Animals

Pienso que ya basta del cruel asesinato de los animales, no importan que sea en una corrida de toros o en un rodeo, o en una pelea de gallos. Este es nuestro planeta, convivimos seres humanos, animales y plantas, hagamos de nuestro planeta un mundo ideal o cercano para poder vivir en paz, armonía y felicidad. ¿es mucho pedir ?

Nuestro mundo no esta nunca en paz, para animales o seres

It makes me literally ill to think about the abuse that people inflict on on animals - whether intentional or unintentional.  Why would anybody think it appropriate to aggravate, tease , abuse, shock , scare,...( to many words to list) an animal. It's important for us to do all we can because they have no voice. Unlike a child who has the ability to tell someone, anyone about abuse being suffered , animals cannot do that. When I am deciding if something is wrong to do to animals or people I always ask myself , " What if it were me?" , " Would I want this treatment?".  If the answer is no then it's no for a very good reason and I find that system very effective and prescise in finding what is right and what is wrong.

We understand that bull fighting is a tradition in their country.  A stupid tradition at that.

But it is their humanity here at stake, and the lives of innocent animals’. These animals’ were created the same as man, so are we saying it is ok for us to kill man with swords or fire! 

Let’s change the tradition for life….       

some can argue this is inhumane http://tinyurl.com/cq435n

People, are unquestionably, God's most greatest mistake...

Rodeos can be cruel, yes, but can we say the treatment of their animals is worse than the treatment of wild horses by the BLM?If these wild horses don't die or become severely injured in the round-ups, and if they don't die or become severely injured in the holding pens, they die or become severely injured when the BLM 'euthanizes' them (euthanize meaning 'shooting them in the head with a gun'). Their reasons are questionable and they refuse to listen to those who propose more humane ideas (such as herd control) as well as ideas that would save the government money. Meanwhile, these beautiful animals and symbols of our heritage, are disappearing in the worst way. I am much more concerned about this issue than I am about animals used in rodeos. As for bullfighting, it is disgusting and I do not agree with it, but until that culture begins to see how barbaric it is, it will be difficult to convince them otherwise. Perhaps we should work on leading by example first.

Any use of animals for economic gain, or for human convenience, pleasure, or supposed need, is unjustifiable. To say that one form of abuse is more acceptable or less cruel than another is no reason to attempt to excuse such abominable behavior. All of it involves human aggression and intrusion into the lives of other cognizant beings.  

Thanks Stephanie, for spreading the word about rodeos, which are often overlooked by animal advocates, and also this new development of the PRCA trying to "horn" its way into European bullfighting arenas. Steve Hindi'as website (www.sharkonline.org) is the gold standard when it comes to rodeo and bullfighting information, and I would advise all interested parties to sign up for his email newsletter so you know who to write to about what.  

One of the main reasons that bullfights has been on the decline in the last decades is because of the popularity of football, (soccer) that fills the stadiums on the traditional Sunday bullfight day. This together with more humane thinking at home and foreign tourist's dislike of this barbaric pastime bullfighting is slowly dying a natural death. For this reason I don't think any type of Rodeo would make it big time in Spain. It would make no sense to replace one type of torture with another.

Well Stephanie's profile says it all. Vegan, animal activists and tree hugger.   I always thought Change.org published unbiased articles but i will now unsubscribe and shake my head at all of you who beliee this stuff  she wrote.  several years ago this was true and she was right.  Today thanks to some of you there are strict laws and regulations regarding treatment of these animals.  In face, the good ones (bucking bulls and horses are actually worth thousands of dollars and love their job!   I personally don't like calf roping but at brandings on horseback they do the same. I have horses and attend sanctioned Rodeos.  They always treat the animals correctly, if you attend the National Final Rodeo in Las Vegas, they actually honor the best of the bucking bulls and horses.  They put padded hear gear on the roping steers so they don't get hurt.  Most of the accidents are to the cowboys trying to ride a 2000 pound  bull or a 1000 horse.  

I noticed there are 66,000 animal activists and only 20,000 people supporting poverty in America. 

I applaud those of you who check out the facts as to what is really happening.  Have a great Thanksgiving and enjoy your Turkey.

Leading Protestant theologian, Dr. Albert Schweitzer, taught: “We need a boundless ethics which will include the animals also.” Schweitzer opposed the use of animals in entertainment. “I never go to a menagerie,” he once wrote, “because I cannot endure the sight of the misery of the captive animals. The exhibiting of trained animals I abhor. What an amount of suffering and cruel punishment the poor creatures have to endure to give a few minutes of pleasure to men devoid of all thought and feeling for them.”

