Animal Rights Groups Go Too Far

Animal rights groups, such
as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, claim to be preventing
animal abuse, but instead seek to impose their antihuman ideology by trying
to stop people from using animals to save human lives and helping terrorist
organizations firebomb and threaten those who oppose them.

The modern animal rights movement
got its start in the 1970s when Tom Regan and Peter Singer both wrote
books claiming it was “species-ist” to make moral distinctions
between human beings and animals.

What does this mean? After
a speech on animal rights in 1989, an audience member asked Regan, “If
you were aboard a lifeboat with a baby and a dog, and the boat capsized,
would you rescue the baby or the dog?”

Regan responded, “(If)
it were a retarded baby, and a bright dog, I’d save the dog.”

Ingrid Newkirk, PETA national
director and co-founder, put the matter bluntly by noting “6 million
people die in concentration camps, but 6 million broiler chickens will
die this year in slaughterhouses.” That Newkirk is comfortable comparing
the raising of chickens for food to the Holocaust illustrates the depravity
of the animal rights extremists.

Groups like PETA take this
misanthropy and run with it by working to ban all medical research involving
animals.

It is difficult for people
today to imagine how devastating diseases such as polio, small pox, rubella
and tetanus were before vaccinations were developed. Thanks to vaccines,
all of these diseases have been practically eliminated in the United States
and are slowly going by the wayside in the rest of the world.

Other human problems have
been brought under control thanks to products synthesized with animal
products. Insulin, for example, has allowed millions of diabetics to prolong
their lives.

Animal experimentation was
essential for developing organ transplantation procedures that save thousands
of lives annually.

Yet groups such as PETA want
humanity to abandon this progress and stop all further medical research
on animals. Placing animals on a higher moral plane than humans, these
extremists put more value on the lives of pigs used to produce insulin
than the lives of millions of human beings who will die if they don’t
get insulin.

As Newkirk put it, even if
animal experimentation would find a cure for AIDS, “we’d be against
it.”

PETA gets a lot of support
from people because it successfully hides some of its extremist beliefs.
A large number of those who contribute to PETA are pet owners rightfully
concerned about animal abuse. Little do they know that PETA advocates
eliminating what it calls “companion animals.”

According to Newkirk, “pet
ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation.”
PETA and other animal rights groups seek to rectify this “abysmal
situation” by ending the breeding of domesticated animals and allowing
those species to become extinct.

Of course this means eliminating
the use of guide dogs for the blind and macaques who are trained to care
for paraplegics.

PETA spokesperson Kathy Guillermo
told a radio audience, “I’m against using guide dogs,” and Newkirk
has said, “(In) a perfect society, we won’t have a need for (guide
dogs).”

In case you think this sounds
a bit unfair, remember a blind person or a paraplegic means no more (if
not less) to animal rights activists than a dog or macaque.

Since PETA has been unable
to convince many people to adopt its extremist positions, it sponsors
terrorist groups who use violence to force change. PETA is closely affiliated
with the Animal Liberation Front, a group classified as a terrorist organization
by both the FBI and Scotland Yard, which firebombs laboratories and uses
threats of violence against people to try to achieve its means.

ALF has caused millions of
dollars in damage to laboratories, which it sets on fire.

Not only does ALF end up destroying
valuable research data that could save human lives, but it usually ends
up killing many of the laboratory animals it’s supposedly acting on behalf
of.

PETA knows no bounds to its
support for animal rights terrorists. When Fran Stephanie Trutt, a member
of the extremist Friends of Animals, was convicted of attempting to murder
Leon Hirsch, president of the U.S. Surgical Company, PETA paid all her
legal expenses.

Thankfully, there are still
brave souls in the scientific community and the public who are willing
to speak out against these absolutely unethical animal rights fascists.

This article originally
appeared in the Western Herald.

Animal Rights Not Such A Good Idea

Is animal rights “too
good an idea for the next century to be suppressed,” as Paul McCartney
claims? Only if people no longer want access to lifesaving medical treatments.

