Your Turn: What Makes the Animal Rights Movement Different?

Published December 23, 2008 @ 11:25AM PT

The conversations taking place on several of the recent posts are...umm...overwhelming. But some smart and thoughtful comments have prompted me to start a new periodic feature here, in which I present notable comments from readers; I really should have started doing this sooner. (And if you think you're going to go catch up on those conversations now, I wish you luck--and whole free day to do all the reading. The conversations themselves are long, and many of the comments inside those conversations are quite long themselves.)

Several readers' comments have caught my attention lately, but I'm going to share with you just one today (with the commenter's permission). It's fairly long, but it's absolutely worth reading. The title of this post refers to just one of several issues addressed by this reader. She discusses some of the ways that the animal rights movement differs from previous social justice movements, the issue of "respecting" different viewpoints, and how our ethical evolution should take precedence over our biological heritage, and she calls on us to see that we are not bound by this "global system built on oppression of animals and people alike."

First, here is part of one comment to which this reader was responding: "I take AR arguments with the same attitude as religious arguments. They come from people who sincerely want to convince me of the correctness of their POV. While the arguments may be very logical and compelling, the fact that I disagree with their basic premises cuts those arguments off at their knees." He also remarked that some (please note some) AR advocates have criticized him for, as a person with a disability, having a service dog.

From Change.org member Annie C., on the post "Ready to Attack Animal Rights Advocates? Consider This First" (all emphasis added):

I think it's unrealistic to ask anyone with any kind of belief system, ideology, cause, religion or whatever to be 100% consistent and to have all the answers. I do believe in animal liberation, but I have a dog and a cat. I do believe that taking the life of another unnecessarily is wrong, but I can't see myself attacking indigenous people for eating beetles. There is ideology, and then there is reality. I think we are all struggling to convince others of our point of view, and when we're unwilling to have serious conversations not only about that which we are sure about but also that which we are unsure about, we're not really making progress. Yes every social movement, every fight to expand the rights of a particular group, has been fought by people who were convinced that their point of view was 'right' enough to be worth fighting for, to be worth giving their lives for. Did those people doubt themselves, I'm sure. Did they fail to convince many of their points of view, certainly. I'd like to believe that when it comes to 'right' and 'wrong,' everything was very clear. But there are questions that I just don't have answers to yet when it comes to animal rights.

Nevertheless, there are just a couple of things I wanted to point out in response to your post. I think there is something that makes the animal rights movement different in some ways from a religion or any other ideology, and really from any other social movement in history. We are speaking out on behalf of billions of sentient beings that do not speak our language. They certainly must have their own POV, right? But they cannot express it to us. They also really have no ability to defend themselves against our tyranny. I mean really, do they? Not that I can think of. Occasionally you'll see an oppressed circus elephant rebel against her so-called 'trainers,' who've been abusing her for years to force her to perform, and trample them to death, but inevitably she'll be shot down or recaptured.

[Continue reading after the jump--that's an order! You don't want to miss the best parts!]

I always hear about 'respecting differing points of view,' and not 'forcing my beliefs on another,' but those who support the torture, imprisonment and death of animals, either through their words or their actions, or with their pocketbooks, are not respecting the 'point of view,' of each individual animal, which I would hesitate to guess is that they don't want to be tortured, imprisoned, experimented on, skinned alive, boiled alive, have their families ripped apart, and be beaten into submission, among a myriad of other horrors. If I'm wrong, then yes, animal rights is a mere ideology of a few delusional people. And as for 'forcing' my beliefs on others, if I saw someone beating a beagle puppy in the street, I would 'force' that person to stop. If I saw someone skinning a cat alive next door, I would 'force' that person to stop. I suppose that's the whole idea behind direct action. What right-minded person would stand by and watch someone beating a puppy? Few. But when the abuse is legally sanctioned and happening on a grand scale, somehow we must all accept it? But doesn't that almost make it worse?

