You are a great American. Don't let the liberal progressive influence you. Its OK to kill a poison snake in your yard. It's OK to eat a cow, eat a rabbit, eat a squirrel. Human life is far above animal life. We think nothing of killing microbes that cause disease. Its nothing also to kill animals that we need for food or for safety. Again, humans are more important that a few dogs, cats or snakes or spotted owls.
2007-06-01 02:48:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Just as there are good and bad people in every other group, there are both good and bad animal rights activists. So yes, some do value non-human life over human life. But this is not the belief held by the animal rights movement as a whole. The animal rights movement can be compared to the civil rights movement in that equal treatment is what is desired. Whenever I say this, I usually hear comments such as, "But an animal can't drive a car," or something of the sort. This is not an argument against animal rights. No, a non-human CANNOT drive a car. Nor does a non-human benefit from driving a car or need to drive a car. A non-human doesn't know what a car is and, therefore, doesn't even desire to drive a car. The assignment of rights is not "across the board". They are dependent upon many factors. No one in his/her right mind would suggest that a five year old should have the right to drive a car either, however a five year old does have the right to live free from harm. You have the right to drink a beer, for example, but you certainly wouldn't give one to your child. (I'm assuming since you seem like a responsible parent.) In other words, the animal rights movement is the fight for equal rights regardless of species with the same exceptions as with any other equal rights movement- that no rights are to be assigned which are of no concern to the particular person/being, that no rights are to be assigned that would interfere with the rights of others, that no rights are to be assigned that would cause a danger to others, and so on...
Any animal rights activist who values non-human life over human life is not abiding by the belief system of the animal rights movement. The people who are sending you hateful emails should be ashamed of themselves. I am an animal rights activist, but I believe that you were completely justified in shooting the copperhead. I'm sure that I will receive some negative emails for saying so, but I don't believe that I am any less of an animal rights activist for being of this opinion. Your first responsibility is to your child, and what you did was in defense of your child. I would expect that you would do the same if another human posed a threat to your child and there was no other way of dealing with the situation, but doing as such wouldn't make you any less of a supporter of human rights. This was, of course, also a case of self-defense. Most people will defend themselves in one way or another when they are faced with a threat, whether the threat is a human or a non-human.
Someone once asked me, "If you were in the middle of the ocean on a boat with your dog and your husband, and both your dog and your husband fell overboard, who would you rescue if you could only rescue one?" Obviously I would choose my husband since my husband is my priority. But if, for example, I was on a boat with my dog and someone who I did not know, I would rescue my dog since, in this situation, my dog is my priority. Priority and equality are two seperate issues.
You were justified and did the right thing. Anyone who truly holds to what the animal rights movement stands for would tell you the same, in my opinion, because the animal rights movement is NOT working towards some twisted goal of non-human domination. I regret that you have had to endure this mistreatment. There is no excuse for it!
2007-06-01 15:01:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by SINDY 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
"Activist" does not equate with "Illogical Mind".
I'm an animal activist and if I had been in that same situation, I would have shot the copperhead too.
I value all life, but if I or someone I am with is in danger from an animal -- OR another human being, I would do whatever it takes to save our lives/get us out of danger.
Most animal activists would agree with me.
PS-- glad to see a woman who knows how to use a gun. I am not making fun of you by saying that.
2007-06-01 16:40:08
·
answer #3
·
answered by aattura 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Too right, they will.
The life of your unborn child is your priority - after all, there's only one (I assume) - there's thousands of copperheads the world over (again, I assume). If it were me, I would have done the same.
Sadistic murderer pride!
2007-06-01 09:45:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You are completely right.
And no, we don't value animal live over human live.
My position is that if I am in the jungle and a huge cocodrile is about to kill me, If I can, I would kill it first, definitely!
But I will never kill a cocodrile to make, handbags, shoes or boots. At least that's my point.
If a beautiful tiger is about to kill me and I have the chance to kill him first, of course I would but in self defense, not to make me a coat. I consider myself an animal activist and this is my point of view
That's why I completely hate Jennifer Lopez, her hands are covered in animal blood.
2007-06-01 10:52:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by united we stand 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes
2007-06-01 10:30:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is so easy for people to judge when they were not in your shoes! That was a do or die situation and I know that too is my reason to kill: WHEN IT ENDANGERS MY LIFE, MY CHILDREN, AND THOSE I LOVE. In my book, your actions was validated.
2007-06-01 10:03:38
·
answer #7
·
answered by sam 7
·
3⤊
0⤋