When re: #13 Alouette
A 1978 large-scale study conducted by Wilhelm Schulz compared halal slaughter to slaughter following stunning. The author concluded that the former was more humane based on EEG recordings from the slaughtered animal. Later however, he warned, that the study was flawed because his stunning technique was inadequate. This doesn’t stop the advocates of religious animal slaughter from citing this piece of research as the core of their arguement - which is why the issue of shechita/dabiha underscores the blatant hypocrisy of ideals within the respective religious communities: when a proposed ban on circumcision was touted in the US, the defence made in these very forums was that no scientific data exists that demonstrates that circumcision confers a disadvantage to the child. Here however, the scientific community is almost unanimous in agreeing that the slitting of the throat, far from being a quick and painless experience, causes significant distress to the animal.

What form of execution is more humane? The guillotine or the electric chair?

What a stupid, stupid thing to say, but I’m sure you knew that the analogy was misleading. The guillotine severs the spinal cord completely, slitting the neck does not. Marie Antoinette did not bleed to death.