Monday, August 15, 2011

Animal Rights and Consistency with Value of Life

I just read through a couple of magazines I brought to the house awhile ago. They were in a giveaway bin and one is called "Defenders: The Conservation Mag of Defenders of Wildlife" and the other is a PETA magazine.

I picked up a lot of mags for my mom but I knew she wouldn't be interested in these ones, but I was and maybe my Dad would be. So I read them today and realized PETA is mainly vegan people. Not even vegetarian. I can see the point.

The other day I was out cutting wood or helping, with my Dad and I was told someone they knew had a dairy farm. I said why don't we have our own milking cow and chickens? (or, not we, but "you"). Then my Dad said it ties you down bc you have to milk at night and in the morning. Then, for the first time in my life, I realized something and said, "So does the cow have to get pregnant first and have a baby before they can be milk cows?" and realized they have to be milked all the time because it's to keep lactaction going. I thought, "They're slaves, like women who nurse babies professionally for life." Then I thought, well, if some women can do it, and be "wet-nurses" maybe that's how it is for some cows. But I thought about it, and it's intentionally keeping a cow in a state of post-pregnancy, which, if I were a cow, I wouldn't like very much.

So then I thought about this and my personal feelings about birth control for women. My opinion is that it keeps women in a state of thinking they are already pregnant so they can't get pregnant--which, in the long run, leads to fertility issues. They say it doesn't, but I think it's arrogant to say you can tamper with nature in that way, to keep women "perpetually pregnant" that long and then claim it's not going to tell the body, when they go off the pill..."Get pregnant again? the natural way? HELL NO." I think the body rebels. Especially for women who have been on the pill a really long time.

It's like I was saying, about HPV being a bigger problem than Dr.'s wanted to admit to the public. They couldn't own up to it until they had their fancy "vaccine" out on the market. And probably the research and evidence about how damaging birth control for women is (over long periods) will not be coming out until the male version is out there or there is some other idea.

I believe the research would support the idea that the most fertile women have not been on birth control pills. You can't expect to jack up your body to be "immune to pregnancy" and then think it's going to remember what to do when you get off the stuff. Over time, the body will just say, "Oh...and NOW you want to be pregnant again? I don't THINK so. I just spent 5-10 years being "perpetually pregnant" and you got what you wanted. Right? Oh, you weren't having kids? Well don't blame me because I sure as hell thought I was having babies every single year and I'm POOPED."

Don't get mad at me for saying so. Blame the Dr.'s. And then what happens? More money for infertility specialists. It's like passing on the baton.

What to do? try celibacy or condoms and if he doesn't like, tough. If it turns out to be a real Pelopensian War, so be it. But it's not like someone out there isn't trying to be an honest voice of reason. I lost MY kid telling all you how beneficial marijuana was for prevention of migraine. I also put out a report about how contagious HPV was way before any of the doctors wanted to admit the truth to you.

I guess I could think about what is contributing to the low sperm count in men later.

So I was looking at all these PETA photos and these investigations of cruelty in the labs. They are doing terrible, horrible, things to animals out there. And I thought, "There is definitely a correlation between people who don't care about humans and people who are mean to animals." And think about it. The same people who are doing experiments on animals for pharmeceutical companies are doing research on humans without their consent for University hospitals and the government. Is this the kind of person you want to be friends with? I would think this is the same kind of person that has a B.A. in Interrogation with a minor in torture. When you really start to think about correlation and what kind of personality is prone to the grossest crimes against humanity, there is something to be said. The FBI and profilers admit that people who are cruel to animals are also 10x more likely to be criminals. So what happened in their report? Someone decided to leave scientists and pharmaceutical researchers out of the loop? "Oh, that is sanctioned and justified cruelty."


What is the difference between finding a rat in the woods and watching while you microwave it, and taking it out of its prison cage and microwaving it while wearing a lab coat?

Someone can get a ticket and be forced to pay a fine for animal cruelty, but not for the exact same cruelty in research projects?

How funny how putting a stamp on something or wearing a special coat or having a special badge is supposed to make any difference in the value of life or in the personality profiling of a criminal.

