PETA and the Religious Right

[Surlethe]

We all know to draw parallels between PETA and the religious right: mindless fanaticism, etc., etc. But I was considering abortion and embryonic stem cell research the other day, and it seems that similarities run a little deeper. Consider: the religious right opposes abortion and embryonic stem cell research because it believes personhood begins at conception and therefore all embryos and fetuses must be granted human rights. In fact, because these issues involve the destruction of embryonic life, the religious right considers them to be of the utmost importance -- more important than fixing social and economic inequalities and solving big society-wide problems.

PETA, meanwhile, opposes animal drug testing, meat-eating, and hunting because it believes animals are persons, and therefore must be granted (human) rights. In fact, because these issues involve the destruction of animal life, PETA considers them to be of the utmost importance -- more important than fixing social and economic inequalities and solving big society-wide problems.

In both cases, the group arbitrarily defines personhood to encompass a particular marginal group (animals/embryonic life, e.g. -- and thus ) and then notes that the destruction of members of the group occurs. Because of the arbitrary definition, they see murder occurring, so they feel that the issue of murder of this marginal group is the most important issue of all. But most people don't particularly care about the marginal group because they are not commonly agreed-upon as persons, so while they might have feelings about abortion or inhumane drug-testing, it's not the most important issue to them.

[CaptainZoidberg]

I've never been involved with either movement, but I'd imagine that PETA would place more emphasis and value on say, a Great Ape, then a snail. And also I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

[Kanastrous]

I don't think that fetuses and animals are "marginal" groups; they're completely other groups.

Assuming that the "in" group, means human beings.

[General Zod]

I've never been involved with either movement, but I'd imagine that PETA would place more emphasis and value on say, a Great Ape, then a snail. And also I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

Don't be so sure about that.

[Zixinus]

Is there a connection or affiliation between the two groups?

[NecronLord]

I've never been involved with either movement, but I'd imagine that PETA would place more emphasis and value on say, a Great Ape, then a snail. And also I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

Don't be so sure about that.

I'm pretty sure a very very large number of claims about fish 'not being able to feel pain' that are factually incorrect. Characterising an entire class of creatures as having equal intelligence is obviously bullshit, but there is an enduring myth that all fish do not feel pain. This is of course, bullshit.

Much like the 'one second goldfish memory' myth.

[Kanastrous]

I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

Then you miss the entire thrust of the present "Pro-Life" movement, which is not only that a 7-month-old fetus is interchangeable with a 4th week embryo, but that a blastocyst is interchangeable with an adult human being (although admittedly they seem to display far more concern over the fate of blastocysts, than actual humans).

[CaptainZoidberg]

I've never been involved with either movement, but I'd imagine that PETA would place more emphasis and value on say, a Great Ape, then a snail. And also I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

Don't be so sure about that.

I honestly don't know quite what to make of that. It's pretty absurd that they perceive fish as intelligent mammals, like that bizarre monstrosity they have up there.

IMO the cutoff for abortion and animal rights should be when the organism reaches a state of conscious awareness. Unfortunately that might mean not eating any more cows, which is a shame because they're so tasty, but, oh well... [/img]

[Rye]

Fundamentalist christians and animal rights guys do share common modes of operation and motivation. This has very little to do with personhood, however, and everything to do with emotional sympathy. The unborn babies and animals can't speak, they can't fight back, they're simply defenceless to the machinations of the evil Mengele types they envisage being in control of abortions and animal testing and the rest of it.

There is certainly some basis to their initial emotional arguments; animals are mistreated in various places, some of the late term abortions are actually killing things that really look like babies (third trimester abortions actually do kill babies). That emotional hook is then capitalised on for the rest of the more cultish induction process; the suffering is exaggerated, myths evolve of even worse suffering until people are motivated to act. That's more where the similarities lie.

[Metatwaddle]

Here's a weird wrinkle: PETA actually doesn't operate no-kill shelters because it claims that there is a problem with overpopulation of animals. There's nothing in the "pro-life" movement to correspond to that, is there? Maybe their opposition to Gardasil vaccines?

[CaptainZoidberg]

Here's a weird wrinkle: PETA actually doesn't operate no-kill shelters because it claims that there is a problem with overpopulation of animals. There's nothing in the "pro-life" movement to correspond to that, is there? Maybe their opposition to Gardasil vaccines?

How do those two logically correspond? I guess if a Pro-Life group said "Abortion is okay in a third world country where overpopulation is a life-threatening problem", then that would be a parallel.

[Plekhanov]

I've never been involved with either movement, but I'd imagine that PETA would place more emphasis and value on say, a Great Ape, then a snail.

I've debated people in similar groups and you're wrong, for obvious reasons they tend to use cute animals in their propaganda (which rules out snails for most people) but according to the value system of PETA and similar all animals are of equal value, including humans who have responsibilities no other animals have but no more rights.

And also I'd imagine that a Pro-Life group would place more emphasis on a 7th month fetus then a 4th week embryo.

They place more emphasis on late term abortions in their propaganda because they're more emotive cases and the pictures are more disturbing however they believe 'life begins at conception' and place exactly as much value on a newly implanted freshly fertilised egg as a 7th month foetus.

[Surlethe]

I don't think that fetuses and animals are "marginal" groups; they're completely other groups.

Assuming that the "in" group, means human beings.

By "marginal", I mean that they're groups of organisms who are not universally regarded as persons. In some sense, they're on the edge of personhood.