|
Speaking of Animal Rights -- or perhaps more accurately, animal wrongs in this case.
.
Disturbing news about People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) as reported in The Huffington Post and other media outlets this past week:
.
.
Perhaps all the facts of this incident are not yet fully known. What is known however, is that PETA is shown on video stealing a dog and apparently admits to both, taking and "euthanizing" the tiny Chihuahua named, Maya, who was reportedly, a loved pet.
.
While the fact PETA was so easily able to seize the dog suggests some carelessness and lack of attentiveness on the owners' part, unless PETA can prove that the little dog was suffering terminal and untreatable illness or injury and thus had to be "euthanized for humane reasons," (e.g. mercy killing) then it seems they should be charged with both, theft of property and animal cruelty and abuse.
.
Virtually all states have a mandatory "holding period" for strays and seized animals (in order for a possible owner to claim) which can be as little as 48 hours or as long as many months (usually court cases involving animal cruelty or neglect). Its not clear little Maya was held at all. Rather, PETA was evidently, judge, jury and executioner -- and very hasty ones at that.
.
Even assuming PETA has Animal Control powers, seizure of owned animals requires proof of neglect or cruelty before seizure. If claiming the Chihuahua to be "stray, the mandatory holding period is required by law (with exception of suffering and dying animals).
.
Something is highly suspect in this particular incident. But, like many other things with PETA, it is likely to be swept under the rug by law enforcement and ignored by most in the Animal Rights movement.
.
PETA does operate what seems to be an Animal Control shelter in Virginia, where according to this 2013, New York Times article, it "euthanizes" more than 90% of its animals.
.
.
PETA has also and long taken a very aggressive stance against TNR (trap, neuter and release) of feral cats as they feel the cats are "better off dead" than to live a life of uncertainty and what they deem, "suffering."
.
But, as a leading organization for so-called, "Animal Rights," how is such philosophy consistent or compatible with that which otherwise recognizes and promotes social and legal "rights" for animals?
.
Shouldn't the primary right of any living being be the right to continue living? It seems little else matters if that initial and most basic right is not recognized and promoted.
.
Moreover, if the life of a feral cat (or other stray) is fraught with uncertainty and suffering, then should not this be true for all animals living in the wild? Should not all animals in the wild be "euthanized," as their lives and deaths are usually stressful and in the end, painful?
.
Ironically, PETA puts forth many of the same arguments for "euthanizing" animals as hunters put forth for killing animals in the wild. "They will starve or die a horrible death if we don't kill them first -- We are doing them a favor."
.
But, PETA is staunchly "anti-hunting."
.
Is PETA thus saying that only they should determine which animals live and which animals die and that only they should do the so-called, "mercy killing?" (e.g. "Do as we say, not as we do.")
.
Even if one believes that all feral cats (and wild animals) are doomed to a life of suffering and grisly death, does that mean the animals want to die today? How many humans would choose a "humane death" today over a likely painful death years from now? (One guesses even PETA members or hunters wouldn't choose so.)
.
Although PETA has done much good for animals and has been instrumental in making "Animal Rights" a household phrase, the fact is, PETA in its present form, represents a huge problem for the philosophy, underpinnings and movement of Animal Rights in general.
.
If the basic philosophy of a movement is based solely on "suffering" (as opposed to right to life) and the victims (in this case) are unable to articulate when they are unhappy or actually suffering, then does this not make the entire movement subjective and open to interpretation and endless debate?
.
A good example of this is the carriage horse controversy in New York City. (It should be mentioned that on this issue, PETA is a major supporter of NYCLASS, the group spearheading the drive to ban carriage horses in NYC.)
.
As related in media and this blog, some people look at horses pulling a carriage through Central Park and see "suffering, cruelty and abuse." Others (like me) see horses who are very proficient and seemingly at ease in their work and who enjoy engaging with people.
.
PETA apparently looks at a stray cat (or horse pulling a carriage) and sees "suffering" that is only remedied by death. And yet most campaigning to rid NYC of it carriage horses supposedly seek for the horses to "run wild and free" in the country. (Isn't that inconsistent with PETA's philosophy on free roaming cats?)
.
So, which is actually worse for animals? Being "free" like a feral cat and according to PETA, "better off dead?" Or, being "owned" by humans and in the case of the horses, working? (According to some in Animal Rights, the carriage horses would also be "better off dead.")
.
Maybe it is all simply bad for animals, according to PETA and other radical versions of Animal Rights and all animals should be "euthanized?"
.
The fact is, that suffering in this world is unavoidable for both, animals and humans.
.
If our "solution" thus, for all suffering in the world is "humane death" then should we not euthanize all the suffering humans as well as animals in the world? That would include all humans suffering illness, depression, loss of job, loss of home or even loss of romantic partner. ("Life is painful and stressful. Please, PETA, give me the gift of death!")
.
I am not an expert in what animals actually think and feel most of the time. (Let's face it. No one is.) But, I am guessing that like humans, most animals have days of comparative pleasure, ease and even joy. They have other days that are challenging, stressful, unstimulating or even painful.
.
But, I would bet my bottom dollar that virtually all animals value and valiantly strive to hold on to their lives (even when having not so pleasant days). With the exception of those animals and humans at the very end of their lives from age, terminal illness or injury, the primary drive in all living beings is to continue living.
.
That PETA and others in so-called, "Animal Rights" are able to dismiss this basic reality for the simple reason we (humans) are able to adeptly hide impending death from animal victims and deliver it with some manner of expertise, is not only unconscionable, but an outright betrayal to all things, Animal Rights as the most basic right (to life) is denied those we purport to speak for.
.
Although the mitigation and elimination of cruelty, suffering and abuse are all vital parts of the struggle for animal justice and rights, at its base, core and underpinnings are the animals' basic rights to their lives.
.
It will require many more decades or even centuries before we truly and fully grasp the gamut of animal emotions, sentience, their capacities for both, suffering and pleasure and thus, our social and legal obligations towards them.
.
But, one absolute that doesn't require debate or subjective thought is the difference between life and death.
.
It is said that, "Where there is life, there is hope."
.
As long as animals continue to live with us, there is always hope to improve both, their lives and our own.
.
It is those who say, animals "are better off dead" than to either live precarious lives in the wild or as "subjugated, domesticated slaves of humans" who have seemingly given up all hope that this can ever be a better or more just and humane world.
.
That is a problem and attitude for psychologists to ponder.
.
But, certainly not a base for any movement of social justice.
.
"Animal Rights" translates to animal wrongs when the basic and primary right to life can so easily and unjustly be dismissed and denied. -- PCA
.
.
.
***********
No comments:
Post a Comment