Why PETA's sexism-campaigns for 'animal rights' are morally wrong

Well written about why sexist campaign, such as PETA's, ALWAYS are bad:
First, these campaigns commodify a traditionally disempowered group (women) as a supposed means to the end of helping another disempowered group (nonhumans). But what sense does it make to say that we should treat one group instrumentally in order to help another group? It does not make any sense whatsoever. Indeed, by encouraging the public to see women as objects, PETA merely ensures that people will continue to see nonhumans as objects. As long as we continue to treat women like meat, we will continue to treat nonhumans as meat.

It is imperative that we object to the instrumental treatment of any group. Devaluing and commodifying one group for the supposed benefit of another is immoral and self-defeating.
Second, by coupling sexual imagery with images of violence toward nonhumans, these campaigns attempt to eroticize animal exploitation. We live in a culture in which violence, and particularly violence against women, is eroticized in a variety of ways. Perpetuating this, and extending it to the exploitation of nonhumans, is deeply troubling.

Third, these campaigns have everything to do with promoting PETA and nothing to do with the exploitation of nonhuman animals. PETA started its naked fur campaign in the early 1990s. The fur industry is stronger than ever. There has been a dramatic increase in the past decade in the number of stores carrying fur and the number of designers using fur combined with a significant drop in the average age of fur buyers. A 2004 Gallup poll “found that 63 percent of respondents pronounced the buying and wearing of clothing made with animal fur ‘morally acceptable.’” Although good results for nonhumans would not justify sexism, sexism has not produced any good results for nonhumans.
Read more here: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/the-state-of-the-movement/#.UVsfN1ev_gM


-------More about PETA, written 09.04.2013:
PETA supports "happy exploitation", which hurts and kills animals:
"PETA gives awards to various vendors of “happy” meat and animal products;

PETA, along with other animal groups, has enthusiastically endorsed the Whole Foods “Animal Compassionate” program/label;

PETA gave an award in 2004 to Temple Grandin, the designer of “happy” slaughter houses and what Grandin calls the “stairway to heaven” system of slaughter;

PETA announces and then calls off boycotts of institutional animal users such as Kentucky Fried Chicken and Burger King and praises those companies for their supposed concern for animal welfare;

PETA praises McDonald’s as “actually ‘leading the way’ in reforming the practices of fast-food suppliers, in the treatment and the killing of its beef and poultry.”"
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/a-response-to-petas-position-on-happy-or-humane-exploitation/#.UWRbA8pEDFc

PETA has sexist campaigns, which hurts women:
http://bloganders.blogspot.no/2013/04/why-petas-sexism-campaigns-for-animal.html

PETA admits that it kills "unadoptable" and "elderly" animals at their "shelter"; and it is never justifiable to kill another individual and to use violence.

------------Quote from Gary Francione's Abolitionist Approach-page:

A portion of an email I received this morning from someone in the U.S.:

"I am not clear as to why you object to animal campaigns using naked women as the women who participate do so voluntarily. So what's the harm? If a woman chooses to participate, that's feminism in my books!"

My reply:

"You have raised an important issue. I have four comments.

First, as a purely practical matter, I do not think that those campaigns do any good whatsoever. That is, I would rather doubt that anyone has had a revolution of the heart and gone vegan in response to one of these sexist campaigns.

Second, the problem of animal exploitation is the problem of commodification. That is, we treat nonhuman animals a things, as existing only as resources, only as means to our ends. That is what we seek to change. But how can we do that as long as we are perpetuating the commodification of women by focusing on their appearance or their ability to provide sexual services as the primary aspect of who they are as persons?

To put this another way, as long as we are thinking of women primarily as sexual objects, we are going to continue to think about animals as objects to use. We need to reject the commodification of *any* persons, human or nonhuman. It makes no sense to say that we reject the commodification of animals but we embrace the commodification of women. It makes no sense to expect progress in eradicating the commodification of animals as long as we are perpetuating the commodification women and making that commodification a part of our campaigns.

Third, choice in a patriarchal society is a tricky concept. Can women freely choose to participate in their own commodification by reinforcing the idea that the primary value of women is their appearance and "sexiness"? Yes, of course they can. Is a choice to reinforce such notions an expression of feminism? That's a different question and I think that the answer is "no."

