# data[].attributes.body
While banning Kosher Slaughter may infringe on religious rights, the animals involved are suffering needlessly. Our scientific knowledge gives us the power to alleviate a lot of the trauma. Banning the practice in our country would not ban the sale of Kosher products from other countries.

# data[].attributes.body
While I personally think that slaughter without being stunned should be banned, I think that it would cause too much chaos on a larger scale and that is something that needs to be taken into account when making decisions like this. I think it is awful that the animals have to suffer and endure all of that trauma, but if people who need to eat kosher meat feel attacked or feel that we are undermining their religion by banning the process for which it is required, then I feel that the repercussions of that would outweigh how we feel about the animals are being treated. I think it would cause too much trouble and interfere with free exercise of religion.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that a small increase in price is worth it and feasible in today's society. While I think it would difficult to explain the reason for the price increase to a good portion of society, I think it's such a minimal increase that people won't be too incredibly concerned . As for a 50% increase to remove all welfare problems, while I would like it, it would hurt the industry greatly and could negatively affect lower class families .

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes, the United States should ban kosher slaughtering because it inflicts unnecessary suffering on the animals involved. All of those animals who are being slaughtered have pain receptors and feelings so they can sense that death is near and they can feel when their throats are slit. By stunning the animals, their systems shut down in a fraction of the time which is a more humane way of going about the slaughtering of them.
2. Yes, such a ban may interfere with the free exercise of religion, but Kosher slaughter infringes on the animal’s rights and welfare and also raises ethical questions such as if people have the right to slit an animal’s throat and let them bleed out while being conscious. Saying that it interferes with religious freedom may be true, but it doesn’t mean that it is a sufficient enough cause to prevent such a ban. Sure, it may make people who use Kosher beef mad, but society can’t please everyone especially when there are pushes for more humane treatment of animals who are used by the food industry.

# data[].attributes.body
Banning Kosher slaughter could be taken as an infringement of religious freedom of those who practice it, but in contrast it may be the responsibility of a religion to adapt with culture and time. When Kosher slaughter started, stunning was not even an option that was remotely thought about, but today there is the technology that can ensure that the slaughter of an animal is painless and fast. Other religions have adapted to keep in time with societal norms, and banning the act of Kosher slaughter could be one of those adaptations. Ultimately, it is going to effect a large religious group, and the lives and traditions of those people should still be taken into account when deciding whether to ban the process, rather than leaving them out of the discussion entirely.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that these farrowing crates, while inhumane to the sow, can be justified in terms of weighing the needs of the many over the needs of the few. I believe that the sows should only be confined in such spaces when it is necessary for the safety of the piglets. It makes total sense to confine the pigs just during the nurturing phase of the pregnancy because in retrospect we are just confining them for a short period of time in order for her many piglets to survive and live long lives. However, it is inhumane to confine the pigs otherwise. This is a very simplistic way to look at it, but if one were to think about confining a human its whole life, they would be horrified to envision living in such discomfort.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Yes, I think the United States should ban slaughter without stunning. In our advanced world we have many different methods of doing things that can minimize the pain that animals go through. Stunning animals before slitting their throats would help to minimize the pain the animal feels before death so we should definitely stun them first. Animals can generally smell or sense when death or danger is near so slaughtering without stunning is almost torturous.
2.  Banning slaughter without stunning could technically interfere with the free exercise of religion but I don't think it is a sufficient reason not to ban it. Slaughter without stunning is cruel and infringes on animal welfare and rights.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that the de-horning of cattle is important to their safety, however the process at which it is sometimes done is too painful for it to be considered humane. If the animals were required to be put under anesthesia or given strong local pain medicine, then I would agree with it. The other option of introducing the polled gene is suitable, as well. I think that the small 5% increase would definitely worth it for the sake of thousands of animals quality of life. Furthering this to a 50% increase, however, is just too impractical. While it would be wonderful to have all the welfare issues regarding animals to be fixed overnight, that just isn't how the world will work. We can slowly adjust things over time in ways that may increase prices, but 50% all at once is far too drastic.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the sow should not be euthanized because then you would be the killing piglets as well.  However,  euthanization means to put down a animal because they are suffering from pain. But the sow had a broken leg which the veterinarian would fix at cost . The owner should know the responsibility of owning a animal and treat the broken leg. Since she is pregnant and is having piglets.  The owner needs to think should I fix the broken leg  by using a splint or have the farm lose profit without having the piglets.  I do not believe the sow should be euthanized, but only if the injury was much worse.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that continuous confinement of swine should be prohibited. Swine should have the option to be in an area with more room, and with the freedom to express normal behavior. This will reduce stress and increase their quality of life. However, I do not think that farrowing crates should be prohibited. This choice should be left up to the manager, because the crates do provide the huge benefit of protecting the babies from being squished. Swine should also be provided with rooting material, as this is a normal behavior that they need to express. The benefit of a rooting material, such as straw, greatly outweighs the cost involved in providing this rooting material.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't believe that it would be right to euthanize the sow due to it not having a broken leg. While it may be harder to care for the sow now that it is injured, the only issue it has is it's leg is broken. If they were to put the sow down it would result in economic loss and if anything they could donate the pig and piglets to another company who could care for them if they didn't want to put the labor into taking care of the sow until the leg heals.

