One Option Some People Use
For Sheltering Homeless Animals
PETA’S website displays horrific pictures of animals who are suffering. In using such extreme instances of abuse to explain their death missions, PETA undermines its credibility. In PETA’s organizational ethic, an animal doesn’t have to be suffering to be targeted for extermination; the animal merely has to be homeless. PETA does not limit its killing to the injured; hale animals in shelters, parks or on the street are considered candidates for the death chamber.
I once donated money to PETA, before I learned about their policy of killing the homeless. With PETA, there is no existential space between being a pet and being euthanized. Once an animal no longer has the protection of a human, PETA offers only one option: death.
On the organization’s website is this statement:
Having written these words as part of their agency rationale, how can PETA proceed to take from an animal something they would not take from a human?
The world is full of people who do not live perfect lives, who are malnourished, who lack medical care, friends and family. Few of these unfortunates choose to die rather than to live. Why does PETA think animals crave life less than humans do? Once death has been imposed, opportunity is gone–for improvement, for enjoyment.
There is a community of individuals devoted to the care of homeless animals. These people are responsible; animals in their care receive vaccinations, food, shelter. Sterilization of homeless animals is performed. Through the network of caretakers information flows, resources are shared. This network comprises a culture of life, not death.
Euthanasia surely has its place–I happen to believe that Oregon is very enlightened in offering this option to humans as well as to animals. But life is precious and few forfeit it willingly. Routine, arbitrary death is a foul policy.
Anyone who donates to PETA should know where their money is going. This organization will never get another dime from me.