It has recently come to my attention that there are many misconceptions about the term "animal rights," and I thought it appropriate to break out the first-person writing and address this head on.
Defining Animal Rights
I define "animal rights" as the belief that animals are living, feeling beings that should have basic legal rights. There are many philosophical arguments for and against this position with extremists on either end, but rather than try to explain all of those to my readers, I encourage those of you who are interested to check out the wikipedia article on the subject. Instead, I shall endeavor to briefly explain my personal beliefs about animal rights to help readers understand where I am coming from in this blog.
Basically, I believe that animals should have legal rights in the same way a human child has rights. Animals, like minors, are legally unable to give consent or make decisions, but they may have a legal guardian and there may be laws to protect them, since they are not able to protect themselves. There are many laws relating to animal rights in this country, in the State of Texas, in Bexar County and in San Antonio, and these legal rights will often be addressed in my articles.
Across the Spectrum
Where is the confusion? As usual, the root of the problem is in politics. Many people and groups who are abolitionists have identified themselves as animal rights activists. Abolitionist is a term for someone who believes that animals should not be owned as pets or as livestock. They believe that any use of animals is exploitation, and that animals should not be used for clothing, food or companionship.
Perhaps the most well-known abolitionist group is the Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Known for their terrorist-like stance on animal experimentation, it is safe to say that ALF is on the extreme end of the animal rights spectrum, promoting a vegan lifestyle and the end of animals as property.
Arguably a bit milder than ALF, PETA is the largest animal rights organization in the world, and the group flip-flops on whether it is for or against having pets. The group isn't shy about its views on what it calls "euthanasia" - rather than find homes for unwanted pets, PETA kills thousands of adoptable animals with the excuse that they are better off dead than spending time in a shelter. Then again, PETA also asserts that responsible pet parents should feed their canine and feline pals vegetarian diets... and no this is not a joke.
In light of the bad reputations of the highly-visible extremist animal rights group, the term animal welfare was coined. Welfare supporters believe that animals are sentient and people should make considerations for their well-being, but are not necessarily against using animals for food or entertainment so long as they are treated ethically along the way. Oddly, as I have learned, animal welfare advocates have become very touchy about the term "animal rights," and in what I can only assume is an effort to disassociate from liberationists, they are willing to email an Animal Rights Examiner to inform her that she has been mislabeled and should be the Animal Welfare Examiner instead.
Defending my Title
While I will protect the privacy of the group that took a stance on my title, I will say that while I can respect this branding tactic, I do not agree with it. I am not okay with letting PETA or ALF steal the term "animal rights" and turn it into something negative. I, Amanda Evrard, am committed to writing about animal rights. It is true that welfare has a lot to do with it, as the point of affording rights to animals has to do with protecting their welfare, but this does not mean that it is incorrect to call myself the San Antonio Animal Rights Examiner.
For the record, I am a proud pet owner, and I am not vegan or even vegetarian. In fact, I was raised on a beef cattle ranch in Southern Oregon with parents who gardened and often hunted for the food we ate. I feel strongly that people are omnivorous beings, and it is our duty to respect and care for the animals that give up their lives so that we may eat.
I believe we should all follow the lead of Dr. Albert Schweitzer's philosophy of "reverence for life." Schweitzer, by the way, was also omnivorous.
Comments