Skip to comments."Animal Rights" vs. Human Rights
Posted on 12/27/2006 7:16:20 PM PST by Coleus
|Sometimes sincere people concerned with protecting innocent human life will express sentiments along these lines: "Animal rights advocates are eager to protect all kinds of animal life, but seem to ignore the most important animal of all, the human animal.
Terrine of Foie Gras
"Animals too," he stressed, "are God's creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relationship to God that man has, they are still creatures of His will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation."
"Animals too," he stressed, "are God's creatures and even if they do not have the same direct relationship to God that man has, they are still creatures of His will, creatures we must respect as companions in creation." When I gave my statement at the press conference, I mentioned that when I had trained as a research scientist at Yale, I often had to deal with questions about research ethics, and about the use of animals in laboratory settings. I pointed out that while animals may be sacrificed or used humanely for legitimate purposes, such as obtaining food and clothing, or advancing serious scientific research, the use of animals to produce foie gras is clearly in another category altogether. It is neither a humane nor a reasonable use of animals.
The production of foie gras is instead oriented toward the satisfaction of a disordered desire, a disturbing desire to satisfy the human palate to the point of promoting serious animal mistreatment. Some old Catholic manualists might even advert to the term, "morose delectation" to describe the root problem of a disordered palate that promotes other disorders. Animals are an important part of God's creation, and we must live in an ordered way with them, exercising a responsible stewardship of the gift that they really are. Even those animals used for legitimate purposes ought to be treated humanely with reasonable housing, care, food, companionship and pain control if needed. Animals are a vulnerable part of creation, and that vulnerability should continually prompt us to examine our decisions on how we relate to them: are we exercising a reasonable and ordered stewardship, or are we exploiting their vulnerability for selfish and disordered ends? To the extent that we are attentive to the weakness and vulnerability not only of our brother human beings, but even of our friends in the animal kingdom, we decide the sort of society we will become: either a society marked by respect, kindness and reason; or one that is marked by various forms of barbarism.
Puppy gets a treat!
There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'
" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature", but beavers and their dams are.
But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity.
In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "Naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race, i.e. his own self-hatred.
In the case,of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot.
But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate.
As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have.
Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women, it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural."
Robert Anson Heinlein
I vote for human rights. May all babies be accepted with love.
Blessed Mother, we pray that abortion come to a halt in the world. Amen.
I've heard that the overwhelming number of animal rights activists are single childless females. Since they don't have a husband or children to nurture, they instead want to nurture animals. \
These animal rights people don't have a properly balanced view of life.
It's hard to concentrate on the article; I can't get past that gorgeous, delicious picture accompanying it.
Well, I've read the article and I'm hungry now. If Foie Gras is morally objectionable, I suppose we shouldn't even discuss ortolans. I've had them exactly once in my life, and hope to again. :)
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Geese are included; in fact, they are the best source of foie gras, as far as I'm concerned. And you don't chop the liver; you cook it in one piece without breaking it up. mmmmmmmmmmmm. ;-P
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.