I am a big advocate of civil liberties, especially First Amendment rights, but there are some people that should think more before exercising their right to speak. I generally feel this way about PETA. It's not that I disagree with their ideals, I'm in favor of animal rights, I'm a pet owner, a nature lover, and I try to buy humanely raised meat. What I am saying is that it's getting impossible for them to seem legitimate anymore, and without legitimacy they are marginalized. To make my case, I will utilize two ludicrous, recent, examples of PETA's ad campaigns:
Sea Kittens: http://www.peta.org/sea_kittens/
Ben and Jerrys Breast Milk Ice Cream: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=11993
Read over those two sites, hosted on PETA's official webpage. Is it just me, or does PETA seem a little misguided these days? What do either of these things, (re-naming fish to "Sea Kittens" and trying to make ice cream out of human breast milk), have to do with PETA's mission statement of protecting animal rights? Both of these campaigns seem like a waste of funds to me, especially the Sea Kitten one though it is highly amusing, especially the "Create Your Own Sea Kitten." PETAs justification for this campaign is that "fish need to fire their PR guy", making the assumption that they could do a better job. PETA feels that no one "could possibly want to put a hook through a sea kitten". Right, because changing the name of something makes it any different, a rose is a rose, even if called by any other name.
Petitioning Ben and Jerry's to make breast milk ice cream is only slightly less insane than renaming fish, but only by a hair. I can understand PETA's view on it, if ice cream was made out of breast milk no cows would be "harmed" in the making of it. Also since people can give consent, arguably it would be vegan ice cream, based on the assumption that vegans do not use dairy products because animals cannot consent to be milked. At the same time, there are regulations in place on what chemicals can be put into cows, and indirectly into the milk. There are no regulations on what can be put into a person, and as such there is a higher likelihood of contamination in the milk. If for example, a crack addict wanted to sell their breast milk to get money, that would be a catastrophe. Presumably you would screen people, like when you get blood drawn, and only people that are "clean" could give milk. Even then, what if the person was eating or using a legal drug that would contaminate the milk, that couldn't be tested for? As a whole, the idea of eating breast milk ice cream is appalling, and a horrible idea.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They do these insane things to get attention and publicity and they are getting it from your blog.
ReplyDeleteThey don't want to protect pets. They want to kill them or set them free, which is the same thing.
The breastmilk thing could also raise some interesting issues over whether or not it was an 'animal product' Humans are in fact animals, but few people would find it ethical to govern distribution of a human product in the same manner that animal products are. Would these mothers have...Animal rights????
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point Jan, and I don't mind giving publicity to their faults though. Hopefully people giving PETA donations will read about these campaigns and demand a better use of their money.
ReplyDeleteNylin, I actually hadn't considered the repercussions of what they are suggesting. The idea that people could be considered both humans and animals legally might be very problematic. I imagine if this breast milk idea takes off there would be laws put into effect distinguishing people as people, even though technically they are animals. Which would then make the ice cream a "people product," instead of an "animal product."