The Animal Rights Issue and Its Role in Society

In response to T. Rose’s letter, anytime I hear someone say, “I love animals. I have a dog, but . . .” I know that this person hasn’t the faintest idea what the animal rights/anti-vivisectionist movement is about. It’s like the researcher who says he loves dogs, has a dog at home and goes to the dog lab at the university and, without a sidelong glance, instructs students on how to cut open a dog with a minimum of anesthetic.

This movement is not just caring about animals, it’s primarily caring about people. Accutane is a good example. This drug, recently in the news because it harms the fetus of pregnant women, tested on animals as safe for humans. Acetaminophen has been associated with kidney failure and kidney disease when taken every day for years. Prolonged daily use of ibuprofen also harms kidneys. Daily uses of phenacetin had five times the usual risk of kidney damage. All tested on animals as safe for human consumption.

The animal rights movement cares about people and animals. Since many of these drugs harm people, the movement is concerned. Humans are being injured and killed, animals are being killed.

As for sacrificing all five of T. Rose’s well-loved pets to save a child, I can tell her that “killing her pet won’t save her baby” or anybody else’s. Since a human being is not a cat, a rat, a dog or a bird, there is no correlation to any cure of an animal to a human.

And as far as being cold and having to wear fur, nonsense. Buy a heavy sweater or a good fake fur. Wearing real fur is only a status symbol, an “I’m-better-than-you attitude because I paid a lot of money for this real fur coat.” Well-managed and maintained fur farms, if there are such a things, are still cruelty factories. There is no “necessary trapping.” Traps ensnare “trash animals,” such as dogs, cats, birds and even small children.

T. Rose may be surprised to learn that a lot of animal-rights activists do not have companion pets. They are simply concerned for their own health and their tax dollars pouring into medical fraud.

Since abused children and neglected old people already have their advocates, would T. Rose be so parsimonious as to disallow another segment of creativity its advocate? The abuses of animals should not go unnoticed, unless we wish to do so at the expense of all human character.

P. SABETTA

Irvine