Reply #114: I don't think she is.

[yewberry]

No one I know (including those on this board) has any kind of agenda promoting the abolishment of companion animals, no matter what anyone says.

The language that "AR people" use is used for a reason. Animals are our companions; we are their guardians or caretakers. Animals are not property.

I don't "own" a dog. I live with one. Without drawing a specific comparison between animal "ownership" and slave "ownership" of any kind, I am still aware that the language and hierarchical framework of "ownership" and "property" is the same. Some kind of transaction (i.e. I paid the shelter for his neutering and shots) took place and I have a dog here. Is it the same as buying a pair of shoes, which I then own? The end result that I come to is that, no, I don't "own" a dog the same way I do a pair of shoes, or the same way that people mean when they say that people "own" slaves. People are not things that can be owned. Animals are not things that can be owned. There should be no conflation between the two arguments--people and animals are not the same, but the utter disempowerment and dismissal of selfhood in the theoretical framework of "ownership" is at play in both discussions.

PeTA isn't against having animals companions. They encourage people to adopt from shelters and provide good homes for animals. They are against animal industries that continue to encourage animal breeding while this country euthanizes millions of animals annually. Every animal that is born in any kind of breeding operation in this country means another animal dead in a shelter (or worse), because there is one less home available.

In short, nobody I know wants to "outlaw pets." PeTA doesn't. I can't speak to John Bryant's opinions; he's a bioethicist and not a PeTA member or employee as far as I can tell (please correct me if I'm wrong).

So, finally (you must be relieved) I'll say that most of the "AR people" I know don't agree with everything PeTA does. Frankly, sometimes they do stupid shit, but that publicity does pay for some really good stuff. At the same time, I kind of look at them the same way I do the ACLU: occasionally unbelievable (Limbaugh? NAMBLA?) but necessary.