Perception and reality

[Guest guest]

By JOHN REINIERS

 

More Than Words

 

Published: May 15, 2009

 

I have written several " critter " columns that question the soundness of the

philosophy of animal activists who believe that the rights of predatory animals

trump the rights of society. For them, anything less than this is considered

animal cruelty.

 

For example humans can enjoy their habitat only until alligators, crocodiles,

cougars, wolves or snakes lay claim to it. Then they must defer to the predatory

animal. And more significantly, activists promote the introduction or

reintroduction of these predators into areas populated by people, including

helpless children or domestic pets — with tragic, predictable results. (I keep

thinking of the joy activists had when crocodile eggs were found in Miami's

Biscayne Bay.)

 

Some animal activists are vegetarians. This is another way for them to take a

stand against animal cruelty. I can sympathize with this viewpoint. Any

sensitive person who eats meat or poultry would be well advised not to view any

of the vivid reality television shows about the " lifestyle, " transport or

slaughter of animals we consume. They are disturbing, to say the least, and

could logically influence one not to eat meat.

 

But when I was first introduced to vegetarianism, it struck me as a philosophy

endorsing a sensible diet for those who wished to avoid saturated fats. It made

sense to me. I didn't see it as an animal exploitation issue then. Nevertheless,

as I have become older, I became aware of the exploitation of animals for

various unacceptable reasons.

 

But it's when we consider the vegan philosophy, the logic becomes murky. The

term vegan was coined in 1944 by Donald Watson and is defined as " a way of

living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal

kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. " Pay attention to the use of the

word " kingdom. " Is there a human equivalent? And does this " reverence for life "

extend beyond the animal kingdom to mere humans?

 

The defining issue for a vegan is whether a central nervous system is present in

what is being eaten. Vegetables live and grow but they feel no pain, nor can

they suffer. So for ethical vegan principles, the rule is to stay away from the

product of any animal. And that should include eggs. They argue that eating eggs

supports an institution that cages birds and forces them to lay eggs, and when

they no longer can, they are slaughtered. They also don't eat eggs because the

eggs eaten could become chickens themselves.

 

And here's where it gets even murkier. One would think that vegans would support

the right to life movement; but no, many are pro-choice. Rather than read my

explanation, here is what three vegan bloggers say: " I am a pro-choice vegan. So

are all the vegan friends we are friends with. Vegans tend to be liberals, and

liberals tend to be pro-choice. " Another vegan is a bit more honest: " Hi, I am a

vegan and pro-choice and proud of both decisions. Maybe we're hypocrites, but I

find that I just don't care. " Another says, " Those who call vegans hypocrites,

either liken abortion to killing a sentient being or taking a fertilized egg

from a chicken, both of which would be considered non-vegan acts ... I would be

against a woman's choice for aborting her baby in order to bake it in a cake. "

 

Wow! What a crude thing to say. So the crucial difference is the mother isn't

eating her baby, so her abortion is an acceptable vegan act. It's nice to know

vegans don't endorse cannibalism. What happened to the presence of a central

nervous system? Or the " reverence for life " which is found in the definition of

the vegan philosophy? Does reverence only apply to animals? Or the notion that

they revere chickens so do not eat their eggs because the eggs eaten could

become chickens themselves?

 

I am not taking a position for or against abortion. But I am endorsing logic.

How can one believe in the sanctity of the life in a chicken egg, but not in the

sanctity of human life? It is also difficult to understand why it is that vegans

believe animals can kill and eat other animals, but we can't.

 

There is this constant drumbeat of the subservience of human rights to those of

the animal kingdom. They are eerily similar to animal activists who believe that

the rights of predatory animals are superior to those of people.

 

These are the same activists who are pro-choice but don't believe in the death

penalty. They are also likely to be the people who since 9/11 have gradually

elevated the status of foreign terrorists to freedom fighters who have the same

constitutional rights of American citizens; or likely to be those who believe

the rights of Americans are subsumed by, and should be deferred to, the

overarching rights of the international community as expressed by the U.N. For

some reason we are only at best, a mere echo of the rest of humanity — or for

that matter — the animal kingdom.

 

As philosophers would say, these people have many perceptions; all of which have

become their reality.

 

Hermann Hesse, writer and 1946 Nobel Laureate in literature was spot on when he

said, " There is no reality except the one contained within us. That is why so

many people live such an unreal life. They take images outside them for reality

and never allow the world within to assert itself. "

 

 

John Reiniers, a regular columnist for Hernando Today, lives in Spring Hill.