Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Do we need PETB?

We all got a good chuckle when PETA harrumphed at President Obama's swatting of a fly during a televised interview. The incident, however, prompted a more serious question of PETA. Would they give the same deference to an unborn child that they give to a fly?

Not necessarily.
In regards to abortion, PETA’s official statement reads:
PETA does not have a position on the abortion issue, because our focus as an organization is the alleviation of the suffering inflicted on nonhuman animals. There are people on both sides of the abortion issue in the animal rights movement, just as there are people on both sides of animal rights issues in the pro-life movement. And just as the pro-life movement has no official position on animal rights, neither does the animal rights movement have an official position on abortion.

Now let me understand this clearly. To PETA the life of a fly deserves to be respected and must be treated with dignity, but the life of an unborn child subject to abortion is apparently of no concern. One can be a member of PETA and support the killing of the unborn as long as that person supports the right to life of a fly.

Even if one believes that humans are no more than a higher evolved form of animal life they must surely oppose the killing of unborn children if they oppose the killing of flies. But this logic escapes PETA. Apparently, it is politically correct to PETA for people to have compassion for animals (even flies), but it is not politically correct to stand against the killing of unborn children...

I gather PETB, People for the Ethical Treatment of Babies, must be a separate organization.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home