McCartney and his wife, Linda,
campaigned for years against the use of animals in medical experiments.
As spokespersons for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the
McCartney’s parroted that organization’s claims that animal
experiments don’t lead to reliable treatments for human diseases.

When Linda McCartney was diagnosed
with breast cancer, however, she received chemotherapy – a treatment
tested extensively in animals before ever being used in human beings.

This might lead some to accuse
Paul and Linda McCartney of being hypocrites, but after Linda’s death,
Paul offered what he thought was a reasonable explanation of the seeming
contradiction. He claimed neither he nor Linda knew that the drugs she
was taking had been tested in animals, which in itself is an amazing admission.

In the United States all
drugs must be tested in animals before being tested on human beings. That
the McCartneys could campaign against animal experimentation without being
aware of the fundamental role that animal experiments play in the drug
development and approval process is typical of animal rights activists
who are often ignorant of even basic scientific and medical concepts.

On the other hand, some animal
rights activists do understand the importance of animal experiments but
just don’t care. Consider another celebrity activist, Linda Blair.
Asked about actor Christopher Reeve, paralyzed after a 1995 horse riding
accident, Blair blamed Reeve for the accident and said she hoped a cure
could be found for his paralysis “but not at the expense of innocent
animals.”

Reeve’s wife, Dana,
replied to Blair saying, “It’s too hard to watch 6-year-old children
with spinal cord injuries and say, ‘No, don’t do a medical experiment
on a rat'” Animal rights activists, however, are committed to doing
just that.

PETA president Ingrid Newkirk
once summed up this callous view by telling a reporter that even if animal
experimentation could find a cure for AIDS, “we’d be against
it.” Without animal research, life saving treatments and vaccines
for everything from diabetes to polio would not exist.

Most Americans support and
benefit from medical research involving animals, however, so animal rights
activists choose to direct much of their activism at banning hunting and
the sale of furs.

As the number of hunters
nationwide has declined over the past few decades, animal rights activists
have made inroads convincing non-hunters to ban or curtail hunting. Similarly,
since the market for fur products is largely among wealthier Americans,
activists have been able to gain a lot of sympathy for their cause.

But the animal rights agenda
goes far beyond those narrow issues. Animal rights groups such as PETA
want a nationwide ban on fishing, for example, and an end to all meat
eating, which they consider cruel. Opposing hunting is just a way to get
a foot in the door.

Similarly, though animal
rights activists concentrate on fur, they are committed to ridding the
world of leather and other common products, such as down-filled jackets,
that are made from animals.

PETA is so committed to the
rights of animals that it even advocates an end to keeping dogs and cats
as pets. As a PETA fact sheet puts it, it is “important to stop manufacturing
‘pets,’ thereby perpetuating a class of animals forced to rely
on humans to survive.” PETA would prefer to see all breeding of pets
stopped so domestic animal species could gradually go extinct.

This is what Paul McCartney
thinks is “too good an idea for the next century to be suppressed”?
If blocking medical progress and eliminating pets is his best idea, McCartney
should stick to trying to revive his music career.

The Official Response to Animal Rights Extremism in the United States

       In addition to the FBI’s investigation
of ALF as a terrorist organization from 1988 through 1990, and the ultimate
enactment of the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, federal authorities
have responded to animal rights extremism by launching a number of grand
jury investigations of major incidents. Some of these currently are ongoing,
including inquiries into the following incidents:

  • June 1991 break-in and firebombing of mink farm facility at Oregon
    State University. The facility damaged by fire was used for storing
    feed and equipment. ALF claimed responsibility.

  • June 1991 destruction by fire of the Northwest Farm Food Cooperative
    facility in Edmonds, Washington. The cooperative supplied animal feed
    and bedding to northwest fur farms. ALF claimed responsibility.

  • October 1992 break-in, release of animals, and arson at Utah State
    University. The target was a USDA-sponsored predator ecology project
    in which coyotes were maintained for experimentation. [19: Many of the
    university-based research projects victimized over the years have been
    funded-either partially or in full-by government agencies such as the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture or the National Institutes of Health.]
    ALF claimed responsibility.

