Many current animal rights activists have been involved in such human-oriented causes as civil rights and women's rights. For years I have been a member of the human rights organization Amnesty International. So it is disgraceful that the media often portray us as being silly, sentimental, anti-intellectual and anti-people. That's a lie!
Furthermore, the meat industry is a major cause of heart disease, water pollution, the destruction of the tropical rainforests and world hunger. It is hard to understand how a movement which addresses these issues could be seen as being irrelevant to human needs.
Perhaps it's the people who continue to eat meat whose commitment to ending human suffering should be questioned. How idealistic is it to say: "I want to promote good nutrition, save the environment and end hunger just so long I don't have to give up my hamburger!"
Still it's fair to ask why do animal rights activists have a particular interest in animals.
What attracts me to the cause is the fact that while billions of animals are murdered and tortured every year for food, clothes, research and other reasons, the animals themselves cannot utter a word of protest.
When the cow is dragged off to the slaughterhouse, or the rabbit has burning chemicals poured into his eyes, or a circus elephant is whipped by his cruel trainer, who but the animal rights activists will hear the cries and screams of these innocent and defenseless animals? Certainly there will be no pity from those people who ridicule us and think that if even one human in the world is suffering, then animal suffering is irrelevant.
Actually, it's been my observation that such people usually aren't doing much to help humans either and they're just making excuses for doing nothing. Would getting involved in animal rights really interfere with their vital work of saving the human race? Or would it simply cut into their recreational time?
I get suspicious when people claim they don't care about animals because they're so busy trying to end human suffering.
But is animal suffering less important than human suffering? A poll taken last November by the ICR Research Group showed that two-thirds of Americans agreed that: "An animal's right to be free of suffering to be just as great as a person's right to be free of suffering." But because of human arrogance it is taken for granted by many people that only human suffering matters. But why?
Why is it illegal to do medical research on a living, brain-dead human, but legal to give AIDS to a healthy, normal, adult chimp who has 99 percent of the same genetic make-up as a human?
Why do the most heinous criminals in jail have rights, but not an innocent ape who is locked up in a zoo? Or why do the same people who call abortion murder not care about pigs, cows and other animals who are far more sentient, aware and capable of feeling pain than a 3-month-old fetus (not to mention a fertilized egg!)?
Humans think they're entitled to special consideration simply because they're human. Intelligence and morality have nothing to do with it. After all, an ape may be more intelligent than a severely retarded human. Yet the ape doesn't enjoy the same legal protection as that retarded human. And the most immoral of humans have more rights than the most innocent animals.
So the next time I'm asked why worry about animals when humans are suffering, I'm going to ask why worry about humans when animals are suffering? What's the difference? All cruelty is wrong. All cruelty should be stopped!