91. Leading Protestant theologian, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, taught: “We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also.” Schweitzer opposed the use of animals in entertainment. “I never go to a menagerie,” he once wrote, “because I cannot endure the sight of the misery of the captive animals. The exhibiting of trained animals I abhor. What an amount of suffering and cruel punishment the poor creatures have to endure to give a few minutes of pleasure to men devoid of all thought and feeling for them.”

Vasu Murti at 6:23PM on May 12th 2008

92. I think PETA SUCKS these and the rest of the tree huggers out there who thanks to them we can't drill for oil in alaska because we don't want to harm some stupid owl which i could care less about now we are paying over $4.00 dollars a gallon for gas Thanks PETA keep up the good work

NAM at 6:25PM on May 12th 2008

93. I used to like PETA but found they are all crazies who are against having dogs as pets. They think dogs (and other pets) would be better off "free running around" than safely in their fenced-in back yards and loved by their owners! Yeah right! But with that being said, horse racing is pure greed and they are not much better than PETA. They are both scum in my book.

linda at 12:06AM on May 13th 2008

94. Do journalists hate journalism? Or are these sensational pieces written purely to provoke the ignorant masses to attack each other for all they're worth just 20 year old kids just trying to do their jobs?

Pathetic.
Ben Greenman, shame on you.

kaflooey at 12:27AM on May 13th 2008

95. Steve,
#35.
Before you come here and in an obviously macho manner attempt to silence another blogger, in this case by the name "Vasu Murti," make sure you don't fall into the same error. You are ridiculing this person and in a most boisterous way point out faults in the message you call "fallacy." Yet a paragraph or so later you want to convert others into your ways: hunting and watching "butchering" without batting an eye, I suppose. In case it escaped you, you also presented a "laundry list." You appeal to -I have a suspicion-the highest possible "authority" here, yourself (the height of conceitedness, very much in vogue now). Others on your "laundry list" uncles, aunts and other "authorities" in your life, implying, that if they raised and butchered these unfortunates for your enjoyment (eating or whatever), then this is OK, very much OK and as every good example, should be imitated. Hunting, fishing (which is really a cruel form of hunting) likewise, since that is something the ALMIGHTY YOU does. I see this as not different from the "fallacy" the other blogger is being accused of by you, therefore you, alas, now in addition to appearing as a human who lacks compassion, also come across as a HYPOCRITE. Do some thinking before you decide to insult others by flapping your gums in public irresponsibly. As far as "converting" you? Are you joking? Who would want to "convert" a New Age Divinity? Is it even possible?

Ann at 2:36AM on May 13th 2008

96. OK... it's getting late and I feel tired plus I want to see what's going on the other blog, by doubleD, the neocon fundie nut (some busting is in order for the extraordinary stupidity he exhibited lately, even by his standard; maybe he is trying to break his own record). Sooooo, most of the comments here are really very hostile, precludes any good discussion and turns one off. They also betray ignorance and are obviously self-serving. Greenman's defending the "young" jockey is just plain idiotic. I thought this type of defense "I was just doing my job, what I was told to do, and so on" went out of fashion long time ago when the last nazi was caught. It's disturbing to hear it so frequently nowadays. But, the point is, I talked to a close friend of mine, an equine vet in Kentucky who told me they watched the last moments of this little horse on TV and after the accident, they were prepared to be called into the hospital as they expected her to be taken there. This was before the euthanasia. I took this chance and asked about the horse racing industry, since I am not a Kentuckian and I also harbor this image of pampered horses, complete with blankets and humans fretting over them, spoiling them, etc. The vet, an expert told me, that these horses run, in response to their training and don't even feel that they are badly injured, they keep running with bad injuries and yes, even shatter their legs. The jockeys hitting them of course reinforces their desire to be "good" horses, and of course the adrenaline that floods the brain is a culprit too. I say the responsibility rests with the "superior" humans to reform this ugly business where these "pampered" animals are used and abused for big bucks and often destroyed for insurance benefits. In the age of the space stations and other "miracles" don't tell me it can't be done. A man, a doctor, here commenting earlier in the day attempted to link abortion and compassion for animals the wrong way: by demonizing those who fight for the better treatment of animals at the hands of humans. This guy, maybe an MD, he didn't make that clear, implied that friends of animals, those who do more than just give lip-service to efforts directed at improving their lives, somehow don't care about humans, and while committing this sacrilege, they would rescue an animal but would do convenience abortions. I don't know how many fetuses he rescued from the hands of the abortionist, but I did participate in demonstrations against abortions and was spat on and threatened because of it. It is my experience and belief that genuine compassion doesn't differentiate like this. Abortion destroys those who cannot defend themselves. Animal abusers target those who cannot speak for themselves. You can add exploitation of older people, and orphans to the list. Those of you who appeal to guilt, advising us to "think about the medications and other goods" that come out of mutilating and horribly torturing animals, I want to say, you either are lying or don't know what you're talking about. When other methods in the age of the super computer and space age technology become available, it's a moral obligation to abandon the use of animals in these earthly hellholes called "labs." Never mind the position of pastor Hagee or Pat Robertson and the likes of those on this subject. Yes, a moral obligation, that is if you are not afraid to use your brain to think and if you have a normal conscience. Period.

