Is eating dog meat immoral?

The harvesting of dog meat results in abuse

Question: Is eating dog meat immoral?
Position‹2 of 4›: Yes, eating dog meat is immoral
Argument‹3 of 3: The harvesting of dog meat results in abuse

The reports of abuse towards dogs in eastern countries mostly revolve around kidnappings of pets for their consumption along with their maltreatment before slaughter.

The argument

The raising and slaughtering of dogs, like any animal used for food, is not always humane. Some respect them and raise them humanely, while others mistreat the animals before slaughter. Some of the countries that eat dog meat suffer from high rates of poverty. The communities don't always have the means or the money to raise animals for slaughter in humane and safe ways. There has been a long history of pet kidnappings for acquiring animals for the dog meat market. Many of the reasons for such abuse is due to money. It’s expensive to raise animals, especially omnivorous pack dynamic animals like dogs. Cutting corners usually involves what animals are fed and where they’re allowed to live, not from where they’re procured. With the consumption of dog meat already a morally dubious act, the dogs' inevitable suffering before death gives the practice a dark outlook.

Context

Dogs aren't treated properly or humanely when they're meant for slaughtering and consumption.

Premises

[P1]Raising and slaughtering dogs for food is not always humane, and in poorer communities that lack the means to raise animals safely, corners are cut on what dogs are fed and where they are kept. [P2] A long history of pet kidnappings supplies the dog-meat market, adding theft and cruelty to the animals' suffering before death. [C] Therefore, because harvesting dog meat results in widespread abuse, eating dog meat is immoral.

Counter-arguments

Not all communities and cultures that consume dog meat treat them inhumanely, and the practice is evolving. Places like China and Vietnam have been revising their laws on animal abuse so they can be raised and treated humanely. To lump together entire cultures with the sole few who break the rules does not look at the bigger picture. Things are changing, and for the better. While it’s taking time to adjust to these changes fully, they have been well received by a majority of the populace. It’s not cruel to raise dogs for eating; it’s cruel to raise them in inhumane ways and slaughter them just the same.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise concedes at the outset that this holds for any animal raised for food, which makes it an argument about husbandry rather than about dogs — and so supports the sibling position that eating dog is no more immoral than eating other livestock. The claim about poorer communities explains why conditions may be bad without showing that they generally are. [Rejecting P2] Theft of pets wrongs their owners and those animals, and it is a reason to police the supply chain rather than to condemn the eating. The premise also moves from how a practice is currently carried out to whether the practice is immoral in itself — a step that would condemn any food whose production involves abuse, and one the counter answers by pointing to laws that have since changed.