Serious Question on Animal Rights #1

M

Moonie

Guest
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: "It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but you shouldn’t tell other people what to do."

PETA:
"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 don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t 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 people’s behavior. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and 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 dollars’ worth of property damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"

PETA:
"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 morality.

"'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 officials’ 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 abortion?

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 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: "It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but you shouldn’t
> tell other people what to do."

> PETA:
> "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 don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals
> should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women
> should be beaten, but you don’t 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 people’s behavior. The very nature of reform movements
> is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually
> harass women, etc.—and 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 dollars’ worth of property
> damage by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF)?"

> PETA:
> "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
> morality.

> "'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 officials’ 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
> abortion?

> 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.
 
You're trrying to use a clever argument, but really the bottom-line isn't about killing, it's about well-being and necessity.

I support the well-being of animals and I support the well-being of humans. If a baby if going to be born into an unfit living situation, or the child is unwanted and therefore will be exposed to a harsh life, I support the right to abort it. Children don't need to be born into unfit living situations or to parents who don't want them and animals don't need to die to feed nations. It's really that simple. It's got nothing to do with killing.

Even on a more general level, I am pro-CHOICE not "pro-baby killing". I support the right for any woman to make the choice of whether or not to abort her child. It is preposterous to have a blanket law and makes a decision for all the women of the country. That level of thinking is so medieval and backwards, I can hardly believe it's even an issue.
 
> You're trrying to use a clever argument, but really the bottom-line isn't
> about killing, it's about well-being and necessity.

> I support the well-being of animals and I support the well-being of
> humans. If a baby if going to be born into an unfit living situation, or
> the child is unwanted and therefore will be exposed to a harsh life, I
> support the right to abort it. Children don't need to be born into unfit
> living situations or to parents who don't want them and animals don't need
> to die to feed nations. It's really that simple. It's got nothing to do
> with killing.

> Even on a more general level, I am pro-CHOICE not "pro-baby
> killing". I support the right for any woman to make the choice of
> whether or not to abort her child. It is preposterous to have a blanket
> law and makes a decision for all the women of the country. That level of
> thinking is so medieval and backwards, I can hardly believe it's even an
> issue.

There are more than enough childless couples only willing to adopt..there is no need to abort.
 
Maybe some people have an easier time aborting than to go through child-birth and then give up their son/daughter.

Some people would rather abort and then try again later when they're able to handle having a child.

Again, it's not about killing children. No one is excited about having an abortion. It's about having the right to choose whether or not to have one. It's about whether or not you have the freedom.

Some women are impregnated through rape. Some women also die giving birth. So, there are a couple other things to think about.
 
abortion is a woman's personal choice to terminate her pregnancy - it's her body, therefor her right. the slaughter of animals is, in fact, the KILLING of something that was already alive, raised for the sole purpose of being put to death. abortion is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy - the fetus terminated, in my opinion, does not count as a living thing prior to four or five months.
 
what you saw is an example of PARTIAL BIRTH abortion (which is RARELY practiced), but when done early in the first trimester, an abortion is merely the termination of some strategically grouped cells.
 
> Maybe some people have an easier time aborting than to go through
> child-birth and then give up their son/daughter.

> Some people would rather abort and then try again later when they're able
> to handle having a child.

> Again, it's not about killing children. No one is excited about having an
> abortion. It's about having the right to choose whether or not to have
> one. It's about whether or not you have the freedom.

> Some women are impregnated through rape. Some women also die giving birth.
> So, there are a couple other things to think about.

Yes of course there are exceptions to any rule. I just think it's too easy now to have an abortion. There should be tighter controls..
Some people have about a dozen.
 
the foster care system in the united states is so delporable that i wouldn't wish my worst enemy into a world like that. foster care is a system rife with physical and emotional abuse (and not to mention sexual), a traumatic institution which no child should have to be subjected to. taken from your mother, shuttled around from home to home until you reach age 18, and then what happens?
 
exactly. should a 14, 15, 16 year old girl be having a child? i know for a FACT that i'm unfit to raise a child at my age. and there's the classic argument: "if you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to raise a child." there's a big difference there, especially from a teenager's point of view.
 
> the foster care system in the united states is so delporable that i
> wouldn't wish my worst enemy into a world like that. foster care is a
> system rife with physical and emotional abuse (and not to mention sexual),
> a traumatic institution which no child should have to be subjected to.
> taken from your mother, shuttled around from home to home until you reach
> age 18, and then what happens?

No I wasn,t speaking of fostering, I meant adoption..you know permanent.
 
> You're trrying to use a clever argument, but really the bottom-line isn't
> about killing, it's about well-being and necessity.

I'm not trying to be clever. It's something I've always wondered about. For example, Morrissey fans sing along to a song titled "Meat is Murder," which accuses someone of being a murderer if they cook a turkey. Would they sing along if he wrote a song called "Abortion is Murder"? Morrissey would probably become a pariah if he wrote such a song, yet isn't it a logical extension of "Meat is Murder"? Again, the only difference I see is that an unborn baby is actually inside another person's body, and one can argue that a person has rights over their body. Yet, this does not mean abortion should be treated so lightly. It would mean that, perhaps, sometimes abortion could be a legitimate action, but only after full consideration is given to the conflicting rights of the baby as well as to the mother who wants to kill the baby. Or, in other words, the goal should be to make abortion legal but rare.

> I support the well-being of animals and I support the well-being of
> humans. If a baby if going to be born into an unfit living situation, or
> the child is unwanted and therefore will be exposed to a harsh life, I
> support the right to abort it. Children don't need to be born into unfit
> living situations or to parents who don't want them and animals don't need
> to die to feed nations. It's really that simple. It's got nothing to do
> with killing.

