The public relations staff of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) must think themselves very clever. Earlier this month, in an effort to grab the attention of Americans preparing to celebrate Memorial Day, the animal rights group “barbequed” a topless woman in downtown Houston on a fake grill adorned with the slogan, “Meat Is Murder.”
When I saw photos of the stunt, I thought to myself, “If PETA are this worried about the ‘murder’ of cows and pigs they must really get hot about the murder of innocent human babies.” I supposed I wasn’t the first person to have had the thought, but I was surprised to find an entire entry in the Frequently Asked Questions section of PETA’s website:
PETA does not have a position on the abortion issue, because our focus as an organization is the alleviation of the suffering inflicted on nonhuman animals. There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official position on abortion.
I couldn’t help but note the rhetorical switch in the second sentence, which begins with a reference to “both sides of the abortion issue” but ends with a pivot to the “pro-life movement.” No mention is made of the distribution of views on animal rights within the pro-choice movement. The author of this paragraph presumably thinks only one side of the abortion issue has anything to answer for; there is only one side from which PETA needs to distance itself.
This is telling in itself. For the people at PETA realize precisely that all humans are animals. That if they’re going to call the death of livestock “murder,” people will expect them to react at least as violently to the deliberate taking of unborn human life. Surely they do not think that children in the womb are nonentities entitled to none of the legal protections or moral considerations that PETA would extend to ducks, goats, and chickens?
While PETA appears to acknowledge an affinity between the pro-life and animal rights movements, there is in fact a profound difference. The pro-life movement makes a limited and narrow claim: all members of the human species deserve life. PETA, however, makes a much broader claim—that all animals deserve life and respect.
PETA unwittingly trips in its own wires here. The organization advocates extending rights and protections to “nonhuman animals” of the lowest order (they even sell a $12 “humane” bug catcher that is perfect for the “compassionate person who wouldn't hurt a fly”), but explicitly takes no position on the protection of unborn humans. The obvious question, then, becomes: Is a fetus not an animal? With the current abortion debate no longer revolving around the question of when life begins but rather the question of precisely when legal protections should affix to a fetus, the pro-abortion crowd have ceded the minimal point that the unborn are at least animals, if not fully human.
This leaves PETA in a bind, and they appear to know it. Their defensive approach to the pro-life side betrays an understandable sensitivity to the charge that their concern for animals is not matched by a similar regard for their own species. In fact, a couple of years ago the group tried to hijack the term “pro-life” with plan to erect billboards in various cities reading, “Pro-life? Go Vegan.” In a 2010 press release, PETA vice president Bruce Friedrich was quoted saying, “Everyone who is ‘pro-life’ has the opportunity to show it every time he or she sits down to eat—by choosing a vegetarian diet.”
I suspect this cognitive dissonance causes some quiet consternation among PETA’s ranks, but that acknowledging it publicly might mean they’d have to give up their imagined moral leverage, and that they’d lose the support of significant celebrity and financial backers who don’t want to follow their protect-everything impulse to its logical conclusion.
Asserting moral equivalency between a meat packing plant and a Planned Parenthood clinic is absurd. If the animal rights movement expects to have its moral claims taken at all seriously, it should make an effort to resolve these contradictions. If they do, I suspect they will reluctantly recognize the unacceptability of abortion rather than reject their own outlandish claims about the humane treatment of flies.
And that will be a lovely day for all of God’s creatures.
Matthew Hennessey is a writer and editor who lives in New Canaan, CT. You can follow him on Twitter @MattHennessey.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
There is a lot to be said for Bret Lythgoe's position, but I can't go quite as far as PETA. I am currently reading "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond, and it's quite clear that if humans had not domesticated animals (and plants), the world would still be filled with hunter-gatherers. Humans are not naturally herbivorous, although if proper care is taken, we can be very healthy on vegetarian or vegan diets.
There is a crucial distinction which you may be overlooking, especially if you are approaching this from a natural law perspective.
I think the point, which the author made, relates to the "broadness" of the claim and it's logical conclusion. Animal rights activists claim " all animals have a right to life"' and humans, as such, should be included in that understanding. However, these same people are tentative in that regard to say the least, and fail to acknowledge the obvious conclusion.
On the other hand, pro-life advocates make a comparably narrow claim that "unborn humans have a right to life." There is no logical relationship to non-humans in this claim that is being ignored.
Whether or not animals deserve not to be killed is a debate that needs to be had, but the point remains that there is nothing in the pro-life position itself that tacitly commits it to animal rights in the way that the latter commits itself to the former.
I didn't ask him my other question, which is how far down the chain these animal rights extend. If a rat or a chicken is equivalent to a boy, is not a cockroach equal to a rat or a chicken? They think millions dying in meat factories is a horror? Think of billions of mosquitoes suffering a chemical death every year. Think of untold trillions of bacteria wiped out by antibiotics. But these people have no principle by which to draw any line.
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2009/05/pro-animal-pro-life-1243228870
Don't they kill most of the animals they adopt? I think they are primarily interested in stopping pain and not interested in encouraging life.
David Nickol, I think that you may be correct concerning domestication. But, at this point in human evolutionary history, we don't need to eat animals to survive (as you intimate, with your correct comments concerning vegetarian and vegan diets). I'm not necessarily against domestication, as long as the animals are not harmed. I have no problem, for example, with the domestication of dogs, as long as they're properly cared for, and never harmed. I do have moral objections to domesticating animals, (such as pigs and cows) for the purpose of killing them for food.
