4 posts tagged “animal rights”

Anthony Head, better known perhaps as Giles form Buffy the Vampire Slayer, has published a sample letter to send the government of Costa Rica about another incident of animal cruelty posing as art. Check it out here. 

You can read my thoughts, get the link and read some excerpts over at my personal blog.

Animal Person has a provocative post addressing how a veg*n (who is therefore, one presumes, pro-animal-life) can also be pro-choice.

Her basic thesis:

In fact, as long as it's legal to kill nonhuman animals for food, clothing, or sport, abortion (when neither the mother's nor the fetus' life is at stake) should be legal as well. I'm not saying a human fetus and a cow are equal or have the same value, but if they have the same capacity for pleasure and pain, they are both sentient. If you can decide to take the life of one for your own reasons (like taste or fashion), you should be able to decide to take the life of the other (whatever your reasons are for not bringing another human child into the world). If nonviolence is the principle that guides your life, it shouldn't discriminate.

I'm not sure that's the argument I would use. I get it as a point of reason, but the logical conclusion of such a path of reasoning is that if indeed eating meat was illegal, then abortion should be too.

You know I always come back to the fact that it is impossible to live 100% pure. We all have beliefs we cannot live up to 100%. I believe the incarceration, torture and killing of animals is wrong, and I don't want to do it. I believe there is always another choice that is not at all burdensome to the person choosing it.

It is not burdensome or unhealthy to be a vegan...or use cruelty-free cosmetics, or avoid circuses etc. etc.

While I appreciate legal progress that mandates humane treatment etc., I actually would prefer if such a culture of compassion would become systemic by choice.

Forced birth, however, could never be considered to not be burdensome, and bears many health risks. And again it is a matter of choice, and who gets to choose? I think a woman should get to choose, with the guidance, if possible, of her doctor and her loved ones, and her faith.

Of course I would prefer if, by choice, this society got a whole lot better at sex education and pregnancy prevention and eradicating rape, abuse and the early sexualization of our young people, so that unwanted pregnancies were also eradicated. That is the path that can lead to success and the ultimate positive outcome.

And I think it's fair to ask: if doctors/scientists believe a fetus over a certain number of weeks gestation is sentient, and that it, therefore, feels pain upon being aborted, why on Earth wouldn't they anaesthetize it pre-procedure? Probably one of two reasons, both analogous to how people treat animals: either they don't really believe they feel pain like you and I do, or they've convinced themselves that pain is unavoidable and irrelevant. Now, there's a law I could actually support: require anaesthesia for the fetus if it's past a certain point. (Although according to this commenter 90% of (U.S.) abortions take place in the first trimester, and only 1.2% of abortions in the US take place after 21 weeks, so it would be a rare requirement.)

But if I have to choose between the law (mostly created and judged by people who will never ever have to have a child or an abortion) forcing a woman to have a child against her will, and the possibility that I'm being hypocritical because of my animal rights beliefs, I guess I'm resigned to be hypocritical.

At the end of this month's column I asked readers to email me directly and tell me what they think. 

Here's the first response, from the Outreach Coordinator for Farm Sanctuary:

I want to thank you for taking the time to make the distinction between animal welfare and animal rights.  The difference must be made since we are now seeing the industry use the term animal rights to describe their welfare programs.  The line between the two is being blurred to allow the industry to co-opt the language in their typical Orwellian way.
 
In my opinion these welfare campaigns that are now being met by the industry and touted has ‘win-win’ situations may be for a welfare organization but not for an animal rights group.  These campaigns are programs in pain management, not animal rights or liberation.  Beyond this the industry is constantly involved in welfare, i.e. it is taught at every land-grant college in America and in every animal science curriculum.  I believe their response isn’t to the welfare movement but rather driven by the market forces and demands of consumers.  We must always remember that agriculture is a food supply system…nothing more.
 
Will consumers become enlightened by consuming “humane” or “compassionate” animal products?  I don’t think so because it doesn’t address the underlying driver for change, a change in societal values.  As long as animals are commodities all we will see is new types of exploitation, not the end of it.  Consumers need to become citizens that are educated about the realities of animal use and its many impacts it has upon our health, environment, and the animals.
 
Thanks for your time and keep up the good work!