Make your own free website on



"Many people argue that, unlike people, nonhuman animals are incapable of feeling pain. However, evidence from three sources indicates that most animals are as capable of suffering as are humans.

First, research in comparative neuropsychology indicates that there are no significant structural differences between the nervous systems of humans and other animals. Instead, the mechanisms of pain perception, including the sensory receptors in the skin, the neural pathways that convey pain messages to the central nervous system, and the brain structures that "register" pain, are common to most species. This reflects our common evolutionary history. It is true that humans, compared with most other animals, have a large cerebral cortex---the part of the brain used for higher thought. But this difference is one of degree rather than kind. As Brian Kolb and Ian Whishaw, two neuropsychologists, point out:

To many people, including many psychologists, both human

neuroanatomy and human cognitive processes (i.e., thinking)

fundamentally differ from those of animals. After all, humans talk,

read, write, and do all sorts of things that no monkey or rat

has ever done. It is our view that this line of reasoning

is shortsighted and wrong.... There is no compelling evidence

that there is a qualitative difference between the brains of humans

and those of other mammals.

Second, behavioral studies reveal that animals and humans react in similar ways to aversive stimuli such as electric shocks or burns; that is, they cry out and try to escape. Like humans, animals in pain also secrete adrenaline and reveal increases in blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, and general metabolic activity. However, when animals are given pain-killing drugs they do not exhibit these reactions. Similarly, if injured, both humans and animals will clutch a damaged limb and keep it still. And animals, like humans, learn to avoid behaviors that are physically punished. These common behaviors indicated that nonhuman animals do not like pain any more than humans do.

Third, the theory of evolution holds that the experience of pain has survival value for a species in that it informs individuals that they are in danger (for example, when being attacked) and that they should escape as quickly as possible. Pain also teaches animals that aversive and potentially dangerous things, such as fire, should be avoided. Because the ability to suffer is adaptive, pain is likely to be experienced by all living things with highly developed nervous systems who have some degree of control over their environments and are capable of moving from one place to another. This, of course, would include most animals and fish but would exclude all plants. (Plants have no nervous systems and so cannot experience pain. And because they cannot escape from danger, the ability to perceive pain confers no evolutionary advantage.) In addition, the fact that many species of plants evolve thorns, barbs, and needles as forms of protection is also informative, for they would only be effective against animals capable of feeling pain.

Many argue that humans are more intelligent than animals. Although this is certainly true, recent research reveals that animals are more intelligent than previously believed. Animals of many species are capable of making and using tools, have elaborate communication systems, live in complexly organized societies, cooperate to achieve common goals, and help one another. Furthermore, much of the behavior of animals is learned---not guided by instinct as was once thought. Most animals are capable of learning new skills and can even teach these to their offspring. Many people, for example, would be aware of recent studies in which rudimentary American sign language has been successfully taught to a variety of primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. Chimpanzee mothers have been observed teaching many of these signs to their children.

Some people argue that animals are incapable of making free choices. But animals do appear to show preferences for things and to act on the basis of plans and goals. Research on problem-solving in higher mammals, such as chimpanzees, indicates that they are capable of planning and carrying out complex sequences of activities to achieve a reward, such as food. Indeed, one might ask, who is more goal-directed---the lioness who stalks her next meal or the man who treads the well-beaten path from the television to the refrigerator for his next beer?

Finally, some claim that humans have souls and animals do not. It is difficult to say whether animals---or humans for that matter---have souls. Many Eastern religions say that animals do; Western religions say that they do not. Regardless of who is right, it would seem a poor justification for harming animals.


