Animal activists vs. terrorists

Re “Terrorism in the name of animal rights,” Opinion, Nov. 12

Although I agree with P. Michael Conn that animal activists who threaten researchers with violence or place bombs under their cars should be called terrorists, I disagree with his analogy regarding animal rights.

It’s ridiculous, of course, to imagine a rabbit’s surviving family suing the fox that killed it -- but very different imagining a lawsuit brought against a research lab on behalf of a monkey.

Does the fox have a moral or legal obligation to treat other animals humanely? Does he have a choice about whether to eat the rabbit? Does he have thoughtful alternatives?

Our ability to consider the condition of other species is one of the things that makes us human. If Conn sees himself no differently than the fox, then he ought not be given responsibility for any animal’s welfare.

Amy Helperin Krivis

Tarzana

--

The vast majority of animal rights activists are peace-loving people. We believe that animals do not exist to be used by humans for our entertainment, experiments or food. Of course, there will always be some at the fringe who give the rest of us a bad name. But do not confuse the violence of a few with the voices of the many.

What is truly full of terror is not the misguided acts of the headline makers, but the institutionalized vivisection, experimentation and psychological torture of the caged animals on whose behalf the peaceful millions work.

Patti Breitman

Fairfax, Calif.