PETA's FAQ states: "Animal rights means that animals deserve certain kinds of consideration—consideration of what is in their own best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or an endangered species and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally-challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful or even if everyone dislikes him or her)."

Based on that, your argument that it is okay to kill an unborn baby if you deem the baby likely to be "born into an unfit living situation, or if the child is unwanted and therefore will be exposed to a harsh life" doesn't fit PETA's position. Furthermore, there is a waiting list of people who'd like to adopt unwanted babies, so therefore they are not "unwanted" or necessarily doomed to a bad life.

Shouldn't PETA at the very least take an official position of discouraging abortions, even if they don't want to ban them?

> Even on a more general level, I am pro-CHOICE not "pro-baby
> killing". I support the right for any woman to make the choice of
> whether or not to abort her child. It is preposterous to have a blanket
> law and makes a decision for all the women of the country. That level of
> thinking is so medieval and backwards, I can hardly believe it's even an
> issue.

My question is why PETA finds it so difficult to take any position at all, even if that position fell short of outlawing it? From what I can tell, they won't take a position because it would be too controversial amongst left wingers who make up many of their ranks, as there are millions of people who were raised to believe abortion is an action that should never be questioned whatsoever. But human beings are animals too, and unborn babies are alive and feel pain just like a cow.

I can understand the pro-lifers who are not for animal rights, although they have some moral contradictions as well. But since many pro-lifers tend to base their views on religion, and the view that human life has a soul, they at least can explain their contradiction, however silly it may sound to an atheist.
 
> abortion is a woman's personal choice to terminate her pregnancy - it's
> her body, therefor her right. the slaughter of animals is, in fact, the
> KILLING of something that was already alive, raised for the sole purpose
> of being put to death. abortion is the termination of an unwanted
> pregnancy - the fetus terminated, in my opinion, does not count as a
> living thing prior to four or five months.

This sounds like a bad argument to me, because it rests on the provably silly notion that a fetus is not "living." Obviously a fetus is living. You sound very indoctrinated to me.

It would be better to base your argument on the fact that a fetus is inside another's body, and a person has a right to full control of their body even if another living thing is inside it.

Again, though, this does not resolve why abortion should not be taken more seriously as a moral issue by pro-choicers who are also pro-animal rights.
At the very least, shouldn't one take the President Clinton view of abortion that held it should be legal but rare? And shouldn't pregnant women be encouraged to take full consideration of the unforn baby before making their decision?
 
> abortion is the termination of an unwanted
> pregnancy - the fetus terminated, in my opinion, does not count as a
> living thing prior to four or five months.

Are you saying that abortion should be illegal after 4 months?
 
> 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 no idea if the majority are pro-life. It does seem there are many pro-lifers in PETA, however. I just find it curious how little is said about abortion from animal rights people.

I think you're a morally consistant person. And I guess what you're sayinbg is that PETA wants to focus like a laser on the animals, and they recognize that abortion is pretty complicated and wanna leave that issue for others to tackle. But we shouldn't forget that unborn humans are living animals, too.

Killing an unborn baby doesn't strike me as the equivalent of killing, say, a 20 year old human, so I don't buy into that argument from pro-lifers. I just think unborn babies don't get enough consideration. Now, some people don't care about whether you kill animals or fetuses at all, and they are consistant. But if one cares so much about insects and rodents and stuff, certainly they should care about a fetus too.

There's also another angle to this, which is that most of the abortion clinics in my city are located in African-American neighborhoods. Why is that? Does society feel black babies more deserving of being snuffed out than white?

> 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.
 
Serious answers to your serious questions

If you, or anybody wishes to have a serious and open discussion about this topic. I gladly will. Feel free to mail me.

Hugh
 
> the foster care system in the united states is so delporable that i
> wouldn't wish my worst enemy into a world like that. foster care is a
> system rife with physical and emotional abuse (and not to mention sexual),
> a traumatic institution which no child should have to be subjected to.
> taken from your mother, shuttled around from home to home until you reach
> age 18, and then what happens?

There are though, a lot of people who _do_ carry through with their pregnancies and then raise their children badly. I think the liklihood of a child being abused would be no different if they were with their birth parents or with foster parents. Similarly, there are millions of children out there (myself included) who have been adopted and have had a 100% positive experience from it.

And, despite these obstacles, many of these people overcome then and lead good lives. Are you telling them they should have been aborted?
 
strategically grouped cells?

> what you saw is an example of PARTIAL BIRTH abortion (which is RARELY
> practiced), but when done early in the first trimester, an abortion is
> merely the termination of some strategically grouped cells.

At 10 weeks (well inside the first trimester where abortion is legal in most countries) a foetus has obvious elbows, wrists, ankles and clearly visible fingers and toes. It measures between 3-4.5cm in length and its external sex organs have begun to form. The eyes and the inner ears have developed, though the eyes remain sealed. Its bones are forming, made of soft flexible cartilage, with muscles stretching over the bones producing slight movement.

Strategically grouped cells? Bullshit
 
Re: strategically grouped cells?

> At 10 weeks (well inside the first trimester where abortion is legal in
> most countries) a foetus has obvious elbows, wrists, ankles and clearly
> visible fingers and toes. It measures between 3-4.5cm in length and its
> external sex organs have begun to form. The eyes and the inner ears have
> developed, though the eyes remain sealed. Its bones are forming, made of
> soft flexible cartilage, with muscles stretching over the bones producing
> slight movement.

> Strategically grouped cells? Bullshit

Excellent rejoinder! And really, to speak reductionistically, are we not all simply a congeries of "strategically grouped cells?"
 
Re: strategically grouped cells?

if i were to go into labour at 10 weeks, would i be having a baby? no, i'd be having a fetus. it's not a baby until it can survive outside the womb.
 
Back
Top Bottom