need to protect our animals and give them a voice let their inner voiced be heard.
It was mentioned that California shouldn’t waste our money and time to give an animal more room in the cage when their going to die anyway, but it’s not wasting time. By doing these both humans and animals can benefit because it will bring more job to our decreasing economy and will allow a poor helpless animal to “breath”.
Yes it is true that most of animals in cages are on their way to the slaughter house, but by keeping animals in a filthy environment that could create new diseases to humans for the animals are our food source. By keeping them healthy we are keeping America healthy. Animals may be our food, but they are not our trash.
Think about would you want to be put in a cage because your are destine to die in a month, no. So why do it to the animals they have feeling and emotions too.
I would definately vote yes on proposition 2. Personally, I completely agree with Ariel. It is very difficult to say this proposition is anything close to meeting justice for animals, but progress is progress nonetheless. I believe this whole problem could be overcome by consumers showing what they want and taking the time to research on where they can find meat and/or eggs from free range animals and supporting those companies. When you get down to it; this proposition will not affect me because regardless of whether or not the proposition is passed, I will still be a vegetarian.
I am fully for voting yes on Prop 2. I am a firm believer in animal rights. Prop 2 will help in stopping cruel and inhumane treatment of animals, and stop cramming more animals in a cage then what actually fits. Cramming any animal in the cage in a way where they are incapable to move even an inch around them is torture. If this was a human being it would be happening. Animals have feelings, get scared, and feel pain too. Think about it “Would you put your own family pet in that situation?”
Prop 2 will prevent most cruelty to animals. For example, I believe it is wrong on every level to confine calves, pigs, hens, etc in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies. Veal Calves are put into a box and tied to which they are not aloud to move for months. Some animals have been found to develop mental disease and harm themselves because of there condition they are put in. We wouldn’t force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn’t force farm animals to go through this misery. All animals, even those raised for food, deserve the right of humane treatment.
I live in Chino, Ca down the street from the “Hallmark Slaughter House”. Everyone saw the shocking videos of the companies’ workers harming the animals. Some of these cows were found to be sick, and if they are found that they have a sickness that they are not supposed to be processed. The workers neither cared for the health nor the safety of these animals nor proceeded with the process. Since that day earlier this year it had an affect nation wide, even farmers say yes on prop 2 because its emphasizes the importance’s of safe food. If it weren’t for crammed spaces and improper care of the animals this incident could have been prevented.
There are so many foundations and different societies that back this proposition. Such as: the ASPCA, hundreds of California veterinarians, including the California Veterinary Medical Association, and California family farmers. This is of the most utmost importance because the animals we eat have an affect on us. If we damage that supply then everyone is affect. If you want to say no to prop 2 this is what can happen, sick animals can pass through the slaughter process and end up of your table, I’m positive that you don’t want to be eating poisoned hamburgers. So in the end the passing of proposition 2 will be beneficial to everyone, and I support it fully.
Safety, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the United Farm Workers, and the Cesar Chavez Foundation; Republican and Democratic elected officials; California religious leaders; and many others.
I would vote no to prop. 2… I don’t think we really need to care about farm animals because if we do pass this law we would waste a lot of more money having to pay for inspectors to go and check if they are doing the correct thing. I don’t consider right now an important time to have to do this because we have bigger things to worry about. i also think that everything will be going up in price for example the meat, milk, eggs, etc. because it will take more money to take care of the animals. Also restaurants price will go up because they need to make money out of what they are selling and if everything is more expensive then that is going to be more expensive too. So of what I read and by the talks I have had with some adults I would vote for NO!
Dalia
I see that the facts in proposition 2 benifit in a way the animals. The cons would be that the chickens would be outdoors. Which exposes the chickens to other birds that might have a virus. The chickens might contract these viruses and a result might harm the ones who eat it. So in a way this proposition is bad also. In any way you see it there are flaws because they can’t control completely nature.
I think to myself sometimes, could there be a way to solve problems where everyone will be benifited? When i take a look in history I come to a conclution, Man can not rule completely animals. As simple as that. Humans are just not fit to guide themselves worse animals. There are always flaws in the way they rule. That is why I really don’t support either side of the propotion because they both have flaws. I am neutral.But, I vote for a government that in the near future would get ride of all the types of flaws we find in human government and be able to control nature.
I would vote yes on Prop. 2. If I could vote.
I do not see why farm animals would be mistreated this way. The only cons of prop 2 are the cost; the needed money to make these changes and to pay for police and prosecution, although the fines pay counteract this, but the decrease in local tax revues mess this up. Maybe it would be better to wait off on this till our economy is more stable. It would probably be best if we worry about our families before the little piggys
I would vote yes to proposition 2. Farm animals should have a right to be free and roam were ever they can and live in a clean healthy environment. If the proposition passes farmers will have 5 years to make that change and i think it is well worth it even though it will cost money, but there getting time to get prepared. I think that this would help out a lot in reproduction of animals and the animals will be healthy and taste better than just having them in a tight cramped dirty area were they cant move or anything so i would vote yes on proposition 2.