Ok, to get back to your post. I'm challenging your argument for the purpose of learning more, as I try to navigate my way through the confusing territory of ethics. There are many other socially acceptable ways that 'ideology,' or 'ethics,' or 'propriety,' or compassion, or whatever you want to call it, has triumphed over biological reality. Yes, our ancestors probably ate meat occasionally (certainly not 3 times a day), but why are we bound by this? Supposedly, the instinct of the human male is to 'spread his seed,' right? So is the whole idea of monogamous relationships a triumph of ideology over biology? I suppose it is, and in fact, I've heard a lot of guys argue that (ha ha), but does that mean that any man in a monogamous relationship is an ideological betrayer of his biological reality? Human beings are not bound by our biological roots. We actually DON'T have to kill to survive. We DO, however, have to raise animals in a factory setting in order to feed the voracious appetites of billions of people the world round, so the idea of raising and slaughtering animals humanely is not a reality, not if we keep consuming them at the rate we are. And no, I’m sorry, but giving an animal enough space to turn around and spread it’s limbs is not ‘humane.’

Biological reality would also have us 'culling the herd,' wouldn't it? In 'nature,' whatever that is, no species would ever grow exponentially into infinity (without our interference anyway) as humans have. The idea of "survival of the fittest," which just as the human as hunter model is theory not fact, would have us killing off the weak and disabled rather than helping and protecting them. To keep a premature baby or a child with genetic defects alive would also then be considered a triumph of 'ideology' over biological reality, no?

Your argument that humans are omnivores and therefore there is nothing 'wrong' with eating meat is based on the ideas that (a) humans need to kill animals to survive, (b) humans are bound by the 'laws of nature,' (c) our biological heritage, such as our dentition, takes precedence over our ethical evolution and (d) we have no choice. I don’t believe any of these statements is true.

Since we do have a choice, there are many people who believe we should choose non-violence. That, I suppose, is our 'ideology.'

And for the record, I must say I'm sick of privileged Americans (not that you are one, Marc, at all, I'm totally just bringing this up because I've been talking about choice a lot) talking about how we don't have a choice not to eat meat and dairy when there really are millions of under-privileged people who actually don't, who can only afford a one-dollar burger at McDonalds on their way home from their first job of three. I mean seriously.

Okay, to finish off this novel that I'm writing (sorry!) . . . I really don't think that having a service dog is the same as eating meat. I've heard AR people say that we shouldn't adopt dogs and cats from shelters because it's like inviting a carnivore into your house and perpetuating the system of oppression [Note from Stephanie here: Most involved in AR have heard or read someone say this (and anti-AR folks love to accuse the AR movement of wanting to erase dogs and cats from existence), but in my experience, most AR advocates do rescue and care for the dogs and cats humans have domesticated, and this relationship and situation are complicated--worthy of a separate post], but I just have a hard time with that one. Yes, of course, we HAVE to stop breeding, and yes, animal liberation is the ultimate goal, but do I need to feel guilty for having my rescue dog as a companion? Well, I do feel guilty, because I've taken away his free choice and who knows if he really even wants to live with me anyways, and yes, I feel really bad when I have him on a leash, but should I feel guilty? I don't know the answer to that, I really don't, and I guess of all the battles I could be fighting as an AR activist attacking you for having a service dog to assist you with your disability is not my top priority.

What I do know, however, is that when I see a service dog, and I see how much animals add to our lives, how much they help us, how they don’t judge us based on the way we look, as we do each other, how even after horrible trauma they can learn to be happy and love life, how they save our lives and rescue us when we’re in trouble, and how much they teach us every single day, I can’t help but think . . . Why are we even fighting about whether we should have compassion for them? Why do people have to fight tirelessly to convince others of their ‘ideological’ viewpoint that animals have inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness just as we do? Well I know why. I could write another 10 page long post about why . . . that’s the reality of this profit-driven global economy etc. . . . but the question still remains. Just as we are not bound by our biological reality, we don’t have to be bound by the seemingly inescapable reality of a global system built on oppression of animals and people alike. That’s what the fight is about. So please just think about that.

Share this Post

Comments (18)

I agree and I think it was very well put..

Posted by Tamara Stafford on 12/23/2008 @ 05:52PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tamara
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Annie = rockin' AR!!

Posted by Lisa Smolen on 12/23/2008 @ 07:21PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Lisa
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I agree with Animals 4 Freedom Forever's comment..... Very well put!!!!

Posted by Andrea M on 12/23/2008 @ 08:37PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Andrea
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Fantastic! Thanks for sharing!!!

Posted by Keith Berger on 12/24/2008 @ 11:08AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Keith
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
The following is an interesting point. It has been argued forcefully by philosophers for many years -- "Forcing my opinions on others" could easily be turned around to mean "I'm trying to allow the minority an outlet to express their concerns and opinions, which has the effect of preventing the majority from "forcing" their views on them."

