Take Pregnant Pigs Out of the Florida Constitution
A few years ago, animal rights/liberation activists successfully convinced Florida voters to grant pregnant pigs the state constitutional right to have enough space within which to turn around. Now, that may be a perfectly fine and humane animal husbandry policy. But, pigs do not belong in human constitutions.
Human constitutions should be about guaranteeing human rights and establishing our democratic methods of governance. Animal protection measures belong in legal statutes. In this way, it isn't the animals having a "right," but rather, humans having the affirmative obligation to act toward them in appropriate ways.
But, of course, protecting pigs was not the point of that exercise. Blurring the crucial distinction between animals and humans was the real agenda. Indeed, there were only two pig farms affected and they slaughtered their entire herds after the right was granted--to the applause of the animal rights movement, which saw the killing as a way to reduce animal suffering.
Now, Florida voters may be given a chance to make amends. According to this story, an initiative may appear on the ballot that would, as part of an effort to "clean up" the Florida Constitution, take the pregnant pigs out of the Constitution and place the requirements for their care into an animal welfare statute. Let's hope that the voters understand why this is so important. (I take no position on the other issues mentioned in the story that would also be affected by a positive vote.)
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 11:15 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Will the next amendment be 'four legs good, two legs bad'?
;-)
That's the planned name for my book on the issue.
I still don't see why it's so bad to have animal welfare protected in either legal statutes or state constitutions. I would actually expect the opposite from you, given your compassion for human embryos.
But, should 1 second old human embryos be in the Florida Constitution? Animals have nerve endings and can feel pain while human embryos cannot, thus I would think there is a far more compelling reason to protect animals than human embryos.
Animals do not have rights. No animal, not one, can even comprehend the concept. In contrast, people are unique in that they are moral agents. Our exceptional nature in the known universe brings with it, seroius responsibilities, including the obligation not to mistreat animals. Putting animals or plants into constitutions would dent that distinction, and indeed, is intended to.
Our self perception is important to our behavior. The campaign to blur the distinction between animals and humans is, in my view, profoundly detrimental to the concept of human exceptionalism, the foundation upon which human rights and human responsibilities (including to animals) depends. Thanks for contributing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home