I am interested in researching horse slaughter because I think it is a fascinating debate to be involved in or to watch from the sidelines. I am also interested in this topic because it affects me personally. As an equestrian, I hold this matter very close to my heart because one of my first horses was a kill pen rescue. He was set to be sent off to slaughter but we decided to rescue him instead of letting him go. The barn I ride at in Massachusetts is the host facility of an equine rescue that regularly and frequently saves horses from slaughter. Researching the topic of horse slaughter aligns with my values because I am against the practice and think it is wrong, and it strikes a nerve with me because of my first horse. However, I do have conflicting thoughts on the topic because I can see the arguments and opinions on both sides and I can agree with the points of view from both sides. I can argue for slaughter being a good thing, as well as being able to agree with it being a terrible idea. I believe I am qualified to write about this topic due to my personal experience with this subject; I have been riding and working with horses for 10 years and have been involved with rescue horses for 5. Working with rescue horses has taught me a lot about what really happens at auctions and at slaughterhouses, and I think I am well-educated on it because of my experience.

In my first article, author and equine lawyer Alison Rowe argues her perspective on why horse slaughter actually isn't such a bad thing after all. The main claim of this article is that horse slaughter is not a bad thing. Rowe's opinion on horse slaughter is that it is beneficial to the community because not all horses are adoptable and some just should not live any longer, whether they are extremely sick, old, or otherwise useless. She proposes some solutions to re-implement regulated, legal slaughter in the U.S. and suggests it become a reality. The author uses the following claims to back up her argument: 1) There is an issue with unwanted horses in the United States, and there is nothing else to do with them. 2) A survey she conducted showed that most people who considered horse slaughter "barbaric" were in support of abortion, and they could not see any difference between the two. 3) If it is not considered inhumane to kill other mammals, we should not look at this any differently. The sources that are used in this article are represented with a tiny bit of bias but that is only because the author is using certain pieces of evidence to support her argument. The article as a whole has a bias but the sources are simply used to support her opinion. The stakes and values here are rather obvious because it is clear that this author is in favor if slaughter. She is not in favor of slaughter because it is cruel or because she does not care for horses, but rather because she thinks slaughter is a necessary means for people who can no longer keep their horses.

In my second article, the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is giving facts about horse slaughter in the United States. There really is no central claim because the article is informative and only gives data and statistics. It states that approximately 150,000 horses are transported across the border from the U.S. every year. It also defines horse slaughter using the definition of euthanasia, which is defined as "a gentle, painless death provided in order to prevent suffering". The article compares horse slaughter to euthanasia by saying that slaughter is a terrible end to a horse's life. It also states that there is currently no law to regulate or prevent slaughter in the United States. There is also no bias in this article because of the informative, statistical nature of it. It is a credible source because it comes from the ASPCA, which is a widely-known organization who tries to protect animals from cruelty and abuse and advocates for the welfare of animals in the United States. The major value or interest of this article is simply to provide data and numbers to people who may not be informed about horse slaughter. The ASPCA values the lives of animals, and by giving the public this information, they are seeking to inform them of the awful treatment of horses at auctions and at slaughter.

In my third article, the author talks about some benefits of horse slaughter. It is usually looked at as a bad thing and it has a negative connotation in most of society, but there are actually some benefits. The main claim of this article is that horse slaughter is a necessary evil and it should be legalized and regulated in the United States. The author uses evidence to support her claim by describing the current divisions of horses and their various purposes in America, and the author remembers her experience with putting her horse down when she was 14. She then goes on to state that the U.S. has had a lot of bad breeding of poor quality horses and there is "[no] provision for their disposal". There is definitely a bias in this article because a reader can clearly interpret the author's push for legalizing slaughter. The author is a credible source for an opinion because she had a personal experience with horse slaughter. She is trying to convince the reader that her opinion is the best opinion, and she supports her argument with evidence and data. The author of this article values the lives of horses and believes that slaughter is a necessary evil in order to control the population and keep the amount of unwanted horses down. She has good intentions in supporting slaughter and advocating in favor of slaughter because she says that it will help with the issue of overpopulation and unwant in the U.S.

The research question is arguable because it is not just a yes or no question and all sides of the discussion can be backed up and supported with evidence. There are multiple viewpoints on this topic and I can see it from all angles. In my research, I found that the debate is split pretty much evenly between a positive opinion and a negative opinion. People disagree on whether or not it is ethical and should be legalized and regulated. The different perspectives from each source slightly affect my opinion because I find valid points in each piece of writing that make me think that is the right opinion but overall my opinion is not changed. I may need to make my question more specific, but it seems to be fine so far. 