Nick, I think that you make a good point. Certainly, since PETA claims that all animals deserve protection, and since humans fall under the "umbrella'' of animals, it makes no logical sense to deny unborn humans protection. PETA has yet to grapple with this inconsistency. For historically contingent reasons, PETA arose in a leftist, or at least liberal milieu, where many considered it axiomatic that women's rights must include abortion. Of course, there's no logical explanation for this, certainly one can, as I do, believe that women must have all the same rights as men, but this does not include abortion (what about the female fetus's right to life?). But it may explain why PETA has not endorsed a prolife position concerning abortion. Although PETA is not officially antagonistic to fetal rights, which is important. This distinguishes it from other "liberal'' groups, that seem antagonistic toward the prolife position. This indicates to me that there's a predisposition for PETA to grow toward a prolife view concerning abortion. PETA is also not officially against conservativism, as an ideology, as long as it, obviously, is not against animal rights. (I asked Ingrid Newkirk, when she came for a book tour to my town, a few years back, how her organization felt toward conservatives, and she stated that she welcomes them, and she was respectful of Matthew Scully, the former Pres. Bush speechwriter, who wrote a very good book on animal welfare, called DOMINION. Scully has not, as far as I know, endorsed animal rights, but he has a very sympathetic position concerning animals, and if more people adopted his views, animals would have a much better time on this earth. Scully is also a vegetarian).
Their hypersensitivity (bordering of fetishism) towards animals, happily exists side by side with zero concern for the welfare of unborn humans.
If what you say is true, their arguments for vegetarianism and veganism are greatly undermined, as modern slaughter methods, and many techniques of free range extensive farming eliminate almost all pain, to a much greater degree than in the abortion of the unborn, for example, in the former case. If so lttle pain is involved in the keeping of animals, and the elimination of pain is their priority, how could they object to meat-eating? Therefore, they can't really deny that it is a case of some kind of 'sacredness' to life that is the nub of their argument, and it won't be simple for them to argue that human pre-born life should not be extended the same protection as 'other animals', but no doubt they will try, as I have no faith whatsoever in their concept of morality.
Jesus even gave us HIMSELF for consumption, in the Eucharist, to ensure our eternal survival.
PETA has publicized some very disturbing videos that unveil truly horrible and unnecessary cruelty toward animals. Whatever members of PETA may or may not stand for on other issues, they're addressing some very real problems. To ignore that because some PETA members may be pro-choice is like saying that if one wants to object to theft, one has to make a public statement about being against murder. One can agree with PETA's stance on animal cruelty without feeling the need to micromanage their consciences.
No, it's like saying that if one wants to object to theft, it doesn't make sense to claim you have no position on the theft of things belonging to red-headed people.
If sentient beings deserve protection because they are sentient beings, it makes no sense to claim you have no position on whether a particular class of sentient being deserves protection.
Initially, I want to note that I consider myself more sympathetic with the pro-life position than almost all of my liberal friends. I have observed that vegan liberals are more likely to express sympathy with pro-life philosophy than other liberals.
Why is this? There are really two reasons one might be a vegan. One reason is because you don't believe it is morally acceptable to cause another being to suffer. (I call this the "don't cause suffering" or "don't be an a**hole" reason.) The other reason is that you believe that even if you minimize or eliminate suffering, it is wrong to kill a being who would otherwise wake up the next day and continue enjoying life. (I call this the "protect future enjoyment of life" reason.)
There is obvious overlap with fetal rights. If a vegan subscribes primarily or exclusively to the "don't cause suffering" rationale, then it is entirely consistent for her to accept abortion up until the fetus develops the ability to feel pain. Our best science instructs us that a fetus develops the ability to feel pain at 20-28 weeks. This type of vegan should oppose late-term abortions.
If a vegan also or primarily subscribes to the "protect future enjoyment of life" rationale, then he or she would appear to naturally fit with staunch pro-life advocates.
In my experience, all vegans subscribe to the "don't cause suffering" rationale, and some subscribe to the "protect future enjoyment of life" one. Thus, all vegans should generally favor late-term fetal rights, and many will favor fetal rights from conception.
HOWEVER, there is one additional wrinkle to all of this: rights are not absolute. I have a right to life generally speaking, but I lose that right to life under some circumstances, e.g., if I attempt to murder someone (they have self-defense) or successfully murder someone (capital punishment). Criminal law also recognizes a defense of necessity (you have to commit a crime to prevent a greater harm).
When talking about animal rights, we start with the assumption that the animal (say a pig) has a right to life that you cannot interfere with. However, if that pig is threatening your life you can use self-defense. Reasonable minds might differ whether a necessity type argument would allow you to eat a small amount of meat if it was absolutely necessary for your survival. But that's where we stand with animal rights and veganism.
When talking about abortion, however, there is a potential conflict between the rights of the mother and the fetus. What if the mother needs to kill the fetus to save her own life or prevent grievous bodily harm? What about rape? What about other reasons she might not want to sacrifice her bodily integrity to grow a fetus for nine months? Clearly an abortion must be justified to protect the mother's right to life. It's arguably justified to protect her right to be free of grave injury, or her right to control her own bodily integrity. Other reasons are less compelling, like just having a preference not to have a baby.
Doesn't that statement, right there, strongly imply that PETA believes that a fetus is human? The word "animal" must be superfluous, since if the fetus were an animal, it would be deserving of protection even by PETA (a "human animal" is a PETA oxymoron). That leaves "nonhuman," a term that only makes sense as a point of contrast to "human." Ergo, PETA does not deal with abortion because fetuses are human beings, not animals. So, reading the substance of what it has said, rather than what it claims to have said, it appears that PETA *has* taken what I would consider to be a very strong position on the abortion issue in its very attempt to claim that it has not.
I know that I occupy a rather lonely conceptual territory here, but I believe that it's the only consistent view to have.
Both sides need to realize that God's creatures, whether human, or animal, desrve our protection, and don't deserve to be put to death, whether the millions per year that die in abortion clinics, or the millions that die in meat factories.