Although I believe that women should be free to self-commodify, I do not regard the choice per se as facilitating feminism. That is, although I think that a woman should be free to work in a strip club if that is what she wants to do, I do not think that working in a strip club does anything to promote gender equality and to eradicate the pernicious idea that the primary value of women is as providers of sexual services. The fact that women choose to participate in activities that perpetuate their commodification does not mean it is not exploitation.

Fourth, a serious social movement does not employ sexism. For example, Martin Luther King significantly advanced the cause of justice through intellect, tenacity, dignity and courage and without ever "going naked" to win civil rights or engaging in any of the exploitative antics that have become common in the animal movement. And I suggest that he would have made much, much less progress had he done so. If Gandhi used sexism rather than justice and nonviolence, the British would still be in India."

Quote Gary Francione:

An email I got:

"I was at AR 2013 and heard you say that we should not use sexism to promote animal rights. But if helps animals, what's wrong with it?"

My reply: "We are never going to turn people vegan by supposedly promoting animal rights messages through sexism. That may entertain some people and get media coverage for the groups that promote it but I have never known it to effect any change. And that sort of approach continues the objectification of women, which is inherently wrong and perpetuates tremendous harm. Please think about what I am saying here."

Reply to counter-argument to veganim: Vegan don't addres the environmental impact of their diet.

Destructive techniques is a problem of non-vegan farmers, so is GMO and pollution.I believe in small-scale farming without machines, pesticides and GMO, one can e.g. plant 6000 pounds of plant food on 1/10 acre in California. Animals are saved by becoming vegan and inspiring people to become vegan. If there were no vegan the suffering and death would happen to many, many more animals.

The plant-based foods that the more than 56 billion land animals (who have the sadly misfortune to grow up to become someones food) brutally slaughtered each year eats could feed more than 9 billion people.
15 million children are dieing of starvation in the world each year. Hundreds of millions don't get enough food. If we care of them we must let our eating habits reflect this. If everyone ate plant-based food, the food would suffice for everyone's need. Read Dr. Richard oppenlander

The enironmental impact of people eating animal products are much, much higher compared to the diet of a vegan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drS5hHdelR8

90% of all soy grown in the world are fed to livestock. I don't eat any soy, nor GMO, at all and do my best to minimize my environmental impact, including buying as much organic food that I can. In 2011, there was a record harvest of grain globally, with over 2.5 billion tons, but half of that was fed to animals in the meat and dairy industries. Please read The World Hunger-Food Choice Connection: A Summary by Dr. Richared A. Oppenlander and World Peace Diet by Will Tuttle.

Reply to:
"All the vegans ones cause Animal death too, its just that vegans are hypocritical and do not want to address the environmental impact of their diet, they would like to remain silent when it comes to addressing the destructive techniques used in modern agriculture, the pollution on a massive scale agriculture dose and the spread of GMO products. also the fact that not a single animal was ever saved by anyone becoming a vegan, there are more factory farms than ever, not less, it makes YOU happy"

According to science fish are conscious and do feel pain

Quote from article claiming that fish don't feel pain:

" However, the new research, which reviewed a series of studies conducted over the years, discovered that only an extremely small number of “C fibres” - a type of nociceptor responsible for pain - can be found in trout and other fish."

However,
Both A-delta and C fibres are noiceptors responsible for pain:
In higher vertebrates nociceptive nerves are either A–delta or C fibres with C fibres being the predominating fibre type. However, in the rainbow trout A–delta fibres were most common, and this offers insights into the evolution of nociceptive systems. Administration of noxious substances to the lips of the trout affected both the physiology and the behaviour of the animal and resulted in a significant increase in opercular beat rate and the time taken to resume feeding, as well as anomalous behaviours. This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort. "
Quote: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1520/1115

A-delta-fibres are associated with the first sensation of pain: Link [  Do fishes have nociceptors? Evidence for the evolution of a vertebrate sensory system L. U. Sneddon¹,^*, V. A. Braithwaite² and M. J. Gentle¹; Proceedings of the Royal Society ]

Another quote: "Professor James Rose from the University of Wyoming in the US, who led the study, also found that the fish brain does not contain the highly developed neocortex needed to feel pain, so do not experience it in any meaningful way like humans.

He concluded that fish are able to experience unconscious, basic instinctive responses, but that these did not lead to conscious feelings or pain."

