Saving The Animals? Essay, Research Paper

Saving the Animals?

In Buffalo New York on October 23rd of last year, Dr. Barnett Slepian was murdered. He wasn?t killed because of his financial status or because of a dispute he had with a patient. Someone who never really knew Dr. Slepian, someone who never met his family, a person who didn?t agree with Dr. Slepian?s job, took his life. This is a great example to show how a disagreement in ideology can lead to actions that no one has the authority to take.

An animal liberator bombing a meat processing plant is like the pro-life activist killing the doctor who performs abortions. Both of the actions don?t achieve the results that are intended, they both claim that they help save the lives of the innocent, and they are both hypocritical. The results that are wanted can not be achieved through causing pain and suffering to the opposing party.

When a sniper took the life of Dr. Slepian he was trying to move the cause of pro-life forward. The end result was not what he had wanted; the medical community was outraged and the people who believed in the right to choose strengthened their resolve. This quote by Dr. Henry Morgentaler, the country?s best-known pro-abortion crusader, illustrates this point very accurately.

“This is a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the so-called pro-life movement. It bespeaks their frustration and rage at the fact that they have not been able to convince the public of the rightness of their cause,” (Cnn 2)

The frustration that Dr. Morgentaler mentions is even further enhanced when the pro-lifers see that their cause is regressing from public empathy.

The example of the murder of Dr. Slepian is a good analogy to what the bombing of the meat processing plant would cause. The people in the factory would be massacred and the people who don?t support the cause of animal liberation would be outraged. The intended result of lower consumption of animal meat would not be achieved because the public would not see the righteousness of the cause; and where there is demand for meat there will be suppliers to meet the demand, this is a basic law of economics. Even if the bomber would bomb every single meat-processing plant in the country, intrepid businessmen would find ways to meet the demand in the country.

Murder has always been an unacceptable action in modern society. Taking the life of another human being is unjustifiable; no one has the authority to commit such a crime. We have all heard the old saying: ?that two wrongs don?t make a right.? This is a perfect example of this statement. In both cases the activist takes matters into their own hands. They believe that by taking the lives of ?wrong doers? they will help the innocent. In the abortion doctor?s case the assassin believes he will help the innocent fetus. The bomber believes that by killing people and eliminating a meat-processing plant, animals will be saved. The major problem with this way of thinking is that the human life that was taken also has a huge value. The lives that will be saved will have a minuscule value compared with what is lost. What is ironic in this situation is that the same results could probably have been achieved through peaceful means and not with such brutal force.

The definition of a hypocrite is a person who pretends to be what he is not. Both the sniper in the Slepian case and the person who bombed the meat-processing plant are hypocrites. The people in both cases believe that they can help promote their case by using force. What they do not realize is that they are no better than the people who they are trying to eliminate. The cause that they are trying to champion is hollow, since the authority that they claim to posses is not really there.

The statement ?the end justifies the means? is not true in this example. Even though a few animals might be saved through the action of the bomber, human life is still more valuable. The same results could be achieved through peaceful ways such as the protests made by Ghandi and Martin Luther King. The other assumption that eliminating a person from the pool will help lower animal deaths is wrong. The problem has to be eliminated at the roots, if at all. There will always be new people to replace the ones that are gone, if people still want the product that is offered.

In conclusion, the intended result is not possible through the destruction of property. The demand will not decrease so there will always be people to supply the product. The action is not morally acceptable since it constitutes the criminal act of murder, which is not accepted in our modern society. The other major reason that such action can not be tolerated is that the bomber is a hypocrite. The bomber claims he has the authority to protect animals from further abuse by humans, but in reality he does not hold this authority. It makes the nobility of his cause degrade to the level that he is working so hard to prevent.

An animal liberator bombing a meat processing plant is like the pro-life activist killing the doctor who performs abortions. Both of the actions don?t achieve the results that are intended, they both claim that they help save the lives of the innocent, and they are both hypocritical. The results that are wanted can not be achieved through causing pain and suffering to the opposing party.

CNN-Newspaper, ?Newspaper: Witness in Doctor?s Slaying Left ?Disturbing? Packages?; November 6,1998; http://cnn.com/US/9811/06/ABORTION.WITNESS/index.html

CNN-Newspaper, ?Abortion Sniper?s Actions harden resolve in Canada?; November 23,

1998; http://cnn.com/WORLD/americas/ 9811/23/BC-CANADA-ABORTION.reut /index.html