Reverend Marc Wessels of the International Network for Religion and Animals (INRA) admits: “...many animal rights activists and ecologists are highly critical of Christians because of our relative failure thus far adequately to defend animals and to preserve the natural environment. Yet there are positive signs of a growing movement of Christian activists and theologians who are committed to the process of ecological stewardship and animal liberation.”

According to Reverend Wessels: “The most important teaching which Jesus shared was the need for people to love God with their whole self and to love their neighbor as they loved themselves. Jesus expanded the concept of neighbor to include those who were normally excluded, and it is therefore not too farfetched for us to consider the animals as our neighbors.

“To think about animals as our brothers and sisters is not a new or radical idea. By extending the idea of neighbor, the love of neighbor includes love of, compassion for, and advocacy of animals.”

Rachel Carson wrote: “Until we have the courage to recognize cruelty for what it is whether its victim is human or animal we cannot expect things to be much better in this world. We cannot have peace among men whose hearts delight in killing any living creature. By every act that glorifies or even tolerates such moronic delight in killing we set back the progress of humanity.”

In a 1990 letter, vegetarian labor leader Cesar Chavez similarly observed: “Kindness and compassion towards all living things is a mark of a civilized society. Conversely, cruelty, whether it is directed against human beings or against animals, is not the exclusive province of any one culture or community of people. Racism, economic deprival, dog fighting and cockfighting, bullfighting and rodeos are cut from the same fabric: violence. Only when we have become nonviolent towards all life will we have learned to live well ourselves.”

There's a single exercise on ethics we all should do: if we consider it legitimate to use animals in experiments or entertainment, to enslave or kill them for food or fur, etc,  because we consider them inferior (whatever that means); then we must accept that in case an allien species travels through space and gets here, they could do exactly the same to us. Would we find it fair or would we call them barbaric?

No.  Enough.

I really wanted to sign the letter but the first line of Ms. Ernst's article was so condescending and arrogant that I will find another way to support animal rights.

I don't feel positive, substantial change happens by alienating cultures. Our cause would be better served by attempting to understand and respect how people established their attitudes towards animals and then having a rational discussion on the subject, rather than name calling which offers little substance. The education and promotion of animal rights should be to protect animals, not as an exercise in strengthening egos.

It's interesting how there are so much widely divergent interpretations of and perspectives on any subject, even from people who all agree on the immorality of exploiting animals.

I learned a lot this morning about not jumping to conclusions, not judging a book by its cover, etc. etc. when I read an originally obnoxious then surprisingly sweet story, which I found on one of the blogs (Philosophia and Animals) that Stephanie referred us to on Friday (Oct. 22nd). Here's the link: www.foodrevolution.org/pig_farmer.htm (it's from John Robbins' website). It's an example of how keeping one's mouth shut and simply listening to a person speak can provide the space for true sharing of the heart and baring of the soul, followed by a marvelous reformation.

Oops, I meant to say "It's interesting how there are so many widely....." not "so much." That comes from a half-edit instead of a full-edit of my thoughts!

How is it that a group of people can worry about animals so much and not about people at all? I just don't understand this at all!!

Absolutely brilliant Steph! Within the first sentence of your post, I immediately thought back to a time about a dozen years ago when I was asked to join a protest staged by cat and dog people at the Korean embassy. Put aside the racist attitude against Asians that some protestors seemed to have, at one point a couple of the protesters took a lunch break and purchased hotdogs and while eating them, verbally attacked an Asian-looking man leaving the embassy shouting in his face "You Koreans should be ashamed of yourselves for eating cats and dogs!" He responded by pointing out what arrogant hypocrites those couple of protestors are because while he doesn't eat cats or dogs, they were undoubtedly eating other sentient animals who suffer no differently from dogs and cats were dogs and cats to be hyper-exploited and killed the way cows and pigs are here in the US. No doubt I agreed with the man who exited the embassy and never again joined that group of arrogant American hypocrites. Needless to say, I was disgusted to be a part of that particular protest.

James Thompson writes: 

"If animal activists are interested in protection of creatures that can't defend themselves politically or physically or speak for themselves they should be pro life and I have not found that to be the case very often.  This makes me suspect of their much lauded empathy."