Few people subscribe to the morality that an action is permissible simply because one possesses the power to carry it out. As Mohandas Gandhi argued, the fact that we are more intelligent than animals and have power over them does not give us the right to exploit them. To the contrary, we are obligated to protect them. For individuals who agree with these ethical arguments, vegetarianism is mandatory."1




     Yes, InI Sons and InI Daughters of H.I.M know that InI animals MUST give Ises to InI KING.  InI have learned from InI FATHER, Bible, other books, and elders that InI do not need to take a life to save a life.  The following excerpt gives an explanation of tragedies which animals are subjected to in order for "deaders eaters" to get their share of blood. Also, for those claiming Kosher, this excerpt shows another one of the follies that the bloodsuckers use to excuse their evil ways:



     "Over four billion farm animals are slaughtered in the United States every year.  (This excludes fish, ducks, and deer.)  In the quest for higher profits, most chickens, cattle, and pigs in the United States and England are raised intensively on "factory farms."  Living conditions on these factory farms have pushed animal endurance to the limit.  Many of these practices would be illegal if pet owners treated their cats or dogs this way.

     What are these conditions like?  Animals are generally confined in overcrowded and unsanitary warehouses or feedlots.  Egg-laying chickens are housed on batteries--large rows of cages stacked four or more high--where as many as four chickens crammed in a space no larger than one square foot.  Many sows and milking cows are kept restrained for most of their lives in isolated cubicles where they are unable to turn around.  Veal calves--which are a by-product of the dairy industry--are kept tethered in unlit stalls with no bedding and in which they are unable to lie down properly.  They are also fed iron-deficient diets to produce anemia so that their flesh will remain pale.


Farm animals raised intensively are deprived of normal social contact, leading to the development of unnatural pathological behavior.  For example, the overcrowding of battery hens upsets dominance hierarchies and results in aggression and cannibalism.  To prevent injury, the birds are debeaked--a procedure that requires cutting through sensitive tissue similar to the quick in human fingernails.  Pigs are particularly intelligent and sensitive animals; yet sows with litters are kept restrained on concrete floors to prevent them from killing their offspring.  Pigs also develop neurotic behaviors, such as grinding their teeth on the metal bars in their stalls.

     In addition to their conditions of confinement, other farm practices result in animal suffering.  For example, cattle and pigs undergo a series of painful procedures without the benefit of anesthesia, such as branding, dehorning, docking (removing part of the tail), and notching of ears.  And the hauling of animals over long distances in open trucks causes many to die of heat exhaustion or of the cold.

     The slaughtering process invariably involves pain, although some practices are worse than others.  The use of electrical stunning to knock an animal unconscious before having its throat cut is the least painful method of slaughtering, but many animals are not afforded this small courtesy.  The killing of chickens, for example, is often done without stunning. Instead, the birds are hung upside down on an assembly line and are passed by a blade that cuts their jugular veins.  The chickens are then submersed in vats of scalding water.  This method has some drawbacks for odd-sized birds, for many miss the blade and go to the scalding tank alive.  Many people believe that kosher methods of slaughter are more humane than nonkosher methods, but this is a misperception.  Kosher slaughtering involves hoisting the animal into the air by a back limb (often resulting in dislocation of joints) and cutting the throat while the animal is fully conscious.  Animals also suffer in the slaughterhouse before they reach the slaughtering platform.  The smell of death stirs fear in animals and necessitates the use of electrical prods and other coercive means to get them to enter the chutes.  For many animal rights supporters, the very idea of humane slaughter is a contradiction in terms."1

     Descriptions of such are Istimonies that will be given in time for the judgments of those who still choose to eat of Pope Paul's food.  So for those who do not know, let it be said, "EAT, DRINK, AND BE WARY OF THE LIFESTYLE THAT YOU CHOOSE, YE MEN OF CREATION."

**FACT**  H.I.M EMPEROR HAILE SELASSIE I KING RASTAFARI INI FIRST, banned the eating of flesh in Ithiopia.  The lions which were always seen in front of the Palace were Ital lions.  Check INI Istory and INI will see!!!

1. The New Vegetarians, Promoting Health and Protecting Life by Paul R. Amato, Ph.D. and Sonia A. Partridge, Plenum Press, New York and London, 1989.  Pgs.22-23