“Our contributions to the world are demonstrated by what we do, not in the beliefs we cling to.” TSB
“Believing” in animal rights is all good and well, but what are you actually doing with that belief? Feeling righteous? Feeling better than those who hunt? Or are you practicing what you believe and doing everything you are capable of to protect, rescue, and otherwise save EVERY living being. If you are not doing these things, I believe the proper label for you would be HYPOCRITE.
How about starting to demonstrate your belief in animal “rights” by clearing any animal products, or items that make use of any animal “byproduct” out of your house. And then go find an animal that needs a home and give him/her one. Become their guardian for life. Through the good times, as well as those times they may need a little more.
Your choice. Your belief.
So let’s adopt a new rule. If you insist on using an animal or animal byproduct in any way, you have to kill and process the being you choose to destroy, all by yourself. If you choose to have bacon with your morning eggs, you have to process (kill, clean, etc.) the pig yourself. You pick out the pig, you “process it” (kill it), and you get it to your plate without any assistance. If you want to continue buying and wearing another being’s fur, you find the animal, you kill it and skin it and then make the product you choose to wear. And when it comes to that evening’s meatloaf, well, you get the picture.
I wonder then how many people will continue to condone factory farming and the “processing” of these innocent beings? And let’s make the above rule even better. Let’s make it mandatory that you have to raise that being you choose to destroy, from its embryonic stage, all the way to its slaughter.
Yes, I realize that people who grow up on farms likely have, or continue to do these very things. They raise and kill these animals for their personal consumption all the time. But do you think the average non-farmer could do these things? Doubt it.
There are billions of people on this earth that still believe that “free range” animals and the like, freely give their lives so that we can have our hamburgers and hot dogs at the weekend barbecue. There are billions of people who probably think that those nice, neat packages of hamburger are magically harvested from some field in North Dakota, already packaged and ready to ship to market. There are billions of people on this planet who know no other way, or who willfully remain blind to the truth. And, there are many who, even knowing the truth about factory farming, believe it is their “god-given right” to hold this “dominion” over the beasts of the fields. Really?
The war to stop the killing is overwhelming at times because most people who consume animals, just don’t care about the truth. They just don’t get it. Or they get it, but think it’s all just part of the circle of life. But as for me, I’ll continue to fight until ALL animals are once again free to roam the earth as life intended. At peace. Without pain. Without fear. For their entire NATURAL lifespan.
A completely ignorant response from a journalist to The Thinking Vegan
This is despicable that this unnecessary killing is continuing. but you can help put a stop to it.
From Time for Action:
Locking Cats Up Without Food or Water is NOT a Solution
March 19, 2013
Some Belarus cities have a rat problem, but the solution they came up with to deal with it is unbelievably cruel. Authorities lock cats in basements — no food, no water — to deal with the rats.
Local citizens have reported hearing disturbing cries of thirst and hunger from the cats, and some have been admitted to feeding the poor animals through the iron plates used to seal them into the basements. Without kind samaritans, officials are simply condemning the cats to a long, slow, painful death from starvation and dehydration.
An animal rights leader estimates that 9,000 cats have been killed in Minsk alone in the last three years. This widespread practice needs to stop before we lose another 9,000.
From the Animal Welfare Institute
March 18, 2013
Your Voice Is Needed for Chimpanzees
in NIH Research
Lira was a chimpanzee bred for research by FDA. Beginning at age 21 months, she underwent six years of invasive experiments that included hundreds of liver biopsies and knockdowns/”bleeds.” For almost three years she was housed alone. In one of multiple experiments—aimed at hepatitis c therapy—her liver was surgically exposed and then injected in 16–20 sites with hepatitis c construct. She became a chronic self-mutilator, chewing on her body hair, causing baldness. Despite FDA’s warning that liver biopsies had caused muscle and liver damage, the biopsies continued for years. She died young, at 17.
These invasive experiments were conducted by FDA from 1995 through 2001. It is against the backdrop of tragic stories like Lira’s that we now have an opportunity to significantly advance the welfare of chimpanzees in research.
