Many commonsense,
compassionate people who love their animals do not understand the true
nature of the animal rights movement. They care about their animals and
want to insure they are treated humanely. Because they have been misled
into believing that the movement is about something else (helping
animals), they "think" they are for animal rights. What they actually
believe in is animal welfare, from a responsible animal ownership
perspective. They own and love animals and care for them and do not want
to see any animal abused.
Do not confuse these
feelings of compassion for animals with a movement that actually has no
true regard for the protection of an animal's or a human's rights. If a
person truly cares about animals, it is critical to realize the difference
between the two philosophies. Every person who thinks he/she is for animal
rights, when they are actually for animal welfare, poses a threat to
themselves and others when it comes to our continued right to own animals.
They help perpetuate a philosophy that has the potential to legally change
our relationships with animals, permanently. This can happen because those
laws that are passed by the animal rights people put us closer and closer
to the place where our right to own any animals, for any purpose, has been
legislated away.
True animal rights people
hate humans and feel they are a blight on the planet. They only tolerate
themselves and each other so they can carry on their campaigns against the
rest of humanity. They don't particularly like non-human animals but by
constantly claiming "animal abuse" they can play on the emotions of
softhearted animal welfare people and solicit money from them to promote
their agenda.
A part of the animal rights
movement is to legally elevate the animal to a level as high as, or higher
than, that of a person. When this happens those animals that depend upon
us for their food, shelter, vet care, and affection are actually put at
risk because the animal rights sponsored law has decreased the expected
responsibilities of the animal owner.
If animals are to have the
same legal rights as people then they will be expected to have the same
level of responsibility as people, also. Is not one of the most important
differences between humans and animals that humans are expected to take
responsibility for their own actions and the actions of the animals owned
by them? If the legal system sees fit to place animals on a par with
people then might I ask that my pets take their turn paying the rent,
buying my food as well as their own and paying my doctor's bills as well
as their vet bills? Think about it the next time you get a solicitation
from one of those "animal rights" organizations, such as HSUS or PETA or
one of the others, that neither helps or likes animals, and does not pay
the rent for you or your pets.
These organizations care
about only two things: (1) making more money for themselves and to (2)
support and promote an extremist agenda that advocates no interaction
whatsoever between humans and animals.
