ARCO's Abolitionists - A Vegan Forum

Essay #1, for the lay audience (Leaf employees)

According to the Center for Food Safety, 14,000 chickens are slaughtered every minute in the US. Most egg-laying hens are kept in spaces roughly the size of a folded-over sheet of notebook paper, says U of MD Animal Science professor Ray Stricklin. All of their male siblings are chipped, crushed, or simply discarded. The hens are debeaked and starved for weeks at a time. At the slaughterhouse, they are shackled upside down while their heads are dragged through an electrified bath to immobilize them, then their necks are slit and their bodies scalded. Audits regularly find evidence of premature scalding as well as broken limbs from rough handling, as documented by Temple Grandin.

The “traditional animal rights” movement concentrates on alleviating the suffering of non-human animals by promoting veganism, a lifestyle that shuns all animal-derived products, i.e., meat, dairy, eggs, leather, fur, and in some cases, wool, silk, honey. Their primary goal is to phase out animal agriculture, but in the meantime they advocate legislative reforms (banning gestation crates), industry initiatives (McDonalds using slaughterhouse audits), and consumer campaigns (switching to cage-free eggs).

“Traditional animal rights” also criticizes the environmental impact of animal agriculture. Free-range cattle cause overgrazing, soil compaction, and displacement of resident wildlife. Factory farms generate tons of sewage that typically enters the water cycle untreated. In 1996 the MD Dept of Agriculture stated that Eastern Shore chicken farms generated 720 million pounds manure, much of which runs off into the Bay, contributing greatly to eutrophication. As of 1997 Maryland does not require environmental permits for poultry operations.

In 2006 the UN Food & Agriculture Organization reported “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.” Vegans often wonder why environmentalists like Al Gore have never suggested reducing meat consumption as an effective way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.

A related issue is one of global hunger. Most of the grain we grow is fed to livestock, yielding much lower levels of nutrition than the original grain because of the feed conversion. Such grain would be far better used directly to feed the hungry, rather than to provide unnecessary food to the wealthy.

Well-known animal advocacy organizations include PETA, HSUS, IDA, IFAW, and WSPA, which campaign against factory farming, fur, animal testing, bull/cock/dog fighting, puppy mills, whaling, bear bile farming, etc.

An emerging movement opposes the usage of the term “animal rights” by these very organizations. This is the abolitionist movement, which rejects welfare reform of any sort, in favor of the complete abolition of animal usage. The abolitionist movement is built on grassroots activism in the form of personal vegan outreach. There are no representative organizations.

The basic abolitionist tenet is that animals are sentient beings with inherent value and the rights that accompany such a status, i.e., the right to life and liberty. This is in contrast to the prevailing notion of animals as a form of property, with instrumental value only, and no accompanying legal rights. Most people accord them only a vague “right” not to suffer “needlessly.”

Abolitionism seeks to introduce the language of rights to the lexicon. This approach contradicts the AW principle of “appealing to the public, not alienating it.” Abolitionists speak of rights violations and exploitation, rather than undue suffering. There is a deep parallel with other rights movements such as the human rights, civil rights, and women’s rights movements. All of these movements took half-way measures to be unacceptable, and demanded rights in the language of rights. They did not speak of kinder treatment of slaves, or better conditions in prison for political prisoners.

Regardless of the welfare/rights divide, animal rights as a whole is a fundamentally non-violent movement. It is based on the idea that modern, civilized human beings need not act violently towards other animals in order to live well.



http://upc-online.org/2000food_animal_slaughter.html

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/page273.cfm

13. Herbert Brodie, University of Maryland and Louise Lawrence, Maryland Department of Agriculture, "Nutrient Sources on Agricultural Lands in Maryland," Final Report of Project NPS#6 for the Chesapeake Research Consortium (September 3, 1996), p. 18 and Table IX; Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Agriculture Statistics, Summary for 1996, p. 27.
via http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/fac ... sp#notes13

Correspondence from Robert Daniel, Project Manager, Environmental Permits Service Center, Maryland Department of the Environment (May 8, 1997); General NPDES Permit No. MDR000010.

2005 Poultry Welfare Audits: National Chicken Council Animal Welfare Audit for Poultry has a Scoring System that is too Lax and Allows Slaughter Plants with Abusive Practices to Pass, by Temple Grandin, PhD., Dept of Animal Science, Colorado State Univeristy

Essay #2, for the technical audience (ethicists)

Animal rights is a movement that demands respect for non-human animals, and as such, advocates a vegan lifestyle. “Traditional animal rights” was championed by utilitarians such as Jeremy Bentham and Peter Singer. These theorists sought to minimize the amount of suffering endured by animals, arguing that their interests in not suffering should be included in the calculus of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

This inclusion was based on the fact that non-human animals are sentient beings, capable of suffering. Bentham asked, “The question is not ‘can they talk?’ nor ‘can they think?’ but ‘can they suffer?’” These utilitarians granted animals standing in the community, although not equal standing. They certainly did not recognize any rights, for these philosophers did not accord rights even to human beings except as popular shorthand.

In The Case for Animal Rights (1985), Tom Regan introduced the idea that non-human animals have rights. He described them as “subjects-of-a-life,’ with interests in having their lives “go well for them.” As “moral patients” (similar to infant or mentally-disabled humans) if not moral agents, they deserved to have their rights considered.

This would mean that less-cruel measures are still unacceptable, since they ignore the fundamental rights of these animals. Not only should they not be in small cages, but they shouldn’t be in cages at all: “Empty cages, not bigger cages.”

In Animals, Property, and the Law (1995), Gary Francione pointed out that legally, animals are considered property, and as such they have no rights. “Animal exploiters” on the other hand, have rights including property rights.

In considering potential welfare reforms, exploiters will encounter the following:
• good for business, good for animal welfare
• good for business, bad for animal welfare
• bad for business, good for animal welfare
• bad for business, bad for animal welfare.

The first is accepted, the last is rejected, and the remaining two will always, he claims, be decided according to the exploiters’ right to decide to maximize profits, since their rights always trump claims for animal welfare.

Even the first option is problematic, since such measures simply make the exploitation more profitable and thus increase the scope of the industry. A good example is the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which requires that cows be rendered insensible before they are their throats are slit. This is good for the cows, but also much better for the industry, because it decreases injury to slaughterhouse workers from large animals flailing around in panic while workers approach them with sharp knives. As such, greater numbers of cows can be processed in a facility in a given amount of time.

Interestingly, no such requirements exist for chickens, who can safely be shackled upside down and killed without physical danger to the workers. They are in fact stunned as well by an electrified bath, but this only immobilizes them so that the throat slitting and the feather plucking run smoothly. Recent research by Dr. Mohan Raj indicates the procedure may actually be extremely painful for the chickens. As such, it is an example of the second case.

Other examples of the second case abound, from chaining calves in veal crates, tethering sows in gestation crates and farrowing crates, keeping laying hens in stacks of battery cages; to mutilation of body parts without anesthesia such as face branding, debeaking, dehorning, tail/toe/ear ear cropping, and castration.

Francione launched a scathing criticism of welfare reform in Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996). “Welfarism” claims that animal activists can demand the third case, mandating better welfare even if it cuts into profits. The underlying hope is that this will discourage people from engaging in animal agriculture at all. However the dairy & meat industries are extraordinarily powerful, and easily won permanent exemption from the Animal Welfare Act of 1966.

The schism between traditional animal rights and abolitionist animal rights is seen in the current controversy over whether the “compassionate consumption” movement has helped or hurt animal welfare. Peta & HSUS support this movement as improvements in the short term while working for the end of animal use in the long term. This is the mantra of “new welfarism,” which purports to work towards abolition in the long run while supporting welfare reforms for the time being.

Abolitionist animal rights claims this is unacceptable, since it condones rights violations while purporting to condemn them. Furthermore, it claims that, practically speaking, welfare reforms work against abolition by making animal use more acceptable to the general populace. There are apparently even longtime vegetarians going back to eating meat, in spite of growing evidence that “humane” farming claims are often meaningless.

Abolitionists maintain that vegan advocacy is the only acceptable strategy towards the end of animal exploitation, and that this advocacy must be based on a rights argument. Arguments by utility such as improving the environment (eliminating factory farming) or human health (switching from vivisection to more accurate clinical models) may lead to the same conclusion, but are not necessary.

There is a concern within abolitionist animal rights to retain integrity of purpose. Therefore they do not pursue “single-issue campaigns” against horse slaughter or seal clubbing, for instance. Such campaigns are said to encourage tunnel-vision in people, allowing them to stop short of seeing the whole picture. Someone may fight passionately to oppose horse slaughter, but never bother to stop consuming dairy cows and their calves.

Welfarists and abolitionists argue stridently about whether abolitionism “betrays the animals” in rejecting developments that might alleviate suffering, just because they are not won on the basis of rights. Welfarism seeks to alleviate suffering by the most likely means, by cajoling and titillating and manipulating and legislating, whatever might work. Abolitionism claims that for consistency and staying power, the integrity of the arguments is paramount.