# data[].attributes.body
Although I think that having a sow with a broken leg could be considered a fatal injury, due to the difficulty of fixing such injuries especially on an animal that is part of farrowing operation, I also think that immediate euthanization of the animal would be unfair to the farmers. This is because this sow is expecting to give birth soon, a major income point for this small farm that owns her. If the vet is able to recommend ways to make the sow more comfortable up until the point when she gives birth, and the farm can quickly put her down afterwards without having to worry about a major profit loss, I think that would be the best way to go.

# data[].attributes.body
Since the farm doesn't have enough manpower, the sow could be euthanized to save time. IF possible, before euthanasia, they could try and induce pregnancy in the sow and foster the piglets. Even though that would take time as well, the sow with the broken leg wouldn't be a total economic loss with straight euthanasia. I haven't worked with pigs myself, but the older they are, they seem to be more ornery than piglets are. Trying to keep/change the splint may be more trouble than it is worth in the end. Especially if there is a chance of fostering the pigs after a C-section type surgery.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that a 4%-5% increase in the cost of milk is worth solving the animal welfare problems associated with de-horning. A 4%-5% increase in the price of milk is not very much, and it is definitely worth eliminating the suffering that cows have to go through to be de-horned. However, although it would be nice to be able to eliminate all animal welfare problems in production, a 50% increase in the cost of meat and animal byproducts is too much and is very impractical.

# data[].attributes.headline
I do not believe in immediate euthanization of the sow because it is just her leg that is broken, other than that she is healthy and carrying piglets and killing her would kill all the piglets too. Faculty could put her into a farrowing crate to prevent further pain put on the leg as well as get some pain medication to ease the pain and stress of the sow to ensure some comfort during the remainder of her pregnancy. After she has her piglets, if management does not want to go through the cost of splinting and maintaining her leg, then the piglets could possibly be fostered and the sow could be euthanized because keeping her alive and suffering from pain is cruel. I believe whatever has to be done to ensure the sow is somewhat comfortable in her last few weeks of pregnancy is important because the loss of the sow before she gives birth is a huge loss whereas if she gave birth to her piglets and then was euthanized, the tradeoff would be much greater. 

# data[].attributes.subject
I do not believe in immediate euthanization of the sow because it is just her leg that is broken, other than that she is healthy and carrying piglets and killing her would kill all the piglets too. Faculty could put her into a farrowing crate to prevent further pain put on the leg as well as get some pain medication to ease the pain and stress of the sow to ensure some comfort during the remainder of her pregnancy. After she has her piglets, if management does not want to go through the cost of splinting and maintaining her leg, then the piglets could possibly be fostered and the sow could be euthanized because keeping her alive and suffering from pain is cruel. I believe whatever has to be done to ensure the sow is somewhat comfortable in her last few weeks of pregnancy is important because the loss of the sow before she gives birth is a huge loss whereas if she gave birth to her piglets and then was euthanized, the tradeoff would be much greater. 

# data[].attributes.body
I think that farrowing crates may be inhumane, but can be justified in terms of looking out for the safety of the piglets. As long as the sows are confined to these crates only during the birth and nursery stages of their piglets lives, the farrowing crates can be beneficial. Confining sows when they are not about to farrow or nursing piglets, is inhumane and should not be permitted.

# data[].attributes.body
After hearing many different sides as well as pros and cons, I do not think the sow should be euthanized immediately. This is a difficult situation because the sow is suffering, but she is very close to term with piglets and it would be unfair to the piglets as well as a huge loss. Although the owner refused to get the leg fixed "at cost"  there may be pain medication that could help ease the pain in the meantime if it was safe to do so. I also feel like it is immoral to keep her alive just to have the piglets, then shoot her. In this case though the ratio of mom to babies is a factor and to have multiple lives saved is a better outcome then none.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) I feel that while stunning an animal before slaughter is the most humane way to harvest meat, society cannot prohibit slaughtering method that interferes with religious practices. While a non-stunned animal can comprehend and react, they aren't subjected for very long.
2.) Such a ban would very much interfere with the free exercise of religion and therefore violate our constitution. The most realistic solution would be finding some sort of compromise in which kosher slaughter rules change.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) This is a very tough question. I personally believe that it should be banned, mainly because it causes unnecessary pain and prolonged suffering for the animal. If places like New Zealand have successfully banned Kosher Slaughter, it seems possible the United States could too.
2.) Even though I don't agree with slaughter without stunning, it still is a religious practice and would interfere with the right of free religious exercise. This right would be the major case against the ban of Kosher Slaughter, and it would definitely cause problems with passing the ban. It might even be enough legal reason to not ban it.