Quote:

"I always hear about 'respecting differing points of view,' and not 'forcing my beliefs on another,' but those who support the torture, imprisonment and death of animals, either through their words or their actions, or with their pocketbooks, are not respecting the 'point of view,' of each individual animal..."

Quote:

"I've heard AR people say that we shouldn't adopt dogs and cats from shelters because it's like inviting a carnivore into your house and perpetuating the system of oppression..."

We know this doesn't follow our ethical practices concerning human animals. Indeed, it's often argued that if we bring a life into this world, we have unique ethical obligations concerning this life -- consider babies, e.g. Therefore, the AR activists who believe that animals shouldn't be adopted are not on solid ethical grounds.

However, for the purpose of "service dogs," this is a different issue as it involves breeding practices for the end result of making the animal a tool for our ends, which raises many ethical questions.

Posted by Alex Melonas on 12/25/2008 @ 08:32AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Alex
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I think in order to achieve a goal of humans respecting animals we have to stop advocating that humans and animals are the same. But we do not have to be the same in order to have rights.
Species specific rights is what we need for animals.

My top priority is to first stop blatant abuse and torture of animals for any reason, and promote a positive attitude toward animals. In particular sentient animals. Teaching that animal have feelings, feel pain, loneliness and anxiety for instance if robbed of freedom, or their off spring or mate. To recognize they have species specific rights, given to them by their creator, for habitat, food and freedom, all basic needs for all animals including us.

Also as long as we insist on killing lifestock for food, we should at the least provide them with those basic needs while they are alive, not abuse them and hurt them but grant them a quick and human death. Unlike what is happening today!

We really need to raise children to look upon animal as living and feeling. Rather then something beneath us that is to be used like an object. We need to teach that animals are living beings like us and not objects.

It helps to interact with animals, it helps to have pets and teach the value of animals companionship. Some in the animals rights groups tat oppose any animals interaction or pets I believe do a disservice to animals rights. If you can't experience the wonderful companionship and love an attachment to a pet it's much more difficult to begin to look at animals as feeling beings.

For a less able person to have a dog that can aid and bring companionship is not hurting the dog. Of course provided the less able person treats it well, provides adequate food, shelter and room. Dogs are naturally inclined to get attached to humans. They love to please, which is why it is so sad when their trust is abused and people hurt them.

I think it is counterproductive to suggest owning pets is somehow automatically anti animals rights.
I think what is bad is the industry of designer pets, that are bred to only satisfy a fashion trend of owning this or that breed because it's a cool thing. People that own pets for companionship, or as aids in their lives can not be compared to unscrupulous Normal 0 MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> animal owners for profit or vanity!

I own four cats. They have to run of the house, eat adequate food, get lots of water, exercise outside every day (enclosed on my property) and get loved and cuddled and all that good stuff. They and I are best buddies. The mother showed up at my door years ago as a stray and pregnant. I keep all the kittens, had them all fixed, they get their veterinarian check up and shots every year. If I have to do without I will, as long as I have taken care of my pets. They come first in everything. If I had not taken the mom in they would have been out there and probably be dead or abused by now. I do wish everyone would spay or neuter their pets that would go a long way to stop the masses of unwanted pets in shelters.

Josi, Buster,Mally and Mom give joy, calmness and teach me every day how good life is, I don't need much but my companions and I am happy and I knowthey are too! I don't really want to bring God in to the discussion but as for me I truly believe God gave us the wonderful animals for companionship and to aide us with their strength, special skills and their ability to love unconditionally. I always find if odd that so many Christians have no qualms with what is happening to animals in the world and often don't want to be told.

I don't believe that God or the creator or whatever Deity one wants to believe in, meant for us to eat, or to hurt them in any way. Especially not in the way of the mass industrialized killing, that has robbed the animasl as well as teh humans of all dignity.
And last but not least the unthinkable live skinning of animals in many parts of the world for fashionable furs.

Please support my cause
"Stop Skinning Live Animal Everywhere"
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/stop_the_live_skinning_of_animals_everywhere

Posted by Ginette Callaway on 12/25/2008 @ 01:01PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Ginette
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I don't believe "God gave us the animals for companionship" as I do not believe that the Universe is human-centric. I believe that all animals are of equal intrinsic value, this includes humans. Simply because Christianity states that humans are given "dominion over nature" does not make this a fact. I believe that this philosophy is inherently destructive; worshipping a patriarchal divinity is largely what has led to the dishonoring of Nature and the feminine and the disrespect of animals and in turn global environmental crisis.

