Problems with promoting Animal welfare reform to abolish animal use

During the 1980s and 1990s, those who promoted welfare reform campaigns claimed to really be "animal rights" advocates. But the entire point of the animal rights movement was to promote a new way of thinking about animal ethics that rejected welfare campaigns as unacceptable.

At the present time, welfarists are trying to appropriate "abolition." claiming that they really want to see abolition in the long term.

Again, the point of the abolitionist approach was to refocus the animal movement on animal rights and away from welfare reform.

Think of it this way: the peace movement that rejects war. Imagine those who favor war claiming that they are part of the peace movement because they really want peace in the long-term but see war as a means to peace.

The means cannot be inconsistent with the end. War is inconsistent as a means to peace. That is the point of the peace movement. Promoting (supposedly) humane animal use is inconsistent with no use. Welfare reform is inconsistent with the abolitionist approach to animal rights.

From: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach

No moral difference between eatings dogs, wearing fur and using and consuming other animal products

Please consider this quote :

"I get a lot of requests to sign petitions to end dog and cat meat trades in other countries. The latest one I got was a pledge to "exclude Switzerland as a holiday destination until eating cats and dogs is outlawed by the Swiss government."

 

The reason I won't sign petitions like this is because they are speciesist. There is no moral difference between dogs, pigs, cows, cats, sheep, fish - but campaigns like these make it seem like dogs and cats matter more, that it's not okay to eat them but perfectly okay to eat other animals and products that come from them.

 

If we were to refuse going to Switzerland because they eat dogs and cats, in order to be morally consistent, we'd have to refuse going to any country that exploits animals - which isn't possible because sadly animal exploitation is everywhere!

 

Watch my video about the problems with single issue campaigns here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tpp7Zhijm8o

 

Let's be a strong, consistent voice for ALL animals and promote veganism - unequivocally - wherever we can. Let's work to end ALL animal use in ALL countries, because no matter what species, they are all sentient individuals who deserve the basic right to not be treated as the property of others. "

 

The above campaign sends the message to non-vegans that there is a moral difference between killing dogs, and between killing other animals. We should instead spread vegans campaigns against all animal use. More thoughts: http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/03/single-issue-campaigns-such-as-anti-fur.html

Leather isn't merely a "by-product" of the beef industry. In fact, most leather doesn't even come from the same type of cow used for beef.

Hello Eric,

You wrote:"Yes, I agree with that statement in general. I in no way agree with abusing animals .."

Great Eric!
Does the animals we kill for food or clothing want to sacrifice their life for clothing and food that we have no need of whatsoever?
Why do you eat meat at all? Isn't this causing unnecessary suffering to an animal?
Do you eat any other animal products, or use any animal products in other ways? If you research e.g. the website www.vegankit.com you will understand that any kind of animal use is wrong, and that it perpetuates the status of animals as "property", which is the cause of the most horrendous physical animal abuses. If you understand this you can in no way participate in any kind of use of animal, since you are both confining and exploiting an animal and are perpetuating the "property"-status of animals, with all of its negative consequences.

Can we extend our compassion, mercy and love to them and to choices that doesn't cause them unnecessary suffering and pain.
The animals make great resistance when someone tries to kill them. They don't want do die.

Please watch the video 'Animals as property' do understand the results of giving animals the status of being "property":
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/#.USoSj1fA0Wk
If you agree of the statement in general that it is immoral to cause animals unnecessary suffering, how can you justify that people caused animals unnecessary suffering  for clothing that they didn't need to survive?

When it comes to animals and byproducts, I agree with this statement:

"Leather isn't merely a "by-product" of the beef industry. In fact, most leather doesn't even come from the same type of cow used for beef.

Even if this were the case, it's important, again, to think of what we do to animals not in terms of "inflicting suffering," but their property status. If an animal is killed to create two different products, what sense does it make to say one product is a by-product while the other is the real thing? Animals are killed because their dead bodies can be sold in the form of various products."