As everyone else has said, I would vote yes. I know that this would be hardest economically on local farmers, but its also obvious that this problem bothers a lot Californians otherwise it would not be on the ballot. I am sure that with the technology today farmers could find a way to both treat the animals properly and be just as efficient as they are now. They can enforce a similar method as rotation farming: keeping the chickens in spacious pens and rotating the ones ready for hatching to another pen allowing them to put more hens in the other pen. I’m sure that if the farmers actually sit down and re-draw out their farming methods too adhere to both the need for consumption and the need for protecting living beings natural rights, they would turn out just fine. I actually believe if the word was even more spread about these conditions then people would probably even begin to boycott. I think the animal farming industry would lose more from an actual boycott than by adhering to this law if it passes.
Despite the responses of a majority of my peers, I will have to say NO to proposition 2, UNLESS there is a possibility to come to a compromise as following:
-Chickens may have the ability to lie down, stand up, fully turn around freely, WITHOUT the room to fully extend their limbs.
-Veal have space to lie down WITHOUT the ability to completely turn around because they will entangle themselves in the collars that will remain tethered to their necks.
-Mature female pigs will be granted the space to take at least 5 steps forward or backwards, HOWEVER the will remain on concrete floors (What other sanitary surface can they stand on), and the metal bars will also remain.
My reason for these minimal changes are that the cost of the project is a little to costly in the close and the long run. Also that the California Poultry Industry has been treating their animals in these conditions for years, and the people continue to receive their healthy, fairly affordable emotionally unstable meat.
I would vote no on proposition 2 because there is no point of trying to “free” the animal’s lives when they’re going to die anyways. It is like proposing to the German government back in World War II that Jews should have more space in concentration camps. One should answer the question: “Is torture worse than murder?”
Well, if you take out one or the other it is still a bad sight to experience. Nevertheless, it is the end result that counts right?
The sad thing is that Prop 2 will become operative on January 1, 2015. During those seven years would you still believe we are going to have any animals left? Humans?
In my opinion people should let farm animals have as much freedom as they want. If they are not doing any harm to other people or other animals they should be left alone. I think that if the animals we eat are very happy then they should taste better too. On the other hand it might be too expensive to get more land for the animals just for them to be happy.
Business men would just think of the animals as a product, and that will be something bad for them in the future dealing with food quality.
If I was old enough to vote, I would vote yes on proposition 2. The whole purpose of prop. 2 is to give animals a little bit more freedom before they die in the slaughter house. Because before they kill the animals they have them so caged up that there is no room for them to lie down, stretch, or even stand up. So proposition 2 declares that the animals in there should get bigger cages to be able to stretch and lie down. And I agree because I really think it’s the right thing to do for animals that are going to be killed. Even if the animals in the cages are going to die we should at least try to give them a good life while they are in there. One thing I don’t like is that the government is going to spent a lot of money to hire people to go around the slaughter houses and enforce that law, but other than that I think it’s a good proposition. If people were to break this law the will be punished by misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days. So proposition 2 has my vote.
I would consider myself a very open minded person and I support and encourage any and everyone to try new things however I draw the line at abortion. I have never supported abortion and I never will. I believe life is life no matter what stage it may happen to be in, I also believe that people should be held accountable for their actions. Even though I do not personally support abortion apparently more than half of the civilians that reside in California did because it is 100% legal to get an abortion within California’s state borders.
The prompt asks if parents should be notified before termination of their minors pregnancy.It may appear that I would be the first person in line, supporting parents right to be notified based on my rebuff toward abortions however I have to say that I do not think parents should be notified. My reasoning behind this stance has to do with my belief that people should be held accountable for their actions. Both the irresponsible minors that partake in the steps necessary to make a baby, then don’t want it when it comes and the parents of the those minors who voted legal abortion into existence will one day directly or indirectly be effected by their actions.
Parents shouldn’t be notified because they are the ones that said “it was okay” and “that they didn’t want to know” in the first place. They may not have worded it that way but that’s what happened when the majority of California’s mothers, brothers, fathers, cousins ect.. passed the abortion legalization law.
I would vote NO on PROPOSITION 2. The reason why i would vote no is because we have many other problems that have a priority. The fine that you will pay for violating this crime is up to $1,000 or imprisonment and or both, if you really think of this people will still end up doing it no matter what. We can use the money for other important things such as education, or other things that seem to be needing help. if they pass this proposition a lot things will go up in price, food would be one of them, the fuel for transportation. Many of the people answering to this blog vote yes but than again that’s what they believe.