Pro-lifers continue to lie and spread misinformation, claiming everyone in the animal rights movement is pro-choice!  They quote a statement from law professor Gary Francione from over 20 years ago, in which he said, "I'm sure there's some way we can keep abortion legal," when asked if giving rights to animals would automatically mean giving rights to the unborn.

The animal rights movement is divided on the abortion issue.  This was made clear by Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)  in a 1992 interview with conservative talk show host Dennis Prager in Los Angeles.  In 1998, the Animals' Agenda ran a cover story about the debate within the animal rights movement over abortion.  And in 2003 or 2004, on the Democrats-For-Life e-list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided on the abortion issue.

On the other hand, time and again, as I demonstrated in an earlier post, we've seen the pro-choice mentality is that the fetus isn't human, but some kind of lower life form...and lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights! 

This mindset hasn't changed in over 20 years.  On AlterNet (a liberal headlines e-newsletter) on February 20, 2009, pereztx commented on abortion:

"the thought of killing an innocent little life form and tossing them in an incenerator or trash might be the hang up other than that I cant think of why they might freaked out. This article writer probably then sheds tears during a PETA meeting about a chicken being killed"

This mindset led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights:  it's pro-lifers.

The Seamless Garment Network is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious Left.  In a Seamless Garment video from the early '90s, one activist comments that perhaps after ending war, abortion, poverty, the arms race, euthanasia, racism and poverty, the next generation can move on to making everyone vegetarian.  If you believe, as I do, that abortion and war are the karmic reaction for killing animals, then the issues are related, and it's impossible to take a stand against one without the other.

How many of you wear leather shoes? Think about it. Youtube has videos of what happens in slaughter houses.

Do you eat meat? Watch a video of pigs being herded to slaughter. Pigs are extremely intelligent, as are chickens and you can't tell me that being herded in to be butchered isn't scaring them beyond belief!

Pick your fights, people.

p.s. I resent what is being said here about animal activists should be against abortion. That is b.s. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.

I strongly recommend reading a book (you do remember those paper things with real pages that don’t crash when the system goes down?) titled “Here, There and Everywhere: The Foreign Politics of American Popular Culture,” edited by Wagnleitner and May, University Press of New England, 2000, Salzburg Seminar, ISBN 1-58465-035-4

Authors from all over the world tell how American media and advertising have impacted their countries and developed terms like McDonaldization and Coca Colinization.  It really quite awful what the US has done to the rest of the world in the name of profit.  Rodeo would just be one more thing.

I am concerned about any form of animal abuse be it rodeos, bullfighting, how the BLM treats horses or any other practice that places an innocent animal at the mercy of humans.  ALL of it should be banned.

I don't wear leather, I don't eat meat or dairy and I don't promote any venue that uses animals for entertainment.  Someone mentioned that there are more animal rights activists than those who address the issue of human hunger.  Well, whose fault is that?  I, for one, have chosen animal rights as my cause.  The opportunity to address human issues will always be there waiting for people to address that, too.  Same goes for abortion.

The bottom line is, both bullfighting and rodeos are violent sports the cause animal suffering.

"Global hunger could be directly attributed to meat-eating."  ---Chrissie Hynde

Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat.  Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects.  The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country.   We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats.   Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people.  Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people.  It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef.  According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes.  That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive.  He calls this "the protein swindle."  Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries.  One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock.  Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet.  It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before.

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition.  On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished.  In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night.  In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger."

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed.  Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock.  Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an...evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

In the 1970s, the United Nations Secretary General said that the food consumption of the rich countries is the key cause of hunger around the world.  The United Nations has recommended that the wealthy nations cut down on their meat consumption. 

The Worldwatch Institute has released a remarkable report entitled Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, which lists nation after nation where food deprivation has followed the switch from a grain-based diet to a meat-based one.

Most of the nations that now import grain from the United States were once self-sufficient in grain.  The main reason they aren't is the rise in meat production and consumption. 

In Taiwan, for example, per capita consumption of meat and eggs increased 600 percent from 1950 to 1990.  With this change, vastly increased amounts of grain have gone to livestock, raising the annual per capita grain use in the country from 375 pounds to 858 pounds.  In 1950, Taiwan was a grain exporter; in 1990 the nation imported, mostly for feed, 74 percent of the grain it used.

In mainland China, the situation is similar.  Increased meat consumption has meant less grain available to feed people.  Since 1978, meat consumption has more than doubled, to twenty-four kilograms.  The share of Chinese grain fed to livestock rose from 7 percent in 1960 to 20 percent in 1990.

Over half Of Latin America's beef production is exported, and the rest is too expensive for any but the wealthy to purchase.  From 1960 to 1980 beef exports from El Salvador increases over sixfold.  Meanwhile, increasing numbers of small farmers lost their livelihood and were pushed off their land. Today, 72 percent of all Salvadoran infants are underfed.

In Brazil, major portions of the Amazon tropical rain forests have been destroyed so that wealthy multinational corporations can produce beef for the wealthy.   Corporations such as Volkswagen, Nestle, Mitsubishi, Liquigas, King Ranch, and Swift-Eckrich have bulldozed and burned literally hundreds of millions of acres, replacing the world's oldest and richest ecosystems, home to two million or more species of plant and animal life with a single crop--pasture grass for cattle.  And here, the beef produced has not gone to feed hungry Brazilians; it has been primarily exported to Western Europe, the Middle East, and North America.  In 1987, the United States imported three hundred million pounds of meat from countries in Central and South America.

With the help of international lending institutions, Brazil has mounted an enormous effort to increase agricultural production, but this has been primarily meat-oriented production and for export.  In the late '60s, soybeans were almost nonexistent or Brazil.  Today, this crop is the nation's number one export--but almost all of it goes to feed Japanese and European livestock.  Twenty five years ago, one third of the Brazilian population suffered from malnutrition.  Today, the figure has risen to two thirds.

Oxfam, the international charity, reports that in Brazil huge cattle ranches take up some of the most fertile soil in the whole country, yet 60 percent of Brazilians are malnourished.  Oxfam estimates that in Mexico, 80 percent of the children in rural areas are undernourished, yet the livestock are fed more grain than the human population eats!  The livestock are exported of course, to satisfy the developed nations' craving for cheap hamburgers.

In the early '60s, sorghum was almost unknown in Mexico.  But by 1980, it covered literally twice the acreage of wheat.  Sorghum isn't grown for humans.   It is fed to livestock.  In the late '60s, livestock consumed only 6 percent of Mexico's grain.  Today, the figure is over 50 percent.  This is a trend throughout the Third World.  Copying the United States' meat-oriented diet, these poor countries devote increasing percentages of their resources to meat production.

In Guatemala, 75 percent of the children under five years of age are undernourished.  Yet, every year Guatemala exports 40 million pounds of meat to the United States. It borders on the criminal!

In Costa Rica, beef production quadrupled between 1960 and 1980, but almost all this beef is exported to the United States, and what does stay in the country is eaten by a tiny minority.  Though more and more Costa Rican land is being turned over to meat production, the population is not eating more meat for the change.  The average family in Costa Rica eats less meat than the average American housecat. 

Throughout Latin America, land availability is a prominent social issue.   Revolutionaries as well as reform-minded moderates have made land reform a major issue.  Yet in many Latin American countries, forests are being leveled in order to create pastures for cattle grazing land. 

In a region where land availability is a central social issue, existing land is being gobbled up by livestock agriculture.   The resulting social tensions have resulted in civil wars, repression and violence.

Hunger is really a social disease caused by the unjust, inefficient and wasteful control of food.  Our food security is not being threatened by the prolific, hungry masses, but by elites that profit by the concentration and internationalization of control of food resources. 

In country after country the pattern is repeated.  Livestock industries are consuming feed to such an extent that now almost all Third World nations must import grain.  Seventy-five percent of Third World imports of corn, barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals, not to people.  In country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is squeezing out staple production for the poor.

The same trend can be found in the Middle East and North Africa--increases in grain-fed livestock require more imported feed.  In the early '70s, Egypt was self-sufficient in grain.  Then, livestock ate only 10 percent of the nation's grain.  Today, livestock consume 36 percent of Egypt's grain.  As a result, Egypt must now import eight million tons of grain every year. 

 In the late '60s , Syria was a barley exporter.  But in the intervening years, livestock has consumed increasing amounts of the country's grain.   Now, despite a phenomenal 1,000 percent increase in the land area devoted to producing barley, Syria must import the cereal.

According to Buckminster Fuller, there are enough resources at present to feed, clothe, house and educate every human being on the planet at American middle class standards.  The Institute for Food and Development Policy has shown that there is no country in the world in which the people cannot feed themselves from their own resources.

Moreover, there is no correlation between land density and hunger.   China has twice as many people per cultivated acre as India, yet less of a hunger problem.  Bangladesh has just one-half the people per cultivated acre that Taiwan has, yet Taiwan has no starvation, while Bangladesh has one of the highest rates in the world.  The most densely populated countries in the world today are not India and Bangladesh, but Holland and Japan.

Many of us believe that hunger exists because there's not enough food to go around.  But as Frances Moore Lappe' and her anti-hunger organization Food First! have shown, the real cause of hunger is a scarcity of justice, not a scarcity of food.

Vasu, I have found that the vast majority of people who eat meat, have selective hearing when it comes to informatin like you've included here and they basicly "select" to not hear it because it impinges on their personal lifestyle choices.  The same goes for using animals in entertainment as evidenced by the "rodeo queen" in a previous post.  Being involved in a discussion on the issue of eating meat, I too posted numerous links and made the same sort of points that you've done here, and got absolutely nowhere.  I suppose all that can be hoped for is that many, many repetitions might reach one person and result in a positive change.

Back in the '80s, I was a huge Smiths fan.  I've got nearly all their cassettes, but missed the opportunity to see them in concert in 1986.  Their 1985 album, Meat is Murder, was on college radio stations everywhere.  In an era when rock and pop seemed swamped in causes, the Smiths added their weight to (lead singer) Morrissey's support for animal rights.

"I think as long as human beings are so violent towards animals, there will be war," he argued.  "It might sound absurd, but if you really think about the situation it all makes sense.  When there's this absolute lack of sensitivity whre life is concerned, there will always be war."

Back in 1985, Morrissey struggled to articulate a dualistic persona with a classic example of verbal doublethink:  "Personally, I'm an incurably peaceable character.  But where does that get you?  Nowhere.  You have to be violent...It seems to me now that when you try to change things in a peaceable manner, you're actually wasting your time and you're laughed out of court," he argued.  "...the only way we can get rid of such things as the meat industry, and other things like nuclear weapons, is by giving people a taste of their own medicine."

Ask Morrissey about the terrorist bombing of butcher shops in England, and he still coldly replies:  "One dead butcher isn't such a great loss."

Peter Singer warned about this kind of thinking in Animal Liberation:  "We may be convinced that a person who is abusing animals is entirely callous and insensitive; but we lower ourselves to that level if we physically harm or threaten physical harm to that person.  Violence can only breed more violence...The strength of the case for Animal Liberation is its ethical commitment.  We occupy the high moral ground and to abandon it is to play into the hands of those who would oppose us."

I've seen bullfights with interest, and I can eat chicken, veal or fish with pleasure.  What I cannot stand is children massacred in Gaza, Iraq or Afghanistan; dying of hunger in Ethiopia or Haiti; being sexually or otherwise exploited in Kenya, Thailand or Minneapolis...   Maybe when "Americans" (where are Canadians, Bolivians and all the rest?)stop selling weapons everywhere, invading foreign countries and stealing their natural resources -just to name a few outstanding jobs-, it will be fair to talk about "animal rights".

Rodeos and bullfighting are both unacceptable. Also, too bad we can't stay on the topic. Does every animal welfare/rights issue have to raise the topic of abortion? Whether pro-life or pro-choice, I would think people would like to eliminate the suffering of innocent animals. And just being an animal rights activist doesn't cause lack of concern with people. The anti-animal rights movement have hoodwinked a lot of people over that one.

The pro-life movement desperately needs religious diversity. Pro-lifers should welcome people of other faiths and those of no faith. Not everyone in the United States is a Christian. This country wasn't founded by Christians; many of America's founding fathers were Deists. There are other faiths, besides the Abrahamic faiths. There are other holy books out there besides the Bible or the Koran, like the Bhagavad-gita, which also claim to be the word of God.

I also have a problem with pro-life Christians who adhere to a double-standard: i.e., they insist their stand against abortion be applied to everyone, including others who may not share their faith, but then they embrace moral relativism when it suits them, e.g., "Your religion says it's wrong to kill animals for food, clothing or sport; mine doesn't."

There are Christian vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect. I don't take it seriously when meat-eaters say, "The Bible permits us to eat meat," because the Bible was also used to uphold human slavery. The Bible can also be used to justify abortion.

The Seamless Garment Network (SGN) is a coalition of peace and justice organizations on the religious Left which takes a stand against war, abortion, poverty, the arms race, capital punishment, racism, and euthanasia. His Holiness the Dalai Lama has signed the SGN Mission Statement.

At a Seamless Garment conference at the University of San Francisco in September 1997, Reverend Heng Sure, an American Buddhist monk, told the mostly Catholic audience that as long as people are eating meat, there will be abortions.

Time magazine reported back in the late 1980s, that school prayer is next on the agenda for those on the right opposed to abortion, whereas for those on the Left, abolishing capital punishment is next. Neither side appears to be thinking in terms of animal rights.

I believe abortion is the karmic reaction for killing animals. And therefore, pro-lifers should learn that it's in their best interest to include the animals in their ethics. In the course of my articles, books and manuscripts, I've tried to make the case in secular, political language, because I'm not trying to "convert" them to another religion. In contemporary American society, animal rights and vegetarianism are a secular trend which could use the inspiration, blessings and support of organized religion. The record of organized religion with regards to animals is mixed: stronger in some religions than in others.

I'm not singling out pro-lifers for special criticism here, either. War, like abortion, is also the karmic reaction for killing animals. Many in the peace movement are unaware of this. In the April 1995 issue of Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a "consistent-ethic" periodical on the religious Left, Catholic civil rights activist Bernard Broussard concludes:

"...our definition of war is much too limited and narrow. Wars and conflicts in the human kingdom will never be abolished or diminished until, as a pure matter of logic, it includes the cessation of war between the human and animal kingdoms. For, if we be eaters of flesh, or wearers of fur, or participants in hunting animals, or in any way use our might against weakness, we are promoting, in no matter how seemingly insignificant a fashion, the spirit of war. All are manifestations of a 'survival of the fittest philosophy.'"

I read somewhere that one of the leaders of Operation Rescue came to oppose abortion in the 1970s, upon seeing a bumper sticker which read: "Abortion? Pick on someone your own size!" Yes. That's precisely my point. The "might makes right" mentality that makes abortion possible begins with what we humans do to other animals. Pythagoras warned: "Those who kill animals for food will be more prone than vegetarians to torture and kill their fellow men."

Domestication of other animals is artificial. Our relationship with other animals on this planet, wild and domesticated, is, therefore, partly an environmental ethics issue:

According to the editors of World Watch, July/August 2004: "The human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future--deforestization, topsoil erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities and the spread of disease."

Brother David Steindl-Rast, a Benedictine monk, similarly says: "...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging--to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

The threat of "overpopulation" is frequently used to justify abortion as birth control. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed 8.7 billion humans.

America's largest animal rights organization, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), over 1.6 million strong, is challenging those who think they can still be "meat-eating environmentalists" to go veg, if they really care about the planet.

My friend Dave Goggin from the San Francisco Vegetarian Society, who receives his news from conservative blogs, once commented that talk of global warming sounds like "a secular apocalypse." Conservatives think the jury is still out on global warming, but if it could be shown that meat-eating leads to abortion and war, would this be enough to cause our friends in the pro-life and peace movements to go veg as well?

Becoming a vegetarian or a vegan is not merely helping the pro-life and peace movements, it is literally pro-life!

Not to get off topic, my simple answer is that I hate to compare cruelty because for the animal involved, 1 minute of suffering is as horrific as 20 ! Be it for entertainment, food or medical research, if an animal is suffering then we should whenever possible not support the industry and do what we can to make change. All I can say is that perhaps the luckier ones die quickly ! Please if you have any doubts about the cruelty involved in rodeo or bullfighting ( fighting - misleading word isn't it ! )  please visit http://www.youtube.com/user/SHARKonlineorg#p/a 

I've never seen bullfighting or rodeos, but am appalled at at the treatment of animals in such events. Certainly we as a country shouldn't be promoting these types of events.

Each country has some form of institutionalized or commercial animal abuse that is that countries shame and in all instances is symptomatic of the general disregard for others, be they people or animals.  I struggle daily as I am sure many others do, to not be the same as these butchers and killers.  I struggle to not allow the waves of disgust and yes even hatred submerge me.  And for those of you who are reading this and are not animal rights people, I hasten to reassure you that those same feelings are similarly threatening when I am confronted with pictures of women in Pakistan whose "lovers?" have thrown acid in their faces, or images of children in Africa who've had their arms chopped of by the terrorist army that stalks their land, or....  How do those of us who believe that all beings deserve peace and harmony, walk in the midst of the vileness that is perpetrated against the weak and silent, not become as hateful as those who perpetrate this violence?  How is it possible to maintain a gentle heart?