# data[].attributes.body
1.) Continuous confinement shouldn't be banned, but altered. The purpose of this is to minimize loss of piglets. With that said, confinement should only be about a week before birth and until after the piglets are strong enough to fend for themselves. This way they are in that confinement for minimal amounts of time.
2.) Farrowing crates should not be outlawed. They prevent huge losses in piglets from sows crushing them and would be a huge money loss without them.
3.) Access to straw and other rooting material should be required. It is a natural thing for pigs to root around and if that is taken away, the pigs themselves will not be comfortable and in a very stressed state of being.

# data[].attributes.headline
The U.S. should not ban slaughter without stunning. While my personal inclination would be to have all animals stunned before slaughter, I can not support something that restricts a person's religious freedoms. I think that more public education about what kosher is would be good. That way, with the public being more informed, the niche market for Kosher products might get smaller. A ban against slaughter without stunning would interfere with the free exercise of religion. Imposing such a ban would violate one of the rights that our forefathers ensured that we would have. This is a sufficient reason to not ban it. Again, while I don't support slaughter without stunning, I do not support infringing on an individuals religious freedoms.

# data[].attributes.subject
The U.S. should not ban slaughter without stunning. While my personal inclination would be to have all animals stunned before slaughter, I can not support something that restricts a person's religious freedoms. I think that more public education about what kosher is would be good. That way, with the public being more informed, the niche market for Kosher products might get smaller. A ban against slaughter without stunning would interfere with the free exercise of religion. Imposing such a ban would violate one of the rights that our forefathers ensured that we would have. This is a sufficient reason to not ban it. Again, while I don't support slaughter without stunning, I do not support infringing on an individuals religious freedoms.

# data[].attributes.body
I do believe this sow should be euthanized, if the owner won't fix the leg. I am however uncertain if this should be required by law because each situation is different and the decision should really come down to the owner and the veterinarian's recommendation. This sow is in obvious pain and has a very poor quality of life, which is a top concern when running a farrow to finish operation. If she is in too much pain, she could abort the piglets anyway and all would be lost.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that it isn't feasible to breed just for the polled gene and eliminate dehorning. Dehorning or disbudding is necessary for the health and safety of both the bovines but the people who work with them as well. Leaving horns on cattle that are kept in pens or on pasture can result in them impaling themselves or each other with the horns, getting their heads stuck in fences, injuring workers and much more.
If we are breeding dairy cows for example only for the polled gene, traits like milk production, calving ease, etc. will be less emphasized resulting in a decrease in cow productivity and more management problems.

# data[].attributes.body
I think t

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that raising 4-5% was reasonable but realistically it would be difficult to poll genes without horns. Sadly, raising the meat price 50% would shut down the meat industry and farmers would go out of business and might even have to shut down the farm. The public also would not think it would be reasonable to raise prices that much for meat.

# data[].attributes.body
1. I do not believe that confinement of sows should be prohibited by law. When agricultural laws such as this are created, the farmer typically suffers because he/she would have to remodel the facility, which would likely be too expensive.
2. Farrowing crates may not be the most humane pen for a sow, but if it can save 8-12 piglets, then I think it is worth it. As long as the sow is only in the crate for a minimum amount of time and the crate is cleaned frequently, then I do not see a major issue with using the crates and do not think they should be outlawed. Gestation crates are a different story in my mind.
3. I do not think that rooting material should be required, but rather should be highly suggested. Again, requiring farmers and producers to have certain sized pens and certain materials creates a financial burden that puts some farmers out of business.

# data[].attributes.body
Personally, if the welfare of the animal improves, the rising cost of milk is worth the effort. There are so many people already who dedicate their health to organic foods, or changing their lifestyle to become vegan. If there are people who already buy cage-free eggs, why wouldn't there be people to buy meats from factories that treated their animals correctly? There are many people in the world who spend their money on certain ways of life and what they believe in. If animal welfare problems were eliminated, it means that there's a lot of work and time that goes into caring for the animals. More effort into the animals well-being means a happier animal which could lead into "healthier" meat. Better quality meat should definitely cost more, but ideally, the majority of the population does not care for animals' well-being, rather what is cheap and affordable.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the sow with the broken leg should be euthanized because the cost of the man power required to take care of the sow would be exceptionally high. Despite the value of the sow itself and the piglets it could delivery, the extra cost of health care would not be worth it. Moreover, the sow under stressful condition could be more susceptible to diseases and other injuries, which increase the risk of further loss in profit.

# data[].attributes.body
My thoughts on the farrowing crates is that they shouldn't be there. Each animal needs room to move and exercise as much as they'd like, not just stand in one spot all day. Although the farmer is able to keep more swine on the farm this way, it isn't an ideal way.