Archives for March 2009

We will never – EVER – do anything as crazy as this. That’s a promise.

The founder of the world’s largest animal rights organization wants to give Canada’s parliamentarians an earful, in a bizarre online will.

Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), said that upon her death, she wants one of her ears “removed, mounted” and sent to Ottawa to help the government “in hearing, for the first time perhaps, the screams of the seals, bears, raccoons, foxes and minks bludgeoned, trapped and sometimes skinned alive for their pelts.”

_______________________

Andrea adds: You know, there are moments when people give animal rights activists more sympathy than human rights (pro-life) activists, hence People for the Ethical Treatment of People (buy a shirt).

This is not one of them. That’s just disturbed, and I’m quite sure most will view it that way.

_______________________

Rebecca says: You know, I completely agree that cruelty to animals is wrong. One of the theories about the laws of kosher food is that the complicated rules mandate humane slaughter and make us aware that, even as we consume meat, we have to remember it came from a living animal. Jewish law emphasizes animal rights in other ways – meat that is hunted is never kosher, because we’re not meant to take pleasure in killing animals. (Note: I’m not anti-hunting. NRA enthusiasts, please keep your fan mail to yourselves.) And one of the things that is permitted on the Sabbath, when almost any form of work is forbidden, is feeding livestock and caring for them.

But the solution to the very real cruelty to animals that does go on is NOT to treat human life as cheaply as animal life. That’s what Newkirk is trying to convey, but the effect of saying “a dog is a rat is a boy” is to demean humans, not uplift animals. This also applies to PETA’s offensive KFC/Holocaust ads.

Here is a long but interesting article about paid surrogates in India, most of whose “clients” are Americans.  There are so many thorny issues here.  Is it possible that these women aren’t exploited, when they’re offered (by their standards) massive amounts of money?  If we accept surrogacy for free, out of charity or love, is it wrong to pay for it?  Are these western parents so desperate for a biological child somehow selfish for going this route instead of adopting one of the many children in the world who need loving parents?  I don’t know the answer to any of these, but the whole operation seems very murky, and that’s without even addressing the “surplus” embryos that are inevitably created with IVF.

I can’t bring myself to condemn people who would do anything to have a child of their own, which for many people means one that shares their DNA.  But this is an area in which some moral clarity, and consensus on what is and is not acceptable, would be very helpful.

_______________________

Andrea adds: Condemnation is never particularly helpful, no. But that is besides the point. If something is sketchy, murky or just plain wrong–we ought to call a spade a spade and say so. That might sound a lot like “condemnation” in moments. What is worse–a whiff of condemnation or in the case described above, making people into monetary transactions? I’m a sympathetic sort, I like to think–in particular to feeling like you really want kids. But there comes a point when our feelings really are besides the point–and wanting a child even very badly is, after all, just that. A feeling. (Does anyone ever feel (hardy har har) like our culture is grounded on nothing more than the latest Oprah show?)

We can’t really be considered dangerous for opposing abortion, right?

If you’re an anti-abortion activist, or if you display political paraphernalia supporting a third-party candidate or a certain Republican member of Congress, if you possess subversive literature, you very well might be a member of a domestic paramilitary group.

That’s according to “The Modern Militia Movement,” a report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC), a government collective that identifies the warning signs of potential domestic terrorists for law enforcement communities.

________________________

Tanya adds: It just goes to show how very elite the pro-choice stance really is.  Pro-life?  Possible terrorist.  But if you’re pro-choice you’re a real patriot.  (When are they putting out those propaganda videos?)

_________________________

Rebecca adds: To me this illustrates the accelerating (thank you Mr. Obama) trend toward vilifying those with whom you disagree.  In a healthy democracy, people recognize that men and women of good will may reach different conclusions, and can respect that, even as they disagree.  If we can’t distinguish between “this is a thoughtful person whose values differ from and and with whom I disagree” and “this personal is evil and dangerous,” we’re in a very bad place, as a civilization.  And while there are pro-life people who see the world in Manichean terms, the “if you’re not with us, you’re evil” worldview shows up way more often in pro-choice, feminist, and secular liberal circles more generally, in my experience, than on the right.

________________________

Tanya updates: Reassigned?  Love that terminology.

By ordering your very own People for the Ethical Treatment of People T-shirt. (I’ll be reminding about these periodically.)

Hitting it on the nail:

ANGOLA, March 23, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In an address to the civil authorities of Angola on the last day of his trip to Africa, Pope Benedict XVI noted the “bitter irony” that, in the light of the “the crushing yoke of discrimination that women and girls so often endure,” including “unspeakable” sexual violence, abortion should be presented as a solution by international “human rights” groups.

“How bitter the irony of those who promote abortion as a form of ‘maternal’ healthcare!” the pope said. “How disconcerting the claim that the termination of life is a matter of reproductive health!” Pope Benedict said.

I’ll say.

______________________

Andrea adds: And let’s be honest, it helps when non-Catholics stand up and say he is absolutely right. So let me add my voice of agreement to Brigitte’s!

______________________

Tanya says: Make that 3 non-Catholics agreeing with the Pope right here. Very well said, indeed.

I’ve been thinking about political correctness lately. A lot. And in this context: When, as a civilization, we finally understand that abortion is a violation of human rights, what will we call unborn children?

You know what I mean. There are many things we don’t call people anymore. If you’ve watched The Wizard of Oz lately, you’ve likely had to shield your child’s eyes as the credits rolled. Do you know how they referred to those actors who played the Munchkins?

I think fetus will be the new F-word. I also think I have too much time on my hands.

_____________________

Rebecca adds: Claude Lantzmann’s Shoah, a very long documentary about the Holocaust that included many interviews with perpetrators (not all of whom knew they were being filmed) contains many fascinating and frightening insights. One of the smaller, but telling, details is that the workers in death camps referred to their victims as figuren – my professor translated that as “mannequins” or “dolls”. It conveys the physical shape of a person, but ascribes no value, soul, or life to it. For all but the most evil Nazis, this sort of reification of humans was necessary if they were to carry out their grim tasks.

Unborn children don’t even get the courtesy of an acknowledgment of their basic nature. They’re called “products of conception,” or “a cluster of cells,” the latter as apt a description of a tumour, or an unsightly mole, and by implication something to be disposed of as readily as a tumour or mole. I don’t think “fetus” is necessarily problematic – my doctor calls it a “patella” even though almost everyone thinks of it as a “kneecap” – but there’s no question the word is often used to achieve distance. How about even referring to them as “human fetuses”? A fetus is a developing life; we use the same word for all mammals in utero. I’d settle for that small step towards taking an honest look at what it is that is being destroyed in an abortion.

____________________

Andrea adds: I have heard someone else use the terms “embryonic child”, “fetal child”, etc. which I like. It’s scientific, accurate and personable–allows us to consider that’s how we all began… we’re all people in different stages of life. We evolve, so to speak.