Posted on 09/02/2010 10:59:11 AM PDT by markomalley
Many years ago we learned that Princeton’s own Professor Peter Singer had devised a method by which to excuse some human persons from the human race and welcome into it other entities which were in fact animals, not humans. As Professor Dianne Irving pointed out in a speech on the topic, “Princeton’s Peter Singer—a ‘preference’ utilitarian…argues that some animals have more moral value than young human children or ill, disabled human adults.”
Of course Singer is not alone. Most recently he has been joined by a cadre of animal rights activists who have brought their own spin to the question of what it means to be a person. York County SPCA executive director Melissa Smith, for example, explained to her local newspaper that she took her lead from veterinarian Elliot Katz, who recommended some years ago that, if the owner of a dog or a cat is referred to as the “guardian” instead of the “owner,” a higher level of moral responsibility is required of that individual.
Katz, founder of the international organization In Defense of Animals, is convinced that, by changing the language that describes the pet caretaker, the caretaker’s behavior toward that animal will also change. He could be onto something, of course. As we know in America, since pregnancy has fallen into disrepute and is viewed as a disease instead of a natural state of expectation, millions of human persons have been killed by abortion.
Having said this, let me add that Katz and his fellow animal lovers are using some terminology that should send shivers down your spine. Rutgers law professor Gary Francione, who has written extensively on animal rights, is convinced that rhetorical modification is not enough, but rather what is needed is a change in the legal status of animals. According to Francione, “You don’t go from non-personhood to personhood through incremental changes ... (including) language changes. Once somebody has achieved personhood, then you can improve that status and ameliorate the lack of equality through various means.”
What? Yes, in his latest book, Animals as Persons, Francione sets forth the argument that “nonhuman animals should be regarded as ‘persons’—full members of the moral community.”
The attitude about animals is even changing among Americans. In an introduction to one of his books on animal rights, Francione writes, “Two-thirds of Americans polled by the Associated Press agree with the following statement: An animal’s right to live free of suffering should be just as important as a person’s right to live free of suffering.”
What’s wrong with this picture? We should reflect briefly on something Wesley Smith said regarding animal rights activists/liberationists (ARLists):
We have to understand that ARLists do not share a common frame of moral reference with the rest of society.
Whereas most of us believe that humans have the highest moral value, it is an article of faith among ARLists that no moral distinction exists between humans and animals; “a rat, is a dog, is a boy,” in one animal liberationist’s infamous assertion. Thus, while most of us believe that we have a positive moral duty to treat animals humanely and support punishing people that abuse them, ARL movement devotees believe—not metaphorically, but literally—that we have no right to use animals for any purpose, not even as seeing-eye dogs.
While I have no tolerance for those who abuse animals or wildlife in general, I see nothing commendable in the philosophical position that my cat or your dog should be recognized as a human person in the same way that some of us are. Yes, SOME, not all! Let’s not forget that America has already dehumanized preborn children, denying their human personhood in the law and the culture.
This is why our first priority as pro-life Americans must be the pursuit of HUMAN personhood—not animal, not vegetable, not corporate.
So the next time you step near your cat’s Meow Mix bowl, take care. Some may argue that you are invading a person’s space down there, rather than ensuring that Tabby has enough to eat!
read
How many bong hits does it take to come up with something like that?
And your head of lettuce CRINGES when it sees your knife. Wanna meet at the Discovery Channel Network?? Let’s protest that they have too many people and not enough animals producing their shows...
Just one but you have to use it to hit in just the right spot with sufficient force to knock the brain completely loose inside the skull.
(1) A long history of broken and failed relationships with other human beings.
(2) A long and unbroken relationship with one or more domesticated animals.
These people, unable to to psychologically sustain human relationships for any serious length of time, find emotional comfort in the companionship of animals.
Animals offer their owners unconditional love with minimal commitment and effort on the owners' part.
People are more complicated.
They're correct, actually, because neither a human nor an animal has a right to live free of suffering. Pet animals probably experience much less suffering than most humans, since pets have no responsibilities, have very simple social relationships, and lack to capacity to suffer pains in anticipation or in retrospect.
Quite a deal, when you think about it ... and then they want to sleep on your pillow, too!
Singer is going to be signing a different tune when he meets his maker.
Personhood ping...
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Are there substantially more crazy people in the world today? It certainly seems like it.
There’s not enough grass int eh world to do that.
It must be too much LDS from those Berkeley days......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.