Wrong.
Many other researchers now believe that animal consciousness does not require a neocortex, but can arise from homologous subcortical brain networks. See: The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness 7 July 2012. Written by Philip Low and edited by Jaak Panksepp, Diana Reiss, David Edelman, Bruno Van Swinderen, Philip Low and Christof Koch. University of Cambridge.
-------

Anyone who made it through Biology 101 knows that fish have nerves and brains that sense pain, just as all animals do. Dr. Donald Broom, a scientific advisor to the British government, explains, "The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals."

Neurobiologists have long recognized that fish have nervous systems that comprehend and respond to pain. Scientists tell us that fish brains and nervous systems closely resemble our own. For example, fish (like "higher vertebrates") have neurotransmitters such as endorphins that relieve suffering; the only reason for their nervous systems to produce these painkillers is to relieve pain. Researchers have created a detailed map of pain receptors in fish's mouths and all over their bodies. A team at the University of Guelph in Canada recently surveyed the scientific literature on fish pain and intelligence. They concluded that fish feel pain and that "the welfare of fish requires consideration."

A two-year study by scientists at Edinburgh University and the Roslin Institute in the U.K. proved what many marine biologists have been saying for years: Fish feel pain, just as all animals do. Anglers may not like to think about it, but fish suffer when they are impaled in the mouth and pulled into an environment in which they cannot breathe. Said Dr. Lynne Sneddon, who headed the study,"Really, it's kind of a moral question. Is your angling more important than the pain to the fish?"

A study by scientists at Queen's University Belfast proved that fish learn to avoid pain, just like other animals. Rebecca Dunlop, one of the researchers, said, "This paper shows that pain avoidance in fish doesn't seem to be a reflex response, rather one that is learned, remembered and is changed according to different circumstances. Therefore, if fish can perceive pain, then angling cannot continue to be considered a noncruel sport."

Fish can also suffer from fear and anticipation of physical pain. Researchers from universities across America have published research showing that some fish use sound to communicate distress when nets are dipped into their tanks or they are otherwise threatened. In a separate study, researcher William Tavolga found that fish grunted when they received an electric shock. In addition, the fish began to grunt as soon as they saw the electrode in anticipation of the torment that Tavolga was inflicting on them.

According to Dr. Michael Fox, D.V.M., Ph.D., "Even though fish don't scream [audibly to humans] when they are in pain and anguish, their behavior should be evidence enough of their suffering when they are hooked or netted. They struggle, endeavoring to escape and, by so doing, demonstrate they have a will to survive."

[Quote: Cat Jones]

----
The bottom-line is that fish are conscious.
A sentient being is a being who is subjectively aware; a being who has interests; that is, a being who prefers, desires, or wants. Those interests do not have to be anything like human interests. If a being has some kind of mind that can experience frustration or satisfaction of whatever interests that being has, then the being is sentient.

We engage in speciesist thinking when we claim that a being must have a humanlike mind to count morally. That is, it is speciesist to claim that a being must have a reflective sense of self awareness, or conceptual thought, or the general ability to experience life in the way that humans do in order to have the moral right not to be used as a resource. As long as there is someone there who is subjectively aware and who, in that being’s own way, cares about what happens to him or to her, that is all that is necessary to have the moral right not to be used as a resource.

Quote: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/sentience/#.UVmlZFev_gM

One of the main arguments that I make is that although almost everyone accepts that it is morally wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering and death on animals, 99% of the suffering and death that we inflict on animals can be justified only by our pleasure, amusement, or convenience. For example, the best justification that we have for killing the billions of nonhumans that we eat every year is that we enjoy the taste of animal flesh and animal products. This is not an acceptable justification if we take seriously, as we purport to, that it is wrong to inflict unnecessary suffering or death on animals, and it illustrates the confused thinking that I characterize as our “moral schizophrenia” when it comes to nonhumans.

Om du bryr dig om hur kor behandlas, så välj inte "ekologisk mjölk", utan välj att sluta dricka mjölk

Jag skriver detta utan att döma någon, utan bara för att hjälpa.

Jag tror inte att det att det är få som lyssnar om man har ett klart och tydligt, pedagogiskt meddelande som visar att allt sorts användande av djur är fel. De flesta förstår ju att djurförtryck är fel, vi behöver bara pedagogiskt visa att det inte är något skillnad på det djurförtryck som de motsätter sig, jämfört med det djurförtryck som de deltar i genom sina dagliga val.

 Resultatet av det jag postar på min Facebook-vägg (där jag klart och tydligt visar att allt användande och utnyttjande av djur är etiskt fel) är det åtminstone en som blivit helt vegan och många som arbetar på att bli veganer eller skära ner på mängden djurprodukter. De som är tillräckligt motiverade att inte delta i djurförtryck och förstår att deras handlingar orsakar just detta blir veganer, och många andra börjar en process med att skära ner på djurprodukter. Jag får även personer att förstå på jobbet och andra personer jag möter. En del personer är mycket mer bortkopplade från djuren än andra. En av min frus bröder har helt slutat med kött tack vare det som hon skrivit.

Även här så rapporteras det regelbundet om personer som blir veganer: www.facebook.com/abolitionistapproach och https://www.facebook.com/VeganFriendMe

Jag ser på både DR’s och DRA’s sidor många personer som är förvirrade (tror de är godhjärtade, jag dömer dem inte) och äter djurprodukter, men är emot djurplågeri; och tror att ”frigående ägg” leder till mindre lidande än ”burhöns” [medan det har visats att det motsatta är sant, se mitt första inlägg].

Om vi hyllar någon för att dricka ”ekologisk mjölk”, så tror jag risken är att hen tror att hen gör en moraliskt bra gärning.

Om en person äger en slav och minskar hennes förtryck och slår hen 9 gånger istället för 10, skulle vi då hylla denne för detta, eller skulle i vara tydliga och säga att allt våld och slaveri är etiskt fel?

Det är fruktansvärt lidande även i ”ekologisk mjölk”-industri med mjölkkor och hankalvar som blir dödade, kalvar som blir stulna från sina mödrar, mjölk som blir stulen på en regelbunden basis. Och sen den totala förvirring som hela ”ekologisk mjölk”-begreppet skapar, där människor tror att de gör kor en tjänst som övergår till detta. Det enda man gör är att orsaka våld, lidande och död till en viss grupp av kor istället för en annan grupp av kor. Man hjälper inte korna utan förlänger deras slaveri och förtryck. Man förevigar kors egendom-status, vilket är problemet som orsakar allt sorts djurförtryck.

Vill också rekommendera denna artikel som relaterar till kor och alla andra tamdjur och varför det är fel att domesticera och köpa tamdjur: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/animal-rights-and-domesticated-nonhumans/ . Att adoptera djur från djurhem, att rädda deras liv, är en väldigt god gärning. Men att köpa i djuraffär förevigar djurs ”egendom”-status med alla dess enorma problem, oerhörda, lidande, död och förtryck. [Se Animals as Property; http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/video/#.UVmYOZdOhpo ]

Det är inte rätt att domesticera djur. Alla djur förtjänar och har en rätt att leva i frihet och inte under människans begränsningar. Därför ska vi sluta föda upp djur, ta hand om de djur som finns nu (som inte klarar sig själv, p.g.a. hur människan har avlat dem) och låta dem leva ett så bra liv som det går tills de dör en naturlig död. Rekommenderar denna föreläsning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

Citat:"tanke bakom som värnar om djuren och den tanken, hur liten effekt den än må ha, är värd att förstärkas och uppmärksammas."

Jag tycker den tanken är fin, och det är den tanken som är det enda som behövs för att en person ska kunna överväga att vilja bli vegan. Det gäller bara att vara tydlig med att visa HUR man ska agera och vad man ska köpa och hur man ska behandla djur om man verkligen vill göra någon skillnad för kor och andra djur,och om man inte vill att de ska lida.

Veganism, jainism, Ahimsa, non-violence, dairy-industry is Himsa

My notes from a lecture (see link below) by Gary Francione at a Jain-conference:

[Garys website: http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ ]
During that time we started to hear about non-violence. Dr. King started about non-violence and Gandhi. We heard about Gandhi in history-class.. He was important in relation between Britain and India. We started hearing about him. Non-violence is a cool idea. It fits in our opposition towards the war. It was a total abstract concept for me. It was a word, a concept, it meant nothing. 

