Friday, June 04, 2004

PETA vs. Petco

Well, PETA is at it again. PETA, by the way, does not stand for People who Eat Tasty Animals but, rather, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Now that's a rather interesting title isn't it? People... for the ethical treatment of... animals. The distinction between humans and animals is implicit in their name; just what is that distinction based on? In PETA to Petco: Stop selling animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals brings shareholder proposal to chain's annual meeting, PETA protesters showed up at the annual shareholder's meeting to demand that Petco stop selling animals in its stores.
About eight PETA protestors outside the San Diego-based company's annual meeting carried signs that read: "Petco starves baby animals," "Petco throws sick animals in freezers" and "Petco: Where animals die."
Cross reference with Al Mohler's post titled, Judicial Activism at its Worst--A Big Win for Abortionists. Here's an excerpt,
Congress also came under Judge Hamilton's censure. She ruled that Congress' determination that the partial-birth abortion procedure is not medically necessary "is not reasonable and is not based on substantial evidence." Judge Hamilton placed herself above the authority of Congress, rejected congressional testimony, and accepted instead the claims of pro-abortion groups that this procedure would at times be necessary for a woman's health. This flies in the face of official statements of the American Medical Association to the contrary. Why would Judge Hamilton find that a partial-birth abortion would, at times, be important for a woman's health? The judge ruled that "since the fetus undergoes less disarticulation, the risk of leaving fetal parts in the uterus is diminished, and the procedure is likely to take less time." Less time? Should we really be convinced that the procedure is made necessary by the fact that other methods pose a greater risk of "leaving fetal parts in the uterus?" Another revealing dimension of Judge Hamilton's ruling is found in her acceptance of the twisted terminology of the Culture of Death. Throughout her written ruling, Judge Hamilton referred to the dismemberment of the fetus as "disarticulation." This bizarre term is clearly preferred by those who perform abortions, because it is far less likely to be understood by those outside the abortion industry. To speak of a fetus being "disarticulated" is to refer to the procedure whereby it is surgically dismembered in the womb. The use of this tortured vocabulary is evidence of the moral bankruptcy of abortion rights worldview. When the dismemberment of a human baby is reduced to a dishonest term like "disarticulation," moral coherence is lost and the sanctity of human life is effectively denied. This is precisely the kind of euphemistic moral vocabulary used by the Nazi Third Reich and its murderous physicians, but it is now the vocabulary establishing both fact and judgment in a U.S. Federal Court decision.
What can be said of a society in which headlines of a pet store protest line up next to those of a judge overturning a ban on partial-birth abortion?

No comments: