|
FIRING LINE: Potter nails animal issue I fully agree with Will Potter's article (Humans not hurt by respect for animals, August 2). Should slavery not have been abolished because people made a living off of the slave trade? The fight for animal liberation might economically harm a small sector of the population, but that would be such a small sacrifice compared to the amount of human and non-human animals who would benefit from it, as well as the earth we all live on. People see the animal rights movement as radical because when they hear "animal rights" they think that means animals having equal rights to humans, which is a huge misconception. That would be ridiculous. But the right to be free from human exploitation and the right to live their natural lives is in no way radical. It is not fair to take advantage of other animals because they cannot speak out or fight back. If the atrocities carried out on animals everyday were carried out on humans there would be public outrage and severe punishment. We all have the ability to experience suffering. Emotions? Animals have emotions, and some have their own forms of communication. Humans have a higher intelligence? In some cases certain animals have a higher intelligence than certain humans. So what is the justification? Just that humans are somehow better or more important? Sounds just like racism or sexism or any other form of prejudice if you ask me. Alicia Skeats |