It was in 1978 that I started to understand what Ahimsa meant. Someone challenged me, you eat meat, you believe in non-violence, you should go to a slaughter-house. It was an absolutely horrifying experience. Up to that point of my life, it was the most horrifying experience that I had. .. Still when I am in periods of stress, I still have nightmares about that slaughter-house. .. I went to a veal-slaughterhouse. The way veal calves are raised. They are raised in these tiny crates. Most of them can’t walk because of this. They are dragged. According to American law you are supposed to stun them., so that they can’t feel anything… But that doesn’t work very well. You have to use electrical prod. Many cows start to get conscious when people start cutting in. I walked out there as a completely different person. I realized that violence is a part of my life. Every time when I am eating meat, I am a part of this. Then I start to thinking about what non-violence is. It started to become part of my life. I started thinking about what non-violence meant. It wasn’t just that it was bloody and horrible. It was the violence that I was responsible for. I started to study more about violence. That is when I came to Jainism. I knew nothing about Jainism. I have heard about it. I had silly stereotypes. There wasn’t at the time a great deal of literature written in English that was good. I read what I could. I encountered Ahimsa. Ahimsa is the principle. I thought it is just wonderful.

I continued to consume dairy. I didn’t know you could live a healthy life without eating dairy. At the time I bought into the propaganda that you needed to eat it to get protein, in particular if you didn’t eat meat. I told my mother in 1978 that I was becoming a vegetarian. She said you are going to die. People were calling ‘Please eat meat, you are going to die’. It was 1982. I had a conversation with a vegan friend. She said there is no difference between dairy and meat. She gave me a book, I read it, it was a Saturday in October or November in 1982. I have not eaten a dairy-product since that time. I changed my behavior, since it couldn’t be justified.

I continued to wear the leather-products I had until they wore out. I stopped buying wool, I stopped buying silk.

The book was called Fettered Kingdoms by John Bryant. I was very impressed by his book. Later I met him in London. He said I am a little embarrassed, I am not vegan anymore. He said ‘I find it too difficult’. Gary said ‘If you are finding it too hard to be vegan in Britain, you are not trying enough.’ He wrote to me: ‘I am moving to become vegan again’ Gary said: ‘ Better late then never’.

I think we have a tendency to think that it is okay to eat dairy products, because you don’t kill the animals for dairy. Meat and dairy are connected. If you are supporting dairy industry you are supporting meat industry. You got to keep impregnated the cows. The male calves become ‘veal calves’. The veal industry kills over a 1 million of veal calves in India each year, because of the dairy industry in India. They are producing all of these veal calves. You sell them for meat. Dairy cows natural life span of 30 years. We kill them after 5-6 years.

Animals used for dairy are kept alive longer. They are treated anywhere as badly.

To say that dairy doesn’t involve death is wrong as a factual matter.

It is not just a matter of killing, it Is a matter of suffering. If you look at Acaranga sutra, it is written quite clearly, ‘The Arhats and Bhagavats of the past, present, and future, all say thus, speak thus, declare thus, explain thus: all breathing, existing, living, sentient creatures should not be slain, nor treated with violence, nor abused, nor tormented, nor driven away.

I carry Acaranga sutra in that book. It is a marvelous book. I have read it enough times, so that parts are memorized. It is a marvelous books. It contains the primarily ethical principles of Jainism.

It is quite clear – it is just not killing, it is making animals suffer.  There are some animal organizations that have labels ‘certified humane’ ,etc.

Can you reduce suffering, maybe, you can a little.

If you have two slave owners, one beats his/her slave 9 times, and another 10 times.

[Criticizing “humane milk”, etc.: ] Is it himsa – violence – to use another human being? Is it alright to own another human being. The answer is No. Is it alright to beat that person once. No.

There are some organizations that telling free-range eggs are better, etc.

All is torture. Some of it may be less torture. I don’t know which is worse. It is torture in both cases .

On a conventional dairy calf- the calf is taken away directly. Organic dairy farm –calf is taken away in 5 or 6 or 7 days.

The mother gets very upset.

When they are going to take the babies, the mothers will as a group try to protect the baby.

Jainism is clear you can’t intentionally use Ahimsa. It is absolutely clear we can’t do this. It is a matter of not just killing, but also suffering. Suffering is a part of dairy. We can’t consume animal products without Himsa – violence.

