Animal Rights, or Animal Welfare?
Posted by Darren U. Talissen on February 13th, 2008
As I look through the policies and beliefs of the animal rights organizations, I am appalled at the number of members they have. Surely this many Americans have not lost their minds. I believe that the problem at hand is that many people are confusing animal rights with animal welfare. Before you make up your mind that they are one and the same, please read on.
Animal rights organizations agenda is based upon the belief that animals have rights, just as humans do, but have no responsibilities. The belief in animal welfare, carries the desire that animals are provided with adequate food, water, and shelter and generally treated well. While being treated well, these animals would do exactly as God created them to do, and that is to serve man. The animal is, indeed, the property of it’s owner, and the human owner is, indeed, the master of the animal. This master is something of a dictator, but in the interest of animal welfare, he must be a benevolent dictator.
Most Americans own an animal, whether it be as a pet, or as a working animal, or for the purpose of meat production. The animal rights agenda believes that mankind has no right to own an animal. As a result, the majority of the population is the enemy of animal rights organizations. Meanwhile, a large portion of these animal owners are donating to the very organizations that have declared them to be the enemy. I know it is the policy of the United States government to donate to their enemies, and it seems the population is sharing that policy. Ask yourself, does it make sense for the US government to spend billions of dollars destroying a country, then spend trillions more rebuilding it to be better than it was before they were forced to destroy it? Does it make sense for an animal owner to donate to the coffers of the very organizations that are attempting to take away their ability to own these animals?
The majority of these animal owners do believe in the welfare of the animals in their charge. This welfare is provided through the provision of food, necessary medical attention, and kindness. Animals have only two rights, the right to either have it’s needs met or be released to fend for itself, and the right to do what it was born to do, and that is to serve man.
The King James version of the Holy Bible tells us in Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth“. This is positive proof that man was created as master of all animals. The natural effect of this is that man has the right to own animals, and animals have the right to serve man.
I believe in animal welfare, and I would imagine that most others believe similarly. In most cases, if an animal owner is keeping a dog and is not feeding that dog, it isn’t because he likes to watch dogs starve. Instead, it is usually a situation where the owner has financial troubles and cannot afford dog food, or is physically ill and cannot see to his dog’s needs. In such a case, the radical animal rights organizations want to have the man arrested and the dog killed. This does nothing for the welfare of the dog, or the owner. In spite of the fact that the dog was not fed for a short time, in most cases, he still loves his master, and would be emotionally devastated if he and his master were separated. In my opinion, in this case, the humane thing to do would be to buy a few bags of dog food for this dog, and allow him to remain with his master.
If an animal welfare organization finds a man who is beating his dog unmercifully because he hates the dog, they should offer to take the dog away. Surely if this man just hates the dog, he wouldn’t object. On the other hand, if this man is “spanking” his dog because the dog misbehaved, he is being a responsible owner by teaching the dog that certain behaviors are not acceptable.
Similar ideas would apply to all species of domestic animals, and dogs were merely used here as an example. My point here, is that animal welfare is a very real concern, and we need an organization that is interested in animal welfare, but also understands that animals were created for the purpose of serving man. This understanding of servitude would carry over to working animals, laboratory animals, as well as pets.
The animal rights organizations have the ultimate goal of extinction of all species of domestic animals. This is not my opinion, but verifiable fact. I am not sure how extinction serves the needs of these animals, but these groups such as PETA and HSUS would have us believe such. A true animal welfare organization would be seeking to eliminate disease in animals (which would require research using animals), as well as helping improve the quality of life of an animal. Finding a loving home for an animal would be a definite step in that direction, however, animal rights organizations make no such efforts, opting to murder the animal instead.
You and I can look into the faces of an animal and see through it’s expressions and mannerisms if it is happy. A cat purrs, a dog wags it’s tail, a parakeet sings. If the animal is happy, there is evidence that it’s welfare is being met. Most animals show definite signs of happiness when they are serving the needs of their master. This makes them happy because it is what they were created to do.
It is my belief that many local shelters meet the criteria of an animal welfare organization, but we need a nationwide organization with these goals. An organization that recognizes the right of a cockfighter to allow his roosters the right to do what they were born to do, or the right of a hunter to allow his dog to do what it was born to do. If most animal lovers had an alternative to donating to the radical animal rights groups, I believe that they would cease to support those groups. A nationwide animal welfare organization would fill the need of these reasonable animal lovers to do their part for the benefit of the animal kingdom. This in turn, would reduce the strength of groups like HSUS and PETA, who are using the funds that should be helping animals to aid terrorists, kill animals, lobby politicians, and line their own pockets.
These are my thoughts, and I am Darren U. Talissen
Be as game as your roosters, and keep fighting the good fight.