Animal "Rights" and the New Man Haters
By Edwin Locke, Ph.D.

Sign up for Gamefowl Newsletter

Recenty a sixth grade student threatened to bomb the headquarters of a prominent corporation, the Gillette Company. Gillette's "crime"? The use of animals to test the safety of their products. This student's role models have not been so hesitant. In the name of so-called "animal rights," terrorists have committed hundreds of violent crimes. They have vandalized or fire bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North America. The animal "rights" movement, however, is not about the humane treatment of animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.

According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or leather shoes, and to use animals in research - even if it would lead to cures for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."

How do the animal "rights" advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a single - invalid - syllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.

Click here to continue reading