Conversations in the Comments: Animals Above Humans and More

by Stephanie Ernst

categories: Activism and Actions, Environment and Global Warming, Farm Animals, Green Scare, Vegan

Published November 17, 2008 @ 07:24AM PT

I spend significant time responding to critical comments on this blog, as do a couple faithful readers, to whom I am immensely grateful for sharing the burden. But I imagine that many of the rest of you miss the conversations (in some cases, very long conversations) that follow some of the posts. So this morning, I'm going to share with you some of my responses to a conversation that's been taking place in recent days.

"In other words, you are deciding for us that the animal’s rights are more important man’s.  I don’t care if you want to put an animal’s life above a family members of your, but I sure won’t."

In asking people not to exploit animals, no one is talking about taking away humans' rights or about elevating animals' rights above humans'. Asking people to respect animals' rights to simply live and live free from suffering does not require them to sacrifice anything extraordinary. Contrary to what many want to believe, humans don't need meat. We don't need dairy. We don't need eggs. And no, we also don't need leather or wool. But people like these things, so they want to keep eating and using them, despite the enormous suffering and death caused to other sentient beings as a result.

Animal rights advocates don't want to take away humans' basic rights--to live, to eat, to work, to enjoy life, to enjoy good health. We just want nonhuman animals to have the right to live and enjoy life too. No one is asking that people put a nonhuman animal's life above their own or that of a family member. It's not one or the other. Humans can live--and live quite well, better even--without consuming and exploiting animals.

"Anyhoo, im just wondering why vegetarians are so close minded to other peoples choice of food, (meat) in particular. Someone please answer this! . . . why does it matter what we eat as long as we are happy and kind to each other in the short period of time we are on this planet?"

This is not just any choice. If I were arguing that you should buy a Ford instead of a Toyota or that you should be an electrician instead of a teacher, for example, you'd be perfectly right that I have no business questioning your choices. But no one must suffer tremendously and die prematurely, both unnecessarily, if you choose to ignore my suggestions and buy a Toyota or work as a teacher. This is about harm--unnecessary harm--that the choice to consume and exploit animals brings. And what you eat matters on multiple levels--what you eat does affect your health, happiness, and longevity, and what you eat does have the potential to inflict great harm on both other living beings and the planet. You may be happy, but is blissfully ignorant, meat-eating happiness worth the enormous suffering and environmental destruction that result?

General responses to other comments:

1. PETA and the animal rights movement are not one and the same. This one organization among many organizations does not represent all animal rights advocates or all animal rights philosophy, not by any stretch of the imagination.

2. AR advocates are well aware of the horrors of factory farming, of the immense suffering and environmental harm involved. But that does not mean that eradication of factory farming should be our only goal. As the voice for beings without one, our duty is to stand up not only for their right to live without unnecessary suffering but also for their right to simply live. There is no such thing as humane slaughter.

3. Change.org itself is does not control the content of this blog. My views, as the Animal Rights blogger, do not necessarily represent the views of Change.org as a whole.

4. Hunting and eating meat are not "basic rights"--they are things that some people enjoy doing, but they are necessary neither for survival nor for enjoyment of a healthy, happy, fulfilling life.

5. No, not even PETA and ALF "want to put an animal’s rights ahead of man’s." This is, quite simply, an argument without evidence.

6. I take serious issue with the tossing around of words such as "radical" and "eco-terrorist." It needs to be remembered that no human has ever been physically injured, let alone killed, in an animal rights action in the United States. On the other hand, billions of animals are harmed and killed by humans every year. The goal of animal rights advocates is harm to no living being. Please see this post and the links it lists: The AETA and the Green Scare: Making McCarthy Proud.