Ann at 3:37AM on May 13th 2008

97. PETA is a ridiculous organization that contradicts everything it stands for. Grow up people. I am a vegetarian but that's not because of what PETA has "told" me. Nor do I force others to be. It's your own personal choice and the fact that PETA forces it upon its members, just makes the rest of us vegetarians look bad.

Alexa at 10:45AM on May 13th 2008

98. Just a few thoughts that I haven't seen expressed yet:

If PETA is supposed to support the ethical treatment of ALL animals, why haven't they asked for the riders of the horses that lived through the race to be penalized?

Exactly where on earth are we going to build the hydroponic facilities required to grow the non-animal protiens that will be required to feed a vegan human population? (The other option- exterminating all animal life on the planet in order to grow the plants required to support human life would seem to generate a larger arguement than a horse collapsing in tragedy on a race track.)

If human life is so unsavory, what do all of these people suggest as an alternative, and which of them will be the first to volunteer for that solution?

Eric at 3:41PM on May 13th 2008

99. "Does PETA Hate People?" Well, since PETA consists of thousands of *individuals* how can anyone honestly answer? *Some* of them have children or family, so obviously *some* of them love *some* people.

At this moment, I'm not defending anyone in PETA, nor am I condemning anyone in PETA, but will speak to a much more important over riding concern. I understand the nature of the question, but still a question can be asked more honestly by judging *individuals* based on their *individual* behavior and statements, not an entire group they belong to. To do otherwise is to oversimplify, and truth is too important for simplification.

I know of no large groups who have members that think exactly alike, behave exactly alike nor have the exact same philosophy, experience and world view. Sure, they may have some things in common, but I don't think a collective "hatred of people" is the honest answer, nor an honest question.

The question helps underscore a premise I have been writing about for years:

All too often, too many of us judge based on lies born of sweeping generalizations, undigested slogans and blind stereotypes. This is important, because extremism in both the Democratic and Republican parties feed themselves on such lies, which in turn leads to enormous waste in building walls between us instead of solutions by building bridges - both figuratively and literally.

Anytime we oversimplify people into groups that they *subscribe* to (people often change their affiliations) we lie to ourselves and by default lie to others. Any time we start a question about an entire group of thousands of people, we're not looking at each individual that comprises those thousands of people.

Chris Aable at 4:16PM on May 13th 2008

100. Vasu... STFU. You aren't making a valid point, just expressing your opinion and the opinions of others. I like and care about the well being of animals, but I'm sorry, even though vegetarianism is a "healthier" diet, Humans are and will more than likely always be meat eaters as well. Animal testing is an unfortunate necessity. I hate it, honestly I do.

To stand on your soap box and profess that anyone who eats meat,fishes, hunts or wears animal skin/fur takes pleasure in torturing and killing animals is like saying anyone who writes books for comments by cutting and pasting others opinions is highly intelligent. It just ain't true. Are there some people that take pleasure in this? Of course.

Bottom line, believe what you want, but in THIS country we are free to think and choose for our selves so shut the hell up.

Tom at 4:51PM on May 13th 2008

101. "In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern..."

---President George W. Bush,
November 5, 2003

President Bush's words are also the language of animal rights. Animal rights activists also speak of expanding our sphere of moral concern to encompass an excluded class of beings. British author John Wynne-Tyson wrote a book in the '70s on animal rights/vegetarianism entitled The Extended Circle.

John Stuart Mill wrote: "The reasons for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves -- the animals."

Henry Bergh, founder of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), successfully prosecuted a woman for child abuse in 1873, at a time when children had no legal protection, under the then currently existing animal protection statutes. This case started the child-saving crusade around the world.

Cardinal John Heenan wrote in 1970: "Animals...have very positive rights because they are God's creatures... Only the perverted are guilty of deliberate cruelty to animals or, indeed, to children."

In both cases, we're discussing extending rights to an excluded class of beings; beings on the fringes of our moral community, which are only accorded marginal personhood, which is inconsistent at best.

