Although it is a question commonly posed to Christian vegetarians, Jesus's eating of fish (and potentially other meat) does not straightforwardly justify the eating of meat today. Many Christians in the West, for example, would consider the eating of cats and dogs morally wrong. Moreover, they would not change their judgement if it were claimed that the cats and dogs had "had a good life", or had been treated well prior to being slaughtered. But any Christian who thinks that eating a cat or a dog is wrong, cannot appeal to Jesus's eating of fish (and possibly other meat) as providing a blanket permission to eat meat. The same point can be made by appealing to the fact that many meat-eating Christians think that foods such as foie gras or veal should not be eaten because their production involves great cruelty. Foie gras, for example, is produced by over-feeding—often by force-feeding—ducks and geese so that their livers become artificially enlarged beyond their natural size. This controversial practice is illegal in the UK, Germany, and many other countries in Europe, as well as in Argentina, Australia, Israel, and several US states. Any Christian who agrees that the production and eating of foie gras is immoral cannot at the same time appeal to Jesus's eating of fish (possibly other meat) as a blanket permission to eat any meat whatever. The point can be put like this: the fact that Jesus ate fish (and possibly other meat) shows that, "in some circumstances", it is "sometimes" permissible to eat "some" meats. But Jesus's eating of fish (possibly meat) "doesn't show" that eating meat is always justified. At this point in the debate, Christian vegetarians and vegans are likely to point to practices in the modern, industrialized farming system, which they think make the eating of meat produced in such farms morally problematic—practices such as, to give just one example, the mass killing of day-old male chicks from laying hens.