Disturbing

I admire so much of what P.E.T.A. does.

I love to hear Ingrid Newkirk speak about the existential plight we share with animals.

But the totally unnecessary animal killing P.E.T.A. does boggles my mind and horrifies me.

Nathan J. Winograd explains.

Now, why on earth would you choose murder over sterilization for stray cats, which has demonstrated success? I'm very proud of my community for the truly successful program we have here that has drastically limited our wild cat population in an ethical manner. Other communities even look to ours when setting up their own programs along these lines. They have seen that it works and that it saves the community money. It's actually much more cost-effective than euthanasia.

This isn't the first time I read horror stories like this about P.E.T.A.. I remember reading about volunteers driving around and rounding up wild cats and killing them. I can't see any defense for this and I see it as a total repudiation of life itself.

I thought it had to be misinformation, part of a smear campaign against the organization.

And then I read the chilling words scrawled on a postcard by Ms. Newkirk, speaking ex cathedra as founder of P.E.T.A.. She emphatically states that the organization does not believe that animals hold any intrinsic right to life. And I recoiled. Maybe she feels the same way about humanity. One would definitely have to broach such a philosophical argument to even examine the proposition vis-a-vis animals. One would need to cross-check any human right to life in the same disquisition.

If you think wild cats can't handle wild living, then how the hell do you think they managed to survive down the ages? If you're helping terminal cats, animals which could not be saved by veterinary intervention, that's a different matter. But again and again we see P.E.T.A. killing healthy cats and even kittens.

It's just more proof that there is no safe harbor in this world. It's just more proof that the world is insane. Even those of whom you expect the highest, the greatest compassion, turn out to be totally mad. Everybody wants to rule the world. You can see this "euthanasia" is really just another manifestation of that. The will to power. It's not loving compassion. It's a power trip. 

Life belongs to life, not to us.

The existential state of wild animals is indeed, quite often, horrible. But do we have a right to end it for no reason? In this pointless killing, P.E.TA. cannot even avail itself of any utilitarian arguments or "game management" arguments as hunters eating the animals they kill may do.

How can P.E.T.A. call itself a shelter (legally)?

"According to PETA, animals want to die (because they 'might suffer' in the future) and killing them is, in Newkirk’s own words, a 'gift.'"

This is not how we honor existence, Ms. Newkirk. WE GIVE LIFE A CHANCE.

I had once called this woman a hero of mine. This side of her personality just makes me realize the world is, indeed, mad.

One can be a nihilist. That's a personal choice. But one should keep it to oneself. One's nihilism should not accrue a body count of thousands of living, sentient creatures. If you follow Newkirk's logic, there's absolutely no problem with killing humans born into poorer countries who will most likely "suffer."

The Death Cult of P.E.T.A.

So, I'm revoking hero status for Newkirk and conferring it instead on "no kill" Nathan J. Winograd.

If you hear someone saying lawyers are no-goodniks, please refer them to Nathan's bio notes.