I would vote no on this proposition #2 because we have other problems that we should prioritize. if we say yes to this many of the merchandise and food will go up in price. There is a fine if you break this law but if you think of it no matter what the punishment is people will still end up doing it no matter what. I also believe that the money that we a trying to invest or use on it we can use it on something else that is of more help such as education.
I would vote yes on prop 2. There would probably a higher chance of having animals get sick. When animals are stacked on each other like a tower of Jenga blocks. If one animal is sick, the other ones are going to be sick. These are animals to be eaten, then that would be a waste of food for others.
Animals should have the chance to stretch and be able to run around. Wouldn’t you like the chance to be able to walk around and stretch when you wish to? Why can’t animals have the same right? Even if there are animals about to go to the slaughterhouse, they should be somewhat happy that they were able to run around before they get sent.
If the prop does get passed, it wouldn’t be just a benefit to animals but to people too. Animals wouldn’t get sick but there also wouldn’t be any infested meat that would be sold.
I would vote yes for this proposition, because this could really benefit the the animal and the people. Animals will have more chances to survive in the larger landscape as they have regain their freedom in the land. Then the population of the animal would start growing more and better. Farm animals will avoid being abused and it can prevent the animals from cruelty. By passing this proposition it doesn’t just benefit the animals but it can also make our state even better.
I think anyone that can vote should vote YES on proposition 2. I understand its possible that if this is passed it might increase consumer prices when purchasing eggs, but it would only be by a few pennies per dozen. What they are doing to all these animals is cruel and wrong and they should be stopped, but since that will probably never happen all together, they should at pass this law that would make these animals at the very least a bit more comfortable before they are slaughtered. I think that everyone should inform themselves on this topic because if you were to watch some of the videos, the living standards of the farm animals and how they are treated is horrible. After watching these videos I don’t know how anyone can vote no on proposition 2. No living creature deserves this and we should do whatever we can to help!
Here is the video just in case you don’t know what is going on…
http://uncaged.yesonprop2.com/#
oh and by the way, this would also help the economy because yes they would need more people if this proposition passed and that would create more jobs so that’s another good thing. VOTE YES ON PROP 2!
I would definitely vote yes on proposition 2. I believe that no animal should have to be confined into a place where they can barely move. Sure, there will be a chance of some animals getting sick, but I think that it is worse how they are now. What if an animal catches something contagious? If they are cramped together, then that means that all of them will get it. Either way, there its still the possibility of the animals getting sick. I also believe that we should not stop on just getting animals more space to roam around, i think that this would only be a start. We need to begin to treat animals with the respect they deserve. Just because they are animals that are going to be used for food does not mean that we may treat them as we like; they can still feel pain just as much as any other animal. Just in case you disagree, I think that this website may help in opening your eyes.
http://www.humanecalifornia.org/
I agree on Prop. 2 and would Vote yes.
It’s not fair to the animals to have to live such
a bad life and be killed in the end. It is also not good
for the consumers who will be eating them. Animals
that are confined like this tend to not have as good as meat
as free range animals do. Even though it is more expensive to raise
animals free range it will benefit us as well as them. Animals that
are raised confided in small areas are more likely to contract diseases.
Proposition 2
What it does: Bars use of pens and cages that don’t give farm animals room to turn around, stretch, stand or lie down.
Back story: This is all about chickens. The language on veal calves and sows tugs on voters’ heartstrings, but it’s moot; California produces virtually no commercial pork or veal. Chief opponents — egg producers — argue that without tight cages, their chickens will eat each other and their own droppings. No matter what, the caged chickens are doomed: After a short life laying eggs, they are too spent even for the soup pot.
I agree with most of you, I voted yes. I eat a lot of chicken throughout the month, so I prefer to be on their side of the argument rather than the eggs.
By the way, have we figured out yet, what came first, the chicken or the egg.
The chicken. Definitely.
Test for html, 1 2 3.
or this…
OR WHAT ABOUT THIS?!
so i was reading this
and i saw your question….
i think it depends on what you believe
if you believe that god created like all the animals and all of that stuff
then the chicken came first…..since he created animals first…
not eggs…
here is another question for you guys…..
there is a rooster on a roof, it lays an egg,
what side does it fall on, the right or the left???
haha just kidding roosters dont lay eggs!!!!
anyway
YES ON PROP 2!!!!!
If I had the right to vote then I would vote yes on Proposition 2. This is going to sound dumb but human have rights and we like to be treated well for the hard work we do in our daily life’s. Now why wont we as humans treat the animals that practically feed us with a little respect. Were always saying these are just dumb animals but im pretty sure these dumb animals have feelings. Now i would think that animals work the same ways that humans do and im referring to this because if humans get treated well at work then they produce better and hopefully there’s research proving that better treated chickens are better eggs and better chicken wings at pizza stores lol. But seriously most likely animals work the same way as humans and I would vote yes.