Newsflash: The same criminal type that is beating cats for fun in their backyard, is the criminal type throwing animals in the back of a cage to be injected with some new neat drug.

The argument is that the second form of abuse is "for a purpose". "The end justifies the means." Ever heard of that one?

I don't think there is a difference. It's all about a sado-masichist (non-consensual) form of control. The abusive husband beats for control just like an abusive boss or leader or someone beats others for control. Someone doing research for medicine or psychology, why don't THEY sign the line and agree to sign up THEIR loved ones for the task? Instead of deciding they are the special ones with value, if they are truly so wonderful and doing a service for society and "The means justifies the end", why don't they sign themselves up? and then look no farther than their own babies.

They really have no right to sign anyone up except for themselves.

So I was looking through all these magazines and thinking, "Yeah, and there are probably also a few weirdos who care a lot about animals but don't give a rip about human beings and kids."

And I saw this ad attacking Donna Karan for being a "hypocrite" for practicing yoga but selling clothing with fur.

I thought, "Hmm. I wonder how many 'animal rights activists' have abortions."

What are you going to do PETA? Argue about the value of fish and how they feel things, but take a "pro-choice" stand?

Um, no. And anyone who does is a hypocrite.

Those who really care about animals and "life" have a consistent value of life that extends from being kind to animals and merciful, to valuing the human rights of others to choose whether they are experiments or not, and who also value the life and right to live of the unborn. They are "life".

You can't go all-out being vegan to spare a cow from having its udders used, or talk about fish rights and feelings, or call Donna Karan a "hypocrite" until you are willing to extend the value and right of life to the unborn child which has just as many feeling nerves and cognitive abilities as a fish. And more.

So if you want to preach an effective message,

Please. Don't be a hypocrite.

Someone who is pro-abortion and research on human subjects is not truly an animal rights activist. They are someone who wants to look popular, fashionable, or "kind" when really, they don't have a genuine "right to life-free for all" bone in their body.

Which brings me to another irony I discovered in the PETA magazine.

Guess where they were holding some of their advanced and forward-thinking seminars?

You have GOT to be kidding me (I thought).

Yale. Harvard.

Now how is THAT for ultimate hypocrisy?

"Go vegan Harvard!" while at the very same time the most grutesque research projects are being carried out on unwitting fellow classmates.

Scholar, you are supporting experimentation and cruelty not of just animals, but of HUMANS.

YOU are hypocrites. You are vegan? Oh I APPLAUD you. You're an animal rights activist? Oh, pat on the back. You're vegetarian for a cause? BraVO. You're also so self-absorbed and transient as to be wanting accolades for being so progressive about animal rights while YOUR MONEY supports the torture and degradation of students.

Go Harvard Vegan.

"I would rather you be hot or cold because the lukewarm I will spit out of my mouth."

Just do yourselves all a favor. While you're pedaling around naked in painted-on animal stripes and attempting to persuade men to trade in eating meat for a chance at jumping your bones, ask yourself how you feel about abortion and what kind of University you pay your tuition to.

Who will you be in debt to?

So anyway. I liked the magazines. It was some good food for thought.

I still need to find out which Ivy or high ranking public schools have a policy to the exception of the others, in refusing any and all human experimentation through their professors, labs, and facilities.

I had some asparagus after breaking from this post and thought about why anyone would even want to be vegetarian or vegan in the name of "animal rights" if their values are not consisent across the board. I think it amounts to being pretentious. Which is the same fault that could be found in someone who wants to go to an Ivy league school with the idea that it will boost their career but with no thought for human rights. The only kind of vegans, I concur, one is to find at such a school (if they are made aware of the human rights record of their school) are the false & pretentious ones. If they are a real human and animal life/rights supporter, the minute they learn their University sponsors and allows torture of humans and/or animals, they would transfer to a new school and let their reasons be known.

The issues I read and referred to are:

PETA's "Animal Times" Winter 2010
(photo of a dark haired girl with purple headband eating mcnuggets from McDonalds, with a shadow of a man with a butcher knife behind her)

"Defenders: The Conservation Magazine of Defenders of Wildlife" Summer 2010
(photo of endangered wolves on paper cover and then on front cover, of a beautiful owl)

No comments: