In the Beacon editorial on Feb. 8, the editor ranted for quite awhile on the topic of animal rights. I bring this up only because of the fact that the author seemed to have absolutely no respect for animal rights, and went sofar as to ridicule those that advocate such things as animal welfare.
The editorial made me angry, and, being a copy-editor for the paper, I know that I'm not the only one. There will be two letters to the editor arguing against the editorial. Both of them are well-written, and protest the way that the editor's main argument against animal rights is simply ridiculous.
The main argument seems to be that advocating animal rights indicates the desire to see non-human animals gain the same legal, moral and social rights as humans. The editorial ridicules the idea of a dog suing its owner, for instance.
It also likens the actions of animal rights activists to the sorts of activists that burn down research labs and terrorize scientists for animal experimentation. Obviously the greater portion of non-human animal rights activists are not militant. '
I was not surprised that the editorial did not cite any sort of research on the topic of the rant, nor was there any indication of any. PETA and other organizations are not trying to gain non-human animals the same set of rights that we ourselves enjoy. Legal representation in court for non-human animals is, of course, rather silly. Advocating in court for animal welfare, however, is not.
Animal abuse cases are beginning to gain more attention thanks to various television shows on Animal Planet channel, among other venues, but it has a long way to go before every state takes animal abuse seriously. I read an article a few years ago about a stray cat that had had its fur burned off as a malicious prank. Dubbed Pheonix, the cat made a full recovery, and was adopted by the two people who found him, suffering and abandoned, on a roadside in Springfield, MA.
To my knowledge no one has been prosecuted for hurting Pheonix. It's a disheartening thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You write: "I bring this up only because of the fact that the author seemed to have absolutely no respect for animal rights, and went sofar as to ridicule those that advocate such things as animal welfare."
See my responses to Beeflessblog on this issue.
The author of this infantile editorial couldn't possibly respect -- let alone offer any coherent remarks concerning -- a position that he/she fails entirely to grasp.
I've read his letter to the editor; it's one of the ones I mentioned briefly in my own blog entry.
The editorialist seemed to be trying to joke around about all the stuff he/she wrote about, but all it DID come off as was infantile, you're right.
Post a Comment