  • On July 16, 1993, a federal grand jury in Grand Rapids, Michigan returned
    a five count indictment against Rodney Coronado-a suspected ALF member-in
    connection with the February 1992 break-in, vandalism, and arson at
    Michigan State University. [20: Rodney Coronado, who also is wanted
    in Canada on charges relating to the vandalism of fur retailers, is
    still at large.] The indictment includes charges of arson, destruction
    of government property, theft, and the use of an explosive. The targeted
    project involved fertility research using minks for experimentation.
    ALF claimed responsibility for the incident.

       Since the appearance of illegal
activity relating to the cause of animal rights, only nine persons have
been convicted in connection with a specific incident. Only one person-Fran
Trutt-was convicted on federal charges (see footnote number 27 below),
and only one person – Roger Troen-has been convicted of involvement in
an incident claimed by ALF. [21: In January 1988, Roger Troen was convicted
in an Oregon county circuit court on charges of first-degree theft and
second-degree burglary relating to his involvement in an October 1986
break-in and theft at the University of Oregon in Eugene.] To date, no
one has been charged under the Animal Enterprise Protection Act of 1992.

        Since 1988, 32 states have
enacted laws aimed at protecting-animal enterprises from animal rights-inspired
violence and destruction. They are, by year of enactment, as follows:

 

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Massachusetts

Indiana

Arizona

Arkansas

Colorado

Florida

Minnesota

Utah

Georgia

Iowa

Missouri

Maine

Idaho

Montana

Nebraska

Illinois

New York

South Carolina

Kansas

North Carolina

South Dakota

Kentucky

North Dakota

Tennessee

Louisiana

Oklahoma

Virginia

Maryland

Oregon

Texas

Washington

Wisconsin

 

       As of June 1993,
similar legislation was being considered by legislatures in New Jersey,
Alabama, and New Hampshire.

Next
Section: Animal Rights Extremism in Other Countries

Thank You, India

This week India hit the 1 billion population mark (actually, statisticians do not really know the population of countries such as India accurately enough to give such precise dates, but lets not nitpick). While India’s population hit the 1 billion mark, the hits to Overpopulation.Com went through the roof as well. Quite a few news sites link back to Overpopulation.Com on a regular basis any time a news story relating to population comes along.

Protesting Panty Raider

For whatever reason, Simon & Schuster agreed to publish computer game developer Hypnotix’s latest game, Panty Raider: From Here to Immaturity (the first time I read an announcement of this game, it was so bizarre I was convinced it was an April Fools-style joke). Apparently in the game the player strips a model down to her underwear and then takes pictures for aliens, of all things.

Hypnotix games tend to be attempts at parodies of traditional games or genres. After the success of the various Deer Hunter computer games, for example, Hypnotix developed Deer Avenger in which the deer turn the tables and hunt humans who were stereotypical rednecks. Panty Raider appears to be a lame attempt to spoof the “Mars Needs Women”-style B movies.

Unfortunately, that’s got the usual suspects all uptight (Naughty game has knickers in a twist). According to Diana Zuckerman of the National Center for Policy Research for Women and Families, Panty Raider is not just going to be a stupid game, but is “extremely negative and dangerous to girls and women” because of the behavior it will encourage in young boys. Zuckerman’s complained to Simon & Schuster about the game. So has the group Dads and Daughters, which sent an email to Simon & Schuster urging the company to pull the game.

Simon & Schuster maintains that the game will have an M rating, meaning it is intended for mature audiences only, but that’s not good enough for Zuckerman and DADS. According to Zuckerman, the simple fact that the game involves aliens is proof positive that the game is being marketed to kids, while DADS resident expert Joe Kelly told USA Today that if it were really marketed only to adults, the models would strip to the nude (apparently the only sexually oriented content adults are ever interested in must contain full nudity.)

I’ve never understood why executives give the go ahead for crap like Panty Raider while other worthy games never get close to market (or why studio executives green light Danny DeVito movies for that matter), but the idea that this game is “dangerous” to women is beyond absurd. The only danger this game poses is to the suckers who waste their $19.95 on probably one of the most moronic computer game concepts ever.