In December 2011, a landmark Institute of Medicine (IOM) report titled Chimpanzees in Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Assessing the Necessity declared that “most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary.” In response to this report, in January of this year, a Working Group (WG) of the Council of Councils—an advisory body to the National Institutes of Health (NIH)— issued its own report which expanded on the IOM report and included groundbreaking recommendations. The proposed changes are subject to a public comment period before NIH Director Francis Collins makes a final decision.
AWI believes that the WG Report contains watershed recommendations that likely would have prevented what Lira, and countless others, have endured for decades. These recommendations include:
- Promotion (and not merely allowance) of the full range of natural chimpanzee behaviors in an “ethologically appropriate physical and social environment”;
- Provision of housing with at least 1,000 square feet per chimpanzee; vertical climbing space of at least 20 feet; materials so that chimpanzees can build nests every day; and social groups of at least seven;
- Use by the Oversight Committee of a “burden/benefit” analysis to review research proposals; “high” burdens include prolonged separation from social groups, inoculation with infectious agent, and surgical procedures like biopsies;
- An end to breeding of chimpanzees by NIH for any type of research;
- Permanent retirement for the vast majority of NIH-owned chimpanzees into the CHIMP Act federal sanctuary system, with a reserve of 50 chimpanzees held available for research;
Despite these very positive developments, AWI does feel the recommendations could be strengthened in some areas:
- The decision-making process is too ambiguous and could be deleterious to chimpanzees. AWI urges that all the recommendations contain clear-cut criteria (similar to the specified minimum square footage, etc.).
- The largest single bloc of the Oversight Committee would constitute scientists (at least three, with a potential fourth), whereas just two would represent community interests. AWI proposes that the number representing community interests be at least doubled.
As Dr. Mary Lee Jensvold (an AWI board member and director of the Chimpanzee & Human Communication Institute) has pointed out, “acquiescence” and reliance on positive reinforcement techniques (PRT) are problematic. PRT does not work in all chimpanzees, and can be harmful. We join Dr. Jensvold in urging other positive aspects of interactions.
If NIH accepts the WG recommendations, it is unclear who will enforce the new standards. AWI urges that, like the Oversight Committee, enforcement be independent of NIH influence.
What you can do:
Take Action – Please join AWI in urging acceptance of the recommended reforms, and urging that additional actions are taken to strengthen the recommendations.NIH is now accepting comments on the recommendations. This is a historic moment that could radically improve the lives of chimpanzees in research. The public needs to let NIH know it strongly supports these reforms—so let your voice be heard! Please join AWI in urging acceptance of the recommended reforms, and urging that additional actions—as outlined here—are taken to strengthen the recommendations. The comments deadline is Saturday, March 23, 2013 at 11:59:59 PM EDT. Make your comments here. (When you click on the link, you will see a number of comment boxes related to specific subject areas of the recommendations. Should you wish, you may scroll down to the bottom of the page and enter all your comments in the “Overall Comments” section at the very end. Please note, however, that in each comment box, you are limited to 3,000 characters and spaces.)
Please share this AWI eAlert with family, friends, and coworkers, and encourage them to comment too. As always, thank you for your help; your action does make a difference!
P.S. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter for updates on the action above and other important animal protection news.
Unrelated (but related) to animal rights, I am today pondering a couple of questions related to religion.
- Jesus, according to the christian bible, was a poor Jewish carpenter, who lived a humble life of poverty. So, why is it then, that there are so many super rich “christians” especially those mega church pastors? If you are supposed to emulate and live like Jesus, who was by no means rich, how are you being a true follower?
- If we are alone here in this vast universe, and we are the only habitable planet in the entire expanse of space, why did god create the entire universe as vast and magnificent as it is, knowing that we would be the only tiny little speck inhabited? Knowing we would never see all there is to see out there, why did he “create” it all? And, if there are other worlds out there, did he create those planets and populate them with the same types of people as we are? Did they require a “savior” too because their version of “Adam and Eve” also ate of the apple, or kumquat, or whatever the equivalent fruit was?
- And if god gave dominion over all of the animals of the earth to man, did he or does he condone the incredible cruelty and violence we commit on these animals? Did he give them emotional lives and feelings, and family structures just so man could destroy them at every turn? And if he doesn’t condone this cruelty, how can any “christian” eat or use animal products? Why would they not all be Vegans?