|
|
| October
23, 2002 |
| Dear
Concerned Citizen, |
Did
you know that many "animal rights/liberation" (ARL) activists
believe that animals and people are equal? Not only that, but they
want to change the law-and even the constitution-to include at least
some animals into the "moral community." If this ever happens,
legally, animals would have to be treated the same as people - meaning
only vegetables on menus, emergency rooms full of deer struck by cars,
and pigs in
voting booths!
This is a very radical idea. Thus, it is not a campaign that could
succeed overnight. Destroying the sanctity of human life ethic-the
ultimate goal of animal rights advocacy-will take time. So, like termites
slowly eating out solid timber, ARL activists incrementally but steadily
work to undermine the pedestal upon which humans stand as having unique
and ultimate value in the world.
One such action is occurring right now in Florida. In November, that
state's voters will decide whether to give pregnant pigs the constitutional
right in the Florida Constitution to be kept in a space large enough
for them to turn around. This would not just be a law, but a constitutional
right-for pigs.
The issue has to do with a tool of pig farming called a gestation
crate that immobilizes pregnant pigs to protect sows and their piglets
from harm. Some believe these crates are cruel and inhumane. Pig farmers
claim they are not.
Animal rights activists plan to spend $1 million on the Florida campaign.
On the surface this seems odd, since there are very few pig farms
in Florida. But if the real agenda is not so much to protect pigs,
but rather, to blur the crucial moral distinction between human and
animal life, then it is easy to understand why activists are willing
to pay so much money in the campaign.
Florida is not the only place where ARL activists are attempting to
give "rights" to animals. A more explicit example is the
international effort to declare moral and legal equality between apes
and people, known as the Great Ape Project (GAP). According to the
GAP website, the organization seeks to "include nonhuman great
apes within the community of equals by granting them the same moral
and legal protections that only human beings currently enjoy."
These would include the "right to life," the "protection
of individual liberty," and "prohibition from torture."
It would be easy to laugh off these efforts as hopeless tilting at
windmills. But that would be to whistle past the graveyard and to
ignore the many disturbing cultural changes of recent years. Indeed,
as you read these words, ARL law professors from major universities
are striving to get the courts to permit animals to become party-litigants
in lawsuits. New Zealand has already accepted part of the Great Ape
Project by placing significant restriction on medical research using
"hominoids." Germany recently added animals to its constitutional
requirement that all people be treated with dignity. Imagine the lawsuits
that could result if the United States did the same! And now, Florida
voters are being asked to grant a constitutional right to pregnant
pigs.
The threat of animal rights/liberation to the sanctity of human life
is very real. If we care about human dignity, we ignore it at our
peril. |
|
 |
Equality
Beyond Humanity...the mantra of the Great Ape Project. |
Great
Apes are among the species activists suggest possess many of
the characteristics that we consider morally important. The
organization was founded to work for the removal of the non-human
great ape from the category of property, and for their immediate
inclusion within the category of persons.
(Great Ape Project) www.greatapeproject.org |
| |
 |
| Humane
treatment requires us to maintain our distinct humanity. If
we take human out of humane, what's left? Animal behavior. No
one wants to see great apes harmed or exploited, or any other
animal treated cruelly. But why is it necessary, in protecting
them, to say that we are all just alike? Wouldn't it make more
sense to say that human beings have a special responsibility
to other species because we are different? |
|
| |
 |
| THE
GUARDIAN MOVEMENT |
| Who
should wear the leash? |
Animal
rights groups behind the pet guardian movement intend to change
society's relationship with animals. Elliot Katz, President
of In Defense of Animals describes their strategy as working
first to change people's perceptions of their companion animals
with the hope the changed perception will extend to other species
as well. Katz wrote that the goal to transform the social and
moral status of animals from property to living beings that
have their own rights requires language changes from "owner"
to guardian, "pet" to friend, and "it" to
he/she.
The 1995 Summit for Animals passed a resolution, signed by 19
national animal organizations, committing to these very changes.
In 1999, the San Francisco commission of Animal Welfare voted
to amend city laws to include the designation, "animal
guardian". On July 11, 2000, the Boulder, Colorado City
council passed a resolution making the city the first in the
nation to replace the term "animal owner" with "animal
guardian".
In addition, the cities of Berkeley, California, and Sherwood,
Arkansas and the state of Rhode Island have also enacted laws
that recognize the legal status of the word 'guardian'. To promote
the new language and ethic underlying it, our campaign is committed
to a nationwide effort to reach the hearts and minds of the
public, with the help and support of animal organizations everywhere.
When momentum is achieved, a legal test case will be sought.
(from the IDA website)
(In Defense of Animals) www.idausa.org |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Wesley
J. Smith's Bio
Smith
left the full time practice of law in 1985 to pursue a career
in writing and public advocacy. Smith is an attorney and consultant
for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted
Suicide. His book Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted
Suicide to Legalized Murder (1997), a broad-based criticism
of the assisted suicide/euthanasia movement was published in
1997. His book Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics
in America, a warning about the dangers of the modern bioethics
movement, was named One of the Ten Outstanding Books of the
Year and Best Health Book of the Year for 2001 (Independent
Publisher Book Awards). Smith is an international lecturer and
public speaker, appearing frequently at political, university,
medical, legal, disability rights, bioethics, and community
gatherings across the United States, Great Britain, Canada,
and Australia.
|
|
|
|
|
