seriously flawed-not right in the head.
Re: Serious Question on Animal Rights #1
> I have a few questions about this animal rights stuff. I'll start with my
> first question, and tomorrow I'll post my next.
> I found a PETA FAQ, from which I'll cut and paste some excerpts and then
> ask my question.
> Q: "Itís fine for you to believe in animal rights, but you shouldnít
> tell other people what to do."
> "Now you are telling me what to do!
> "Everybody is entitled to their own opinions, but freedom of thought
> does not always imply freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever
> you want as long as you donít hurt others. You may believe that animals
> should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women
> should be beaten, but you donít always have the right to put your beliefs
> into practice.
> "As for telling people what to do, society exists so that there will
> be rules governing peopleís behavior. The very nature of reform movements
> is to tell others what to doódonít use humans as slaves, donít sexually
> harass women, etc.óand all movements initially encounter opposition from
> people who want to go on doing the criticized behavior."
> PETA even goes so far as to justify the ALF's terroristic acts, as seen in
> this excerpt.
> Q: "How can you justify the millions of dollarsí worth of property
> damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"
> "Throughout history, some people have felt the need to break the law
> to fight injustice. The Underground Railroad and the French Resistance are
> both examples of people breaking the law in order to answer to a higher
> "'The ALF,' which is simply the name adopted by people acting
> illegally in behalf of animal rights, breaks inanimate objects such as
> stereotaxic devices and decapitators in order to save lives. It burns
> empty buildings in which animals are tortured and killed. ALF 'raids' have
> given us proof of horrific cruelty that would not have been discovered or
> believed otherwise. They have resulted in officialsí filing of criminal
> charges against laboratories, citing of experimenters for violations of
> the Animal Welfare Act, and, in some cases, shutting down of abusive labs
> for good. Often ALF raids have been followed by widespread scientific
> condemnation of the practices occurring in the targeted labs."
> Now, here's how PETA handles their stance on abortion.
> Q: "Where does the animal rights movement stand on abortion?"
> PETA: "There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the
> animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal
> rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement
> has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights
> movement have an official position on abortion."
> Q: "Is PETA pro-life?"
> PETA: "No. We are not pro-life or pro-choice as an organization, for
> that is not part of our charter. We are an animal rights organization and
> our mission statement is that animals are not ours to eat, wear,
> experiment on, or use for entertainment. However, we have pro-life members
> and this message is brought to you by people who care about all life. We
> are asking people who feel in their hearts and souls that taking the life
> of an unborn child is wrong, to also consider the lives of other wonderful
> beings who do not want to die."
> MY QUESTION: How can someone be for animal rights but also be for
> As PETA says, they don't see a problem in telling people what to do, and
> therefore they want "rules governing people's behavior" with
> respect to animals. They even go so far as defending illegal terroristic
> attacks on property in order to advance animal rights.
> But then they oddly say they take "no official position" on the
> killing of human fetuses, which are living beings that feel pain and are
> being killed by the tens of millions in America.
> Is PETA telling me it is easier to take an official position on the life
> of a mouse or a worm than it is on the life of a human unborn baby?
> PETA might say abortion is complicated because an unborn baby is actually
> inside another person's body. However, elsewhere in their FAQ they state
> that "Animals have the right to equal consideration of their
> interests." Even if one allowed for abortions in certain
> circumstances, shouldn't they condemn the often complete lack of
> consideration given to unborn babies and their interests in our society?
> Shouldn't they have a general position opposed to abortion, even if they
> allow for exceptions?
> I don't know how I feel about animal rights or about abortion. I just am
> wondering why animal rights activists are so contradictory and cowardly
> when it comes to abortion. An unborn baby is an animal, right? And it
> feels pain.
> Yet PETA is silent and indifferent. From browsing PETA's web sites I have
> found PETA is not silent or indifferent when it comes to creatures such as
> gnats and earthworms, so how can they be silent about human fetuses? Even
> fetuses in the thurd trimester of a pregnancy!
> Can someone please resolve this for me. Is this akin to the way left
> wingers seem to want to ban tobacco at the very same time as they want to
> legalize marijuana? They want to ban killing animals at the same time as
> they want to give a thumbs up to tens of millions of abortions on demand?
I personally do not agree with abortion but I think the stance PETA take is quite understandable. They are after all an Animal Rights organisation, therefore don't really have any strong opinion on the abortion issue. Although reading the last paragraph of that article, it appears the majority are pro-life, don't you think?
I have always been against abortion but what really made my mind up was watching a documentary on channel 4, that showed an actual abortion taking place and the foetus was removed in pieces..you could see the fully formed limbs...absolutely sickening!
It is in my opinion, legalised murder. Although I do agree with any Animal Rights activists, even though some of their actions are considered illegal.
Someone has to stand up for the dumb creatures..if they could speak ..they wouldn't be treated in this manner.