For example, the unborn are considered children only if they are "wanted", and animals like pets are considered part of the family, while other animals are considered "food," clothing, subjects of medical research, etc.

Both the anti-abortion and animal rights movements consider their cause a form of social progress, like the abolition of human slavery or the emancipation of women. Leaders in both movements have even compared themselves to the abolitionists who sought to end human slavery.

Both movements see themselves extending human rights to an excluded class of beings. Both movements claim to be speaking on behalf of a class of beings unable to defend themselves from oppression. Both movements compare the mass destruction of, in one case the human unborn, and in the other case, the mass killing of animals, to the Nazi Holocaust.

Both movements have components that engage in nonviolent civil disobedience and both have their militant factions: Operation Rescue and the Animal Liberation Front. Both have picketed the homes of physicians who either experiment upon animals or perform abortions. The controversial use of human fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells for medical research brings these two causes even closer together.

Both movements are usually depicted in the popular news media as extremists, fanatics, terrorists, etc., who violate the law. But both movements also have their intelligentsia: moral philosophers, physicians, clergymen, legal counsel, etc.

Both movements make use of similar political tactics, such as economic boycotting. Both movements make use of graphic photos or videos of abortion victims or tortured animals. Both movements speak of respecting life and of compassion.

Feminist writer Carol J. Adams notes the parallels between the two movements: "A woman attempts to enter a building. Others, massed outside, try to thwart her attempt. They shout at her, physically block her way, frantically call her names, pleading with her to respect life. Is she buying a fur coat or getting an abortion?"

The Fur Information Council of America asks: "If fashion isn't about freedom of choice, what is? Personal choice is not just a fur industry issue. It's everybody's issue." Like the abortion debate, lines are drawn. "Freedom of choice" vs. Taking an innocent life." "Personal lifestyle" vs. violating another's rights.

Similarly, a 2003 letter in Veg-News reads:

"I did have some concerns about (the) Veg Psych column which asserted that we must respect a non-vegan's 'right to choose' her/his food. While I would never advocate intolerance (quite the opposite actually), arguing that we have a 'right to choose' when it comes to eating meat, eggs, and dairy is akin to saying we have a 'right to choose' to beat dogs, harass wildlife and torture cats. Each is a clear example of animal cruelty, whether we're the perpetrators ourselves, or the ones who pay others to commit the violence on our behalf. Clearly, we have the ability to choose to cause animal abuse, but that doesn't translate into a right to make that choice."

Recognizing the rights of another class of beings, of course, limits our freedoms and our choices, and requires a change in our personal lifestyle. The abolition of (human) slavery is a good example of this. Both movements, however, appear to be imposing their own personal moral convictions upon the rest of our secular society.

Animal rights activists point out the health hazards associated with meat and dairy products, while anti-abortion activists try to educate the public about the link between abortion and breast cancer. The threat of "overpopulation" is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough feed 8.7 billion humans.

Vasu Murti at 8:37PM on May 13th 2008

102. I do not respect PETA. I lived in London for several years and was a volunteer working with children in several orphanages. PETA organized an illegal breakin at one orphanize and stole the only thing these little children had: their pets. PETA claimed the children were somehow mistreating the pets in an inhume manner. I never saw this but only they loved these animals. After PETA grabbed the animals, they didn't know what to do with them except to euthanize them. The children couldn't believe anyone would act so horrible. The children were sad enough anyway without the PETA animal terrorists robbing them of their pet love. I concluded, PETA is the public enemy of animals and should be held liable for its many criminal activities. In coloquialism: PETA sucks! Maybe we should dish the PETA miserables with hairspray when we see these clucks begging for money on the streets. Dale, Henderson, Nevada

Dale McLaren at 9:22PM on May 13th 2008

103. There is no way in hell I would be vegetarian/vegan. Why? Does the word "serious athlete" mean anything to PETA? PB&J on wheat bread is supposed to provide a variable amount of complete protein, but a couple pieces of deli turkey are guaranteed to provide 14 grams of complete protein. Beef provides even more. I haven't heard of any athlete supporting PETA. In fact, all the Lettuce ladies are supermodels..who diet. Athletes don't diet, we eat lean animal protein and veggies.

delaneyrodgers at 11:20PM on May 13th 2008

104. During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights...It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.

Vasu Murti at 11:50PM on May 13th 2008

105. All of you people who understand PETA for what it really is and hate it should contact your Congressmen and Senators because PETA has tax-exempt status.

Lauren Michaels at 10:27AM on May 14th 2008