Pro-Animal, Pro-Life

An interesting analysis of the natural affinity between animal rights activists and human life defenders.

First paragraph:

Why aren't vegetarians and pro-lifers more closely aligned? After all, the best writing about ethical vegetarianism—the moral case for refusing meat, as opposed to the more self-interested arguments from health or finance—is good enough to provoke serious reflection, even among nonvegetarians. Yet while this increasingly thoughtful literature flourishes, reflecting the movement of many Americans (especially younger ones) into the varieties of a meat-free diet, it has also proved a one-way street. Vegans and vegetarians do talk to one another, but usually without anyone in the rest of the world talking back—especially those committed to defending human life.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php?year=2009&month=05&title_link=pro-animal-pro-life-1243228870

The premise for the argument that animals merit equality at the same level (and in certain cases above) is based upon the fact that animals can suffer. I simply don't agree with this premise. A creature's suseptibiliy to suffering is not an ability that can be deminished or enhanced. It is a fact of the physical make up of the creature. However, responsibility is something different it is an attribute that can be enhanced or diminished and it is only found in human beings.

All living creatures in the physical universe survive at the expence of another. All living creatures are also bound to suffer at some point. That is simpily the nature of physical existence.

If you dine on vegetation, somewhere a piece of land is being altered to grow that food, denying creatures that would otherwise inhabit forest land a chance to exist.

So are we to judge everything on the premise of suffereing. If the Taliban beheads someone in the town square, death is instantaneous and there is little suffering. Is that OK? A steer is held fast in a shute where an air-driven bolt enters its brain, death is instantaneous. Is that wrong?

The problem with the animal "rights" crowd is they don't just have issues with suffering, they have issues with humans using any food and products derived from animals. Where does it stop?

The sanctity of human life is derived from our relationship with God and the Truth that none of us is in a position to deny God a relationship with any soul.

The notion of animal "rights" is so far out there, all they are looking for is something to hook there wagon to. A wagon that has no wheels.

Personally, I love animals. I have had pets and have always taken good care of them. I was raised on a farm and I hunt but, I never believed it was OK to be cruel to animals. Animals merit our consideration but the notion of rights simply does not apply. :rendeer: I think I ate this guy last year.

And it's an important point alluded to in the article that Joe posted, as well. Basically, the question of "rights" as they apply to human beings is that they are inherent--endowed on us by our Creator. To extend those rights to non-human animals is quite problematic. And I agree that much of what I have seen from movements like deep ecology, etc., is that they want to invert the relationship between the human and non-human world, arguing, and I paraphrase, that human life is nothing more than a zit on the face of the earth, and that lower forms of life are really more valuable in ecological terms than human life. So algae is very scared, and we should be concerned about killing off the last of smallpox. (I'm not making this up, I had this conversation).

I really love animals too. I even think that animals have a relationship with God that is differentfrom our own--but that they have one (call me a kook, it's ok). But I don't think they have "rights", no. Under the law, an object is either a thing (property) or a person, and I think the problems with moving Fido to the latter category should be quite obvious.

I liked the point the author of the article made about academic feminism:

"The academic feminism concerned with animal suffering appears incapable of facing violence to the human fetus with an open mind. In a 1995 book called Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals, Adams herself tackles the question of what an animal-rights theorist should make of abortion, only to conclude that appealing to the principle of nonviolence in both cases would be hypocritical: "As long as women and animals are ontologized as usable (rapable on the one hand and consumable on the other)," she explains, "both animal defense and abortion rights will be necessary.""

How's that for poor thinking?

Gee; it's great as a woman to be lumped into the same category as animals in that
we are rapable and consumable -- although I guess men, too, can fall into these
categories.

I have to say, I simply do not "get" some of these radical feminist notions.

is Christina Hoff Sommers'(I think I got it right) Who Stole Feminism. When I first read it, I thought she kind of overstated things and relied too much on anecdotal evidence. Then I got a little more experience under my belt with some women's studies programs.

The comparison of women to animals because one can be raped and the other eaten is more of stretch than Gumpy reaching across the room for toilet paper .

Throw a 110 pound good looking guy into a state prison and see how long he keeps his virtue. In Irish king-making ceremonies, the new king had to climb on a stool and have his way with a white mare in the town square. Was it concentual? I don't think so.

So how the heck does the rape of anybody or anything relate to eating a hambuger????

There are times I feel like a mule because I am the one in the marriage that can lift 100 pounds (used to be more), so I do the grunt work.