From: ac@riemann.math.mun.ca (Alka Chandna)
Subject: Re: Animal rights...again
Organization: CS Dept., Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:07:33 GMT

cotera@woods.ulowell.edu writes:

>    Allow me to reiterate myself: Animals have NO rights. It appears that there
>has been some confusion as to what I mean.  I first used the term "animals" in
>the ordinary sense, meaning non-humans.  Let me rephrase my position so that 

Yes, you used the term animal in the "ordinary" (incorrect) manner.  Maybe you
should have a chat with Darwin on this matter: like it or not, baby, humans are animals too.  Just a matter of symantics, you say?  You wish. 

>even an animal activist can understand it.  Only human beings have rights.
>    In a broader sense, no animals, not even humans, have inherent rights.  We
>only have rights given to us by our governments.

Well, I guess you're not an anarchist then.  Fine, but answer this.  If humans
don't have inherent rights, and rights are *given* to us by our governments
(they certainly are being whittled away these days), does this mean that say
in pre-independence India, my forefathers and foremothers had no *right* to be
treated with dignity by the enslaving British?  Are you saying that just becausethe law of the land at the time deprived Indians of any rights, this was justi-
fied?  [Note to our pal Chris Morton:  Since I'm Indian, I'll draw this analogy
if I want to.  Too bad you've never taken the time to read works by such people
as Isaac Bashevis Singer, Alice Walker or Marjorie Spiegel.  These writers have
all drawn parallels between the ill-treatment of humans and that of animals in such a manner as to point out changing societal values, and the constant evolu-
tion in the way that we perceive those who are different from us.  But it's
sadly clear, Chris, that you just wanna harp on the same tired point.  Booooooooooooooring. ]

The Declaration of
>Independence states that all men are created equal, with certain inalienable
>rights.  "Men" refers to male and female humans, not to animals.  Likewise our
>Constitution grants rights to the citizens of the United States.  Again, not to
>animals.  No law that I am aware of has ever given animals rights.  Therefore
>it is a blatant lie to say otherwise.  Until such a law is passed, I will
>continue to say that animals have no rights, and I will continue to be right.

Let me try to understand you.  Are you then implying that before the Declaration
of Independence or the Constitution were written, people didn't have the inherent right to the various freedoms guaranteed by those writings?  Didn't the writ-
ings or ideas come from somewhere?  And what does the word *inalienable* mean to you?  Isn't there a sense of *inherent* that is trying to be conveyed?


>     Has anyone noticed that the animal rights activists also tend to be in
>favor of abortion (the slaughter of human beings) on demand? However that's
>
another question...


For the record, I'm in favour of abortion, and I will be happy to fight that
quarrel with you and point out the consistency in my position if you wish.  I
do have many animal rights friends who differ with me on the abortion point.
I'm curious to know why it is that everytime I've ever attended an animal rightsdemonstration, a passerby invariably wants to know why I'm not "doing something"about abortion. 

	alka



Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals