Nothing Justifies This Kind of Animal Rights Extremism
This is a story too infrequently told: Of people cruelly victimized by the terrorists of Stop Hungingdon Animal Cruelty and other such radical extreme animal rights/liberationist terrorists. And if you don't think that terrorists is precisely the right word, read the following quote (and then the whole story linked above):
"One woman said she received an e-mail threatening to cut her 7-year-old son open and stuff him with poison. A man said he was showered with glass as people smashed all the windows of his home and overturned his wife's car.
Many others said they were besieged by screaming protesters outside their homes at all hours, deluged by threatening phone calls, and sent pornographic magazines they had not ordered.
The trauma that employees of Huntingdon Life Sciences and other companies say they experienced at the hands of radical animal rights advocates is on display during the federal court trial of a Philadelphia-based group and six of its members on domestic terrorism charges."
These criminals will not listen to law enforcement, government, or me. But they might listen to the condemnation of their fellow believers who do not engage in violence. Unfortunately, PETA refuses to condemn SHAC and the ALF. Nor do most other animal rightists, whether leaders or grass roots. Which raises an important question: Is there such a thing as a "moderate" animal rights/liberationist?
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 4:15 PM
10 Comments
10 Comments:
People are more likely to hold strict views on issues that involve life and death. Animal rights is one; so are abortion, the death penalty, and others. If you see something as wrongful killing, you may just support rather extreme methods at preventing it.
Which is why we must commit ourselves to the rule of law and nonviolence. If the ends are seen as justifying the means, the means become the ends. Utopianism is dangerous. Thanks for contributing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Many people who are deep into animal rights seem to have a tendency to loathe the human race. I've often wondered if this comes from either their own self-loathing or their discomfort or inability to be with/among people. Compassionate people are always alarmed at cruelty to animals. Bent individuals seem to want to return the disfavor.
Yes, it is an interesting phenomenon. Animal rights philosophy is inherently anti-human because it creates an explicit moral equality between animals and people. There is also a tendency, at least among some, to agree with the deep ecology folks that we are a "vermin species" harming the planet gaia. Thanks for your input.
"Many people who are deep into animal rights seem to have a tendency to loathe the human race."
If you had ever worked in customer service, you'd understand.
"Animal rights philosophy is inherently anti-human because it creates an explicit moral equality between animals and people."
That's only anti-human if you assume that they mean to LOWER people to the level at which we treat non-human animals. What might be meant is that we should ELEVATE animals to the level at which we treat human beings.
"There is also a tendency, at least among some, to agree with the deep ecology folks that we are a 'vermin species' harming the planet gaia."
Well, I won't go along with that.
I simply don't understand why the pro-life and animal rights forces are so often at each other's throats. They support similar causes: protecting those who cannot speak for themselves. The debate from fifty years ago with regard to testing on animals are remarkably similar to one today about embryo-destructive research.
I don't believe that one necessarily needs to support one to support the other -- nor oppose one to oppose the other -- but the two causes certainly aren't directly antonymous.
" 'Many people who are deep into animal rights seem to have a tendency to loathe the human race.'
If you had ever worked in customer service, you'd understand."
well, bmmg39, if you read or watch the news, you'll find grounds to loathe the human race. What's more, the reports will give you the grisly details to boot. That doesn't convince me the human race is loathsome. Granted, some people are horrible, but most people are good people who want to do right. God helps us if the balance ever tips.
It is a pity that animal rights contingent and the pro-life contingent are polarized. It would be good for all to remember that children's rights didn't really get any traction in this country until animal welfare groups like the ASPCA began to notice when rescuing animals the children and realized it was wrong to rescue the dog but leave the child behind.
A good 100 years later, animals and children continue to be abused, and advocates and activists continue to rescue them.
Thank goodness. I think sometimes we do our best work when we're reactive rather than proactive.
The customer service line made me laugh out loud.
I support rescue and other animal welfare activities. Protecting animals and promoting more humane care is a noble calling. But I see it as very positive and pro animal because it flows from our duty as the special species to alleviate suffering and prevent unnecessary harm. I see animal rights as coming from an anti human side because it seeks to elevate animals to a place beyond their comprehension and, whether intentionally or not, cause great harm to human welfare.
"Animal rights philosophy is inherently anti-human because it creates an explicit moral equality between animals and people."
The moral equality advocated by "animal rights" philosophy is essentially the equal right not to be harmed unnecessarily. This is indeed a radical notion, when one thinks of how much unnecesary harm is imposed on animals (e.g., animal agriculture), and how little harm to animals is actually necessary in order for humans to flourish.
Humans too often tend to value themselves and their kin by excluding and denigrating others, as the long and arduous struggle for moral equality among humans attests. If we can't disrespect animals, how can we respect ourselves? To whom can we feel superior?
More than that -- and here's the nub of things -- if God has not singled us humans out to be saved, if our fate is not essentially different from the rest of Creation, then we're up the creek. So it's not just that we don't want to give up fur coats and the taste of meat; animal liberation is implicitly a threat to our hope for salvation and eternal life. That's what makes it so scary and dangerous, and why it must be stamped out.
Well, actually animal rights says humans should not use animals at all. Animal welfare agrees we have the right to use animals, but insists on increasing levels of humane treatment. The former is anti human. The latter is pro animal and a noble cause. Thanks for writing.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home