The Rodeo is so cruel.  People tell themselves that it doesn't hurt the animals so they don't have to feel bad.  Others just don't care - it should be outlawed.  It's animal cruelty for a entertainment.

The "culture" argument for tolerance of animal cruelty is un-acceptable.  Slavery was the "culture" in the American South and we now recognize how wrong it was/is.  "All truth goes through three stages.  First it is ridiculed.  Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self evident." ~ ~ Shopenhouer 

This is the fate of the rodeo. 

The Reverend Dr. Andrew Linzey's 1987 book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, may be regarded as a landmark in Christian theology as well as in the animal rights movement. 

Linzey responds to criticism from many of the intellectual leaders of the animal rights and environmental movements--Peter Singer, Richard Ryder, Maureen Duffy, Lynn White, Jr.--that Christianity has excluded nonhumans from moral concern, that Christian churches are consequently agents of oppression, and that Christian doctrines are thus responsible for the roots of the current ecological crisis.  

"We do not have books devoted to a consideration of animals," he acknowledges.  "We do not have clearly worked-out systematic views on animals.   These are the signs of the problem.  The thinking, or at least the vast bulk of it, has yet to be done."  Reverend Linzey, an Anglican clergyman, has been called "the foremost theologian working in the fiend of animal/human relations."  Christianity and the Rights of Animals, is a must-read for all Christians.  

In Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Linzey not only makes a sound theological case for animal rights, but states further that animal slavery may be abolished on the same grounds that were used in biblical times to abolish human sacrifice and infanticide:  

"...it may be argued that humans have a right to their culture and their way of life.  What would we be, it may be questioned without our land and history and ways of life?  In general, culture is valuable.  But it is also the case that there can be evil cultures, or at least cherished traditions which perpetuate injustice or tyranny.  The Greeks, for example, despite all their outstanding contributions to learning did not appear to recognize the immorality of (human) slavery.  There can be elements within every culture that are simply not worth defending, not only slavery, but also infanticide and human sacrifice."  

Reverend Linzey responds to the widespread Christian misconception that animals have no souls by carrying the argument to its logical conclusion: "But let us suppose for a moment that it could be shown that animals lack immortal souls, does it follow that their moral status is correspondingly weakened?  It is difficult to see in what sense it could be.  

"If animals are not to be recompensated with an eternal life, how much more difficult must it be to justify their temporal sufferings?  If, for an animal, this life is all that he can have, the moral gravity of any premature termination is thereby increased rather than lessened...In short: if we invoke the traditional argument against animals based on soullessness, we are not exonerated from the need for proper moral justification.  

"Indeed, if the traditional view is upheld, the question has to be:  How far can any proposed aim justify to the animal concerned what would seem to be a greater deprivation or injury than if the same were inflicted on a human being?"

My grandpa raised cattle in Nebraska and I remember being 3 or 4 years old and they took me to a Rodeo. When they roped the baby calves I cried and screamed. Children know what's right and what's wrong. I hated going to those things. I have always thought them barbaric and added circuses and to a lesser extent, Zoos to my list. Zoos are cruel for other reasons.

I don't approve of using animals for human entertainment unless it is strictly regulated and the animals are kept happy, safe and healthy. But let's face it, people who want to make money off of animals rarely care about the animal's happiness. Many people believe they don't even have souls, which is arrogant and preposterous!

When the issue of animal rights is discussed there are always those who bring up abortion and other human-related issues.  Animal Rights activists are also portrayed as being one dimensional and only caring about animals.

Yes, I devote most of my time to animal rights but I also donate to causes that focus on human rights.  I have also signed many petitions supporting various human rights and causes.  I afm heterosexual but I support gay rights. I am a woman and am concerned about womens issues.

And, as if it is anyones business,I used to be prolife (for humans) but after witnessing how cruel the human race has become and how morally bankrupt our society is I no longer think it is wise to bring children into the world.

To those of you who feel that all attention should focus on humans, by all means, throw yourselves into action just like those of us who focus on animals.  Send money to organizations, sign petitions, demonstrate and write letters.  Better yet, develop your own organizations.  There is plenty of room for groups to address every issue on earth.

We, who choose to champion the cause of animals, can do quite well without your pontificating.

While I find myself amused that people feel the need to link animal rights/cruelty to abortion.  In keeping with the subject Stephanie presented so eloquently, I can only quote a few MEN more famous than I am:

"To live without killing is a thought which could electrify the world, if men were only capable of staying awake long enough to let the idea soak in."

Henry Miller, The Henry Miller Reader (1959)

As Mark Twain said,

"Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is unknown to the higher animals."

The Buddha, living in the East at the same time as Pythagoras was living in the West, said to his followers, "All beings tremble before violence. All fear death. All love life. See yourself in others. Then whom can you hurt? What harm can you do?"

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” Ghandi

Not to hurt our humble brethren (the animals) is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission--to be of service to them whenever they require it... If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men.
-- Saint Francis of Assisi

We are not spiritually unconnected from the drugs we take…

Or from the pain and suffering that goes into their making.  PMU Horses

But now ask the beasts to teach you, and the birds of the air to tell you, or the reptiles on the earth to instruct you, and the fish of the sea to inform you.  Which of all these creatures does not know that the hand of God has done this. In His hand is the soul of every living thing, and the life breath of all.  Job 12: 7-10

"Each animal is an individual who brings to the world the mystery of a mind, a heart, a language, a memory, a unique personality, a biography." 

"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.

"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'

"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."

Kathleen Marquardt, founded Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group.  In her 1993 book, Animal Scam:  The Beastly Abuse of Human Rights, she says:

"The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people—to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medications or die."

Identical assertions could have been made about the abolition of human slavery, the crusade to end child labor, the liberation of concentration camp prisoners from Nazi physicians or an end to the experimentation upon black humans by white humans.

Marquardt writes that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) "now encourages vegetarianism, the banning of fur, and the eventual end to all animal research, not just ‘cruel’ animal research." Marquardt writes that the Humane Society now supports vegetarianism.
According to Marquardt, "The typical animal rights activist is a white woman making about $30,000 a year. She is most likely a schoolteacher, nurse, or government worker. She usually has a college degree or even an advanced degree, is in her thirties or forties, and lives in a city."

Marquardt cites studies indicating that animal rights activists tend to identify with liberal causes such as feminism and environmentalism. "Every year," writes the Reverend Andrew Linzey, author of Christianity and the Rights of Animals, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or are on the verge of doing so." It is not surprising, therefore, that Marquardt reports that "Most activists share a bias against Western civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundations."

According to Marquardt, the "political clout" of the animal rights movement "is surprisingly bipartisan. But most of the leading politicians working with the animal rights movement are liberal Democrats." Marquardt makes mention of Senator Barbara Boxer of California, Nevada Congressman Jim Bilbray, Charlie Rose of North Carolina, Tom Lantos and Gerry Studds.
Marquardt admits, however, that "some Republicans are animal rightists, too. Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole of Kansas often supports animal rights causes—except, of course, those pertaining to cattle, a major business in Kansas. Senator Robert Smith of New Hampshire was a founder of the Congressional Friends of Animals. Bob Dornan of California, one of the most conservative House members, is an animal rights advocate—he cosponsored legislation banning the use of animals in testing cosmetics and received a PETA award. And Manhattan Congressman Bill Green promoted legislation that would have shut down over 90 million acres of federal land to hunting, fishing, and trapping."

Marquardt states further that "Although he’s not an elected official, a conservative political figure who, surprisingly, is on the other side is G. Gordon Liddy, author Will and a key figure in the 1972 Watergate uproar. When I went on Liddy’s radio show, he and PETA’s Ingrid Newkirk greeted each other with hugs and kisses and lots of warm words.

"With allies in both political parties and across the ideological spectrum," concludes Marquardt, "the animal rights movement has been able to score some great successes, regardless of which party controls the White House or Capitol Hill."

During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.

The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.

When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"

One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"

Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves. He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."

In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."

A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."

To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."

Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."

Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."

In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.

Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"

"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.

"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."

Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too. And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation. Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."

"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the invincible prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights.  It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.

The pro-choice mentality hasn't changed since then.  On AlterNet (a liberal headlines e-newsletter), on February 20, 2009, in an article entitled "why get freaked out?", pereztx writes:

"the thought of killing an innocent little life form and tossing them in an incenerator or trash might be the hang up other than that I cant think of why they might freaked out. This article writer probably then sheds tears during a PETA meeting about a chicken being killed"

Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights. This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, it's pro-lifers.