I, too, am disappointed by Ehrenreich's lack of consideration for the valid question: Why are nonhuman animals property rather than beings permitted to live their natural lives, just as human animals are?
To educate Ehrenreich, purchasing cage-free eggs is not animal rights activism at all. Cage-free eggs are purchased by animal welfare advocates, and there's a big difference. Animal rights activists believe that it is precisely the property status of nonhuman animals that positions us to do enslave them and cause them a life of pain and a death at our whim. For the animal rights activist, there's no such thing as "humane slaughter," and slaughter is how most institutionalized interactions between human and nonhuman animals end.
Though it is interesting how alike we and some primates are, the only point of likeness that matters is that we have the same capacity for pleasure and pain, and the same interest in living our lives free of being the property of another. That's the only right animal rights people are referring to: the right to not be the property of another.
Ms. Ehrenreich, when such a fundamental question of justice is involved, how could you (of all people) use it as a platform for a stand-up routine?
Mary Martin, Ph.D.
May 18 2007 - 7:35am