I was minding my own business this morning just getting my kids ready for school when something on ABC News about dogs on death row came on.Â I wasn’t really paying attention until suddenly I heard some statements that I had normally heard applied to unborn human babies.Â I tracked down the corresponding article at ABC News.Â Here it is.
The basic idea is that there is a new website out that lists dogs soon to be put down and how many days they have left to live.Â It is a means shelters use to help drive home what must happen according to law in the hopes that someone will rescue the pups in time.Â The ABC News bit asked:Â “Is this emotional appeal good or bad?”Â Basically, they wonder, is the website just a low ball attempt to provoke sensitivities?
The part that caught my interest was when some lady from the Humane Society* said something to the same effect as this lady, Julie Morris, who is the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, “Obviously, anything that promotes adoption is good. But I don’t like the idea of inducing people to adopt out of guilt and on the spur of the moment. No one should adopt hastily. They should take the time to make sure they can properly care for an animal and that they’ve found an animal that is right for them or their family.”
I admit a sardonic smile crept onto my face when I heard this.Â It would appear that here at last we find Liberal argumentation finally being applied consistently and here coming back to hurt their own cause.Â Surely it is as obvious to you as it is to me that it is much better, yes, much, much better to allow the animals to die rather than subject them to an existence where they may not be ‘properly cared for’ or the dog might not be ‘right for their family.’Â Slaughtering the animals wholesale is far less cruel to animals, don’t you agree?
This of course is similar to the argument I’ve heard many a time in the pro-life/pro-choice debate that it is not fair to the ‘fetus’ to bring it into the world when it was not wanted or it might be born into an impoverished family, and so subjected to the cruelty of life.Â Â Whether or not the animal is ‘right for’ the adopter is just a step down the same path already being trod in regards to humans where we will see inevitably the aborting of babies that don’t have the right colored eyes or are the wrong gender, and not merely because the baby has some devastating disease that has been detected in ultra-sounds which is the pretext used to justify it now.
But we wouldn’t want to have a wrong-colored-eye baby out of guilt, now would we?
Once you’ve condoned by whatever means possible the wholesale slaughter of unborn humans it was only natural that the same argumentation would seep into the animal rights movement.Â I doubt that this is the first example but it is one of the clearest I’ve seen.Â I’ve seriously had arguments with pro-choicers who argued that you couldn’t grant human status to the unborn because (insert bizarre reasons here) and then I turned on the news and saw people being mercilessly prosecuted for poaching eagle eggs… but of course if the logic was ever to be applied consistently, there could be no basis for giving ‘eagle’ status to the ‘unborn’ ‘eagles’ right?
Well, here we have an example of their logic finally being employed consistently.Â It is better for dogs to die than that they might be adopted out of guilt or might not ‘fit right’ with the adopting family.Â Â It is the same reasoning I’ve seen employed by pro-choicers.Â I can’t even begin to fathom the mindset but I have hope that maybe at some point it will be applied so absurdly in some area that Liberals actually care about that the wickedness of the reasoning is apparent even to the Liberals themselves, and seeing this absurdity, at last come to reject the reasoning… and from here have that rejection seep back the other way until finally unborn humans (and humans in general) are given more protection than we give animals.Â Heck, at this point I would settle for giving them at least the same kind of attention.
* I am pretty sure it was a woman from the Humane Society, but I can’t find the segment to replay to be sure.Â Possibly it is this same Julie Morris woman.
Side note: Â Liberals often criticize pro-lifers for not applying themselves consistently, either, often pointing out that pro-lifers often support the death penalty.Â The answer which has been tirelessly given is that in the death penalty we are talking about people who we hope are really guilty of some heinous crime, whereas the unborn humans are the closest to innocent that a human could be.Â That is one reason why this death row dog story matches so well- these dogs are innocent!