As stated in the mission statement from the “Animal Rights Community Online’s Abolitionists” forum:

“We believe all sentient animals have the right to be treated as individuals, rather than as objects. To breed and use non-human animals for any reason is to violate their rights of self-ownership.

The “unnecessary suffering” of domesticated animals can only end when we identify the source of the fundamental wrong. That fundamental wrong is the idea of “ownership” of other animals. To end that suffering, we must change the paradigm.”




http://www.upc-online.org/slaughter/10505drraj.htm
Senior Research Fellow in the Farm Animal Division of the School of Clinical Veterinary Science at the University of Bristol, Langford, UK (England)

The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan (1985)

Francione, Animals, Property, and the Law (1995)
Rain Without Thunder: The Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement (1996)

Abstract
I begin with the assertion that ovo-lacto-vegetarianism is incompatible with animal rights. In explaining this assertion, I need to define animal rights to the public. Most people have an idea that animal rights activists organize protests and petitions, and that animal rights organizations conduct campaigns centered on animal abuse, seal-clubbing, or vivisection. These are actually animal welfare concerns, although they usually are called animal rights concerns.

Animal rights declares that non-human animals are sentient beings who must be accorded the right to self-determination. Tom Regan was the first theorist to speak of rights for animals. He pointed out that they are subjects-of-a-life with interests in having their lives go well for them. Legal scholar Gary Francione later pointed out that non-human animals are legally considered to be property. It is this status that animal rights advocates find problematic.

The examples I use are the treatment of dairy cows and laying hens. These animals are considered as mere units of property, to be valued for what their bodies produce. As such, the animal rights advocate declares that they are being exploited. In fact, as with most forms of exploitation, they suffer from ill usage. I hope to establish this using quotes from the dairy and egg industries, for greater credibility.

An animal rights advocate, then, has no choice but to be vegan. To do otherwise is to support industries that she believes are exploitative. This is why animal rights advocates must reject ovo-lacto-vegetarianism, and encourage others to do the same.


Possible Reader Response
How dare you call me to task for cutting out meat but not dairy? Vegans are so self-righteous, can’t they respect others decisions? I do what I can, plus I am very active in animal rights campaigns like those against fur. Who are you to tell me that I don’t qualify as an animal rights advocate?! What a b*tch!


The Case for Animal Rights
Francione interviews
Farm Animal Production textbook
Dairy farmers: South Mountain Creamery, Thomas, Chesapeake Gold
Dairy Welfare Audit Board

panthera wrote:Furthermore, it claims that, practically speaking, welfare reforms work against abolition by making animal use more acceptable to the general populace. There are apparently even longtime vegetarians going back to eating meat, in spite of growing evidence that “humane” farming claims are often meaningless.

panthera wrote:Abolitionists maintain that vegan advocacy is the only acceptable strategy towards the end of animal exploitation, and that this advocacy must be based on a rights argument. Arguments by utility such as improving the environment (eliminating factory farming) or human health (switching from vivisection to more accurate clinical models) may lead to the same conclusion, but are not necessary.

panthera wrote:There is a concern within abolitionist animal rights to retain integrity of purpose. Therefore they do not pursue “single-issue campaigns” against horse slaughter or seal clubbing, for instance. Such campaigns are said to encourage tunnel-vision in people, allowing them to stop short of seeing the whole picture. Someone may fight passionately to oppose horse slaughter, but never bother to stop consuming dairy cows and their calves.

panthera wrote:Welfarists and abolitionists argue stridently about whether abolitionism “betrays the animals” in rejecting developments that might alleviate suffering, just because they are not won on the basis of rights. Welfarism seeks to alleviate suffering by the most likely means, by cajoling and titillating and manipulating and legislating, whatever might work. Abolitionism claims that for consistency and staying power, the integrity of the arguments is paramount.

What did one ovo-lacto-vegetarian (consumes eggs and milk but no flesh) animal rights activist (OLV ARA) say to the other? Give up? Nothing, because they don’t exist!
That’s right, there are no ovo-lacto-vegetarian animal rights activists in existence today. Who is to blame for this? Did your “carbon footprint” stamp out their habitat?
No. There never were any in the first place, there aren’t any now, and there never will be any. The two personas – the ovo-lacto-vegetarian (OLV) and the animal rights activist (ARA) -- are so in contradiction to each other that they cannot co-exist in the same person.
The odd thing is that not many people are aware of this dichotomy. Most people imagine that “animal rights activists” are people who protest against factory farming and seal hunting, and that many of these people are OLVs. In fact, there are huge organizations full of self-professed OLV “ARAs,” such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).