Plants are alive – they have the sense of touch. Obviously we should consume as few plants as possible. We other commit suicide or we die. There is a difference. Jains recognize there is a difference between 1-sense-organism compared to a 5-sense-organism. Although I think plants are alive. Even the Jain scholars recognize there is a huge difference between a plant and a 5-sense animal. One has a mind that doesn’t exist in the 5 sense-organism. Plants don’t have a nervous system. What goes on with a plant is qualitatively difference to what goes on with an animal.  We all recognize the difference. If I cut a lettuce, compared to cutting a chicken – you would recognize there is a difference between the two.

When I ask ‘Why not vegan’. Some say ‘it is tradition’.
Jainism celebrates rationality. We [as a society] have been doing lots of bad things for a long time: racism, sexism, etc.

There were people at that time that had 50 wives. He didn’t condemn them. He said things are wrong. He didn’t condemn them.

(..) There is not a situation of necessity for survival.

Some people say ‘There is a compromise. We can’t avoid all violence.’
If that argument works then it is okay to eat meat. That argument doesn’t work. If that works then the people how said ‘I would like to eat meat’ would be justified.

[Discussing  principle of Anekantavada]: All substances are constantly in the state of changing. We cannot understand everything. It doesn’t mean that truth is relative. Truth is complex. Truth is hard to understand. We should never use violence to get people to accept our truth.

There is a story of an elephant. Some people were touching the elephant and feeling different parts. There is an elephant. That is truth. There is a truth, truth is not relative.
Ahimsa is truth. If truth is relative, there can be no dharma. ..

It shouldn’t matter if it is inconvenient. There was no shuttle at the airport. I walked up to an Indian person. He asked: Are you here for the Jain-conference. They were travelling at the train. 30 years ago soymilk was horrible. No, there are many good soymilks, great non-dairy ice-cream.  You use soy-margarine. You don’t have to use gee.  He said: ‘I can tell the difference between soy-milk and gee-milk when I drink tea. I rather have the soymilk, because I know I don’t engage in Himsa.’.  I don’t want the milk-taste badly in enough to engage in Himsa. If everything here was made without milk, you wouldn’t notice. You really wouldn’t notice. In the end, what really matters is the world principle. Can we ever justify violence with the only reason of ‘pleasure’¨.

Everyone was upset with Michael Vick because he was engaged in dog-fighting. His students said: It is terrible what he did. The dogs were fighting. Why? Michael Vick enjoyed it. Students: That wasn’t good enough. ‘Pleasure’ isn’t good enough’ He said: Are you vegan. What is your excuse? You don’t need animal products to be healthy. Animal agriculture is more responsible for global warming than all fossil fuels for transportation.

‘Pleasure’ is no different from seeing Michael Vick engaging in dog-fighting.

… It was a profound talk. He said Ahimsa is Karuna. It is I am going to positively interact with you. It is live and help live. The positive notion of Ahimsa.  I was so impressed by him. As Jains we should be in the forefront of fighting rasism, sexism , in the forefront of the ecology-movement.
I would like to add to this, we ought to be in the forefront of the animal rights-movement. We should stop bringing domesticated animals into the world. I live with 5 vegan rescue dogs. I love dogs. If they were 2 dogs left and I owned them, we would not continue to domesticate animals.

Stop interfering with the animals in the wild. The animas should not be in our glasses, not in our food.
Never do intentionally harm. Don’t steal.
Jainism prohibits stealing.

The cow does not give us the milk and the butter. We take it. We steal it from her baby.

I am not making any moral judgment about you. That is violence. I spend my life talking to omnivores, people eating fish, meat and eggs. When I am with Jains, I feel I am with family. You are 95% there people [i.e. in using non-violence]. It is only the milk, the ice-cream, the gee that you have to stop with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvqTBCIz--w&list=UUe-9_Ye6RoLfXLnUXg10qLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx8kKHvnf4Q&list=UUe-9_Ye6RoLfXLnUXg10qLw

Djurförsök sker eftersom att många människor tar djurens rättigheter och liv ifrån dem vid varje måltid och andra val

Ja, jag önskar också att djurförsök upphörde och jobbar mot att allt sorts utnyttjande och förtryck av djur ska upphöra varje dag.

Djurförsök kommer dessvärre att fortgå så länge som djur behandlas som egendom i detta samhälle. Men vi kan ändra på detta genom mycket jobb genom att med alla våra handlingar sluta använda och utnyttja djur. Så länge som vi använder/utnyttjar djur tar vi deras viktiga rättigheter ifrån dem. I vårt samhälle tar många ifrån djur rättigheter – t.ex. deras grundläggande rätt att leva och inte bli dödade - och deras rätt att inte bli använda/utnyttjade dagligen genom deras val.

Det tragiska är att djuren får lida dubbelt:
1. För att de blir behandlade som om de vore utan moraliskt värde och blir utsatt för onödigt lidande och blir dödade (det ultimata förtrycket) endast för att någon gillar smaken av en dödad ko eller gris/bekvämlighet/tradition (eller mjölk, eller ägg, eller annan djurprodukt), eller ett visst klädesplagg gjort av djur, eller rengöringsprodukter med "grisfett", osv. Trots att de är lika värdefulla som djuren som blir plågade i djurförsök och har exakt samma rätt att leva.

2.Oetiska djurförsök för att bota de sjukdomar som uppkommer av att människor äter djurprodukter, eller missbrukar alkohol/cigaretter/droger, osv. Forskningen bakom denna film visar hur konsumption av djurprodukter orsakar sjukdomar (cancer, hjärt och kärl-sjukdomar, diabetes, etcetera), och hur en plantbaserad-kost botar sjukdomar:
http://www.adelicatebalance.com.au/ [den finns gratis på denna hemsida för att se online]

Åtminstone 3 miljoner hundar avlivas varje år i USA, tiotusentals hundar i Irland, och listan kan göra längre. Mer än 56 miljarder landlevande djur blir varje år onödigt dödade - för att någon ser de som ”egendom”/”saker” – som man kan döda och utnyttja när det passar en - istället för att se dem som individer. Det är ingen skillnad på djuren som blir plågade i djurförsök jämfört med t.ex. en ko i mjölkindustrin som blir borttagen från sin mor (”mjölkkor” som görs gravid mot sin vilja varje år för att Arla ska kunna sälja mjölk) vid en eller några dagars ålder och sedan oskyldigt dödad - utan att ha skadad någon annan individ - endast 18 månader gammal. Om man vill att detta dödande av oskyldiga individer ska stoppa, så kan man sluta vara en del av det (jag förstår att INGEN som läser detta vill att djur i onödan ska få lida eller dö) genom att sluta äta/bära och använda djur och djurprodukter. [Rekommenderar denna sida inklusive filmer: http://www.vegankit.com/ och http://www.onegreenplanet.org/animalsandnature/what-are-the-roots-of-freedom-and-slavery/ ]

Behandling av mjölkkor i Sverige

 Kor har rätt till sin mjölk, sina liv och sina barn - dessa rättigheter får inte kor i Sverige eller någon annan mjölkindustri
De vill bli mjölkade av sina kalvar. De vill ha ömheten till sina kalvar. Kor klarade det jättebra innan människan började utnyttja och domesticera henne för 8000-10000 år sen.

Människan gör kon gravid endast för att kunna stjäla hennes mjölk.
För att kon ska ge mjölk så måste hon göras gravid (utan hennes samtycke - vilket är etiskt fel) varje år. För att kalven inte ska ta kons mjölk, så separerar man henne och mamman efter en eller några dagar. Detta är självklart en fruktansvärt orätt mot en individ - att splittra en mamma-barn-relation är så oerhört felaktigt. Vi kan enkelt utvidga vår empati till korna och förstå hur de känner sig när de blir separerade från sin kära famlijmedlem. I mjölkindustrin dödas också "mjölkkor" vid cirka 5 års ålders och hankalvar vid 18 månaders ålder.
Kornas syfte är inte att bli någons mat. Korna har sitt eget syfte. Genom att äta mjölkprodukter tar vi det som tillhör dem, splittrar deras familj, tar deras syfte och liv.

Det är inte rätt att domesticera djur. Alla djur förtjänar och har en rätt att leva i frihet och inte under människans begränsningar. Därför ska vi sluta föda upp djur, ta hand om de djur som finns nu (som inte klarar sig själv, p.g.a. hur människan har avlat dem) och låta dem leva ett så bra liv som det går tills de dör en naturlig död. Rekommenderar denna föreläsning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvZpF1R6GUo

Som sagt ovan, Go vegan. Tips: www.vegankit.com

Rekommenderar också denna artikel: Behandla andra som vi själva vill bli behandlade