Posted by Tatiana Dolan on 12/26/2008 @ 08:21PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tatiana
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Thanks!!! This article is very well put. I also like the comment from Ginette.
Animals do have the right to be free and not to be owned as a possession but .... we have over the century's taken that right away from some of them. You can't just take the dogs and cats which have been domesticated for so long and say that it is wrong to care for them. They can never be fully wild again.
Even if we could give them their freedom then where would we release them??? There is barley enough room for humans anymore. We are destroying all the places where these animals once ran wild and free. Just look at the wild horses in Nevada, the orangutans in Borneo, and all the other animals in the world being driven to extinction.
There wouldn't be an endangered species list if we weren't so driven to destroy everything in our path for profit.
I personally have may companions that I care for - dogs, cats, ferrets, birds, small mammals and reptiles. I love each and everyone of them. They are part of my family and are treated as such. I give them all the love and care that they need and they give me and my family so much more then I could even try to explain here.
I personally don't think that it is wrong to have animal companions. Most of my cats where strays that if left on the streets would be dead by now. If someone in my neighbor hood finds a stray kitten they bring it to me. I have bottle fed most of my cats. I help find homes for the ones I can and the rest I keep or they keep me. All my cats and dogs have been spayed or neutered.
I am totally for AR's and do all that I can to protect the animals. I love the ones that can call my home their homes and I do my best to help those that don't have a home of their own. If everyone cared just a little to help those that can't stand up for there selves and stopped sitting on their morals then some good could come from it.
I know that the end of animal suffering is a long way off but helping just one animal is a step towards understanding that deep down we are not that different from them. At our core we all just want to be loved.
Please help end the suffering of all animals. Reach out and give an animal a second chance to live. There are so many ways to help.

Posted by Kitty Karma on 12/27/2008 @ 11:40AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Kitty
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
In response to Ginette,

I agree with much of the latter part of your response, but I don't believe we need to "teach" animals to "feel" or express themselves. They already feel and communicate - we just need to better learn to understand them.

Humans really aren't that evolved compared to many other animals. We can't breathe under water, but the common snail in a fish tank has both gills and lungs, and can store sperm to reproduce when conditions are right. Crocodiles and camels have films to cover their eyes to protect them from water and sand, respectively. We spend 9 months creating one member of our next generation, and the next 18 years (at least) educating and protecting an initially helpless being. There are many other animal innovations that make me respect them so much - yes, we have our languages (but so do they), but the only thing that really separates us from other animals is how much we rely on technology instead of instinct and the world around us, and I would argue our pursuit of technology has so far doomed us more than saved us.

What I'm saying is, animals (including humans) already have rights granted to them simply by existing, and we have no right to take those rights away. Too often we underestimate what we do not understand.

Kudos to you for fighting skinning.

Posted by Emily Linroth on 12/28/2008 @ 12:35AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Emily
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
With all due respect, Ginette,
Please read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, as it is clear from your statements that you are not educated fully on the issue of animal rights. You do not "own" your cats. You are a guardian to them if they choose to stay in your home. If they would prefer to be in the wild then you are holding them captive. This may dissatisfy you but it is reality.
Best,
Tatiana

Posted by Tatiana Dolan on 12/28/2008 @ 03:43PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tatiana
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
With all due respect, Ginette,
Please read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, as it is clear from your statements that you are not educated fully on the issue of animal rights. You do not "own" your cats. You are a guardian to them if they choose to stay in your home. If they would prefer to be in the wild then you are holding them captive. This may dissatisfy you but it is reality.
Best,
Tatiana

Posted by Tatiana Dolan on 12/28/2008 @ 03:43PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tatiana
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Stephanie says:
   "(and anti-AR folks love to accuse the AR movement of wanting to erase dogs and cats from existence)"

   What do you think will happen after you get them all spayed and neutered?
`


Posted by Cynthia Eliason on 12/28/2008 @ 06:13PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Cynthia
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Tatiana says

"Please read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, as it is clear from your statements that you are not educated fully on the issue of animal rights. You do not "own" your cats. You are a guardian to them if they choose to stay in your home. If they would prefer to be in the wild then you are holding them captive. This may dissatisfy you but it is reality."

Thank you Tatiana. When I tried to explain this concept to Stephanie she said that it isn't true that one of the AR movement's goals is to end the ownership of domestic animals. This is indeed the goal of the movement as described by Peter Singer and other founders.

Fortunately for our animals, the "guardian" law has only been passed in a few places, so most of us still can offer our pets the protection of responsible ownership.

Posted by Cynthia Eliason on 12/28/2008 @ 06:37PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Cynthia
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Tatiana says

"Please read the book Animal Liberation by Peter Singer, as it is clear from your statements that you are not educated fully on the issue of animal rights. You do not "own" your cats. You are a guardian to them if they choose to stay in your home. If they would prefer to be in the wild then you are holding them captive. This may dissatisfy you but it is reality."

Thank you Tatiana. When I tried to explain this concept to Stephanie she said that it isn't true that one of the AR movement's goals is to end the ownership of domestic animals. This is indeed the goal of the movement as described by Peter Singer and other founders.

Fortunately for our animals, the "guardian" law has only been passed in a few places, so most of us still can offer our pets the protection of responsible ownership.

Posted by Cynthia Eliason on 12/28/2008 @ 06:37PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Cynthia
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
I'm always surprised to learn that the AR movement wants to end pet ownership. I'd actually never heard this claim until I came here to this blog - and this claim is continually put forth by detractors. I'd love to see some actual proof that this is the case because, like I said, I'd never heard this before.

Also, spaying & neutering by responsible owners & shelters obviously hasn't led to the extinction of dogs & cats yet. Most shelters won't adopt out a cat or dog unless they spay/neuter it first. There will always be feral animals in the world, they'll keep the species going.

Posted by Lisa Smolen on 12/28/2008 @ 07:56PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Lisa
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Cynthia You do not "own" your pet. It is a being of Nature. You do not own it. There is only responsible guardianship "responsible Ownership(of pets) is an oxymoron. How ridiculous. I think you are having difficulty comprehending the movements objectives to free all beings, feeling the need to "own" another being is egotistical and has noplace in the animal liberation movement.
Best,
Tatiana

Posted by Tatiana Dolan on 12/28/2008 @ 08:58PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tatiana
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Lisa,
It is not about the extinction of cats and dogs; it is about liberating them from enslaved lives. Wild dogs and feral cats who can survive naturally in the wild will be encouraged and continue to reproduce prolifically. We are good guardians to those animals who are living unnantural lives separated from the wild but we do not eencourage the continuation of this unnatural exploitation and domestication of animals.
It is unethical to further domesticate animals and "keep them as pets". Just because humans have done so does not make it acceptable. I recommend the Singer book as it elaborates on this topic. This is a compassionate action on the part of animal liberators. We are extremely compassionate to the animals we are blessed to protect. Do not let Cynthia twist our good intentions and efforts into distortions.

Posted by Tatiana Dolan on 12/28/2008 @ 09:07PM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Tatiana
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
Given the pollution (including greenhouse gases), misuse of resources and cruelty inherent in animal agriculture, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle">precautionary principle</a> clearly puts the burden of proof on those who advocate eating animal-products. A burden that they cannot meet with "but they taste good." It's not veganism that needs defending.

All across the web, including on environmental and progressive sites that I visit, the don't-force-your-beliefs-on-me argument is used over and over again in response to the most innocuous and irrefutable comments by vegetarians, animal advocates and even people just looking for advice on how to reduce their meat consumption. Simply pointing out the existence of vegetarian alternatives to eating a turkey's corpse on Thanksgiving, the environmental impact of meat and the fact that animals can feel pain and suffer will illicit this response. It is an effort to intimidate people into censoring any comments that they have that question the current treatment of animals, thereby ending all debate on this subject. If you encounter such a hostile post online, I suggest that you report it to the site administrator. Most sites have a system for flagging user-contributed content that does not meet their guidelines. Some even will unpublish posts automatically if they are flagged a certain number of times. This intimidation must be stopped if there is to be civility and a free exchange of ideas in online spaces.

Posted by Maura McCormick on 12/31/2008 @ 11:06AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Maura
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Stephanie is an independent animal rights advocate, a vegan, a tree-hugging environmentalist, and a freelance editor and writer. She lives in St. Louis with an aging corgi-lab and an adolescent rescued pit bull.