.....let’s not forget that over 3000 innocent human beings will be sent to the gallows today with no trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution. And this holocaust will be repeated tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so forth. Meanwhile, not one animal rights organization takes a position against it...Now that’s hypocrisy......

"Animal Rights and Human Wrongs", MARK'S BLOG, MARK CRUTCHER, June 4, 2007

I recently heard an animal rights activist who called herself pro-choice on abortion say that we pro-lifers are hypocritical because we don’t show the same level of concern for dogs and cats that we do for the unborn child. Of course, like almost every other pro-choice argument, this one is firmly rooted in mindless stupidity.

When someone suggests that the lives of human beings and the lives of animals are morally equivalent, what they are saying is that if they ran over someone’s five-year-old child with their car it would be no bigger deal than if they had run over a squirrel. By this standard, if a family doctor told a husband and wife that their child has an incurable and fatal disease, that would be no greater tragedy than if their vet told them their pet hamster was dying.

Clearly, this whole line of “reasoning” is nonsense.

The reality is, having known thousands of pro-lifers, I can state with no fear of being inaccurate that the overwhelming majority do indeed care about animals. In my own case, our family includes a cat, two dogs, two rabbits, and five fish. We demonstrate our affection for them in many ways, not the least of which is in vet bills that often appear higher than the debt of some third-world counties.

I also feel confident that most pro-lifers probably share my opinion that people who abuse or neglect animals are cowards who deserve to spend a significant amount of their lives sitting in small, cold, dimly-lit prison cells.

However, anyone who suggests that the lives of animals are morally equivalent to those of human beings is in need of psychiatric help. But if these animal rights wackos honestly believe that they are, I have a legitimate question for them.

If animals have rights in the sense that humans have rights, how do we protect those rights? I’m not talking about protecting animals from having their rights violated by humans. That’s relatively easy. What I’m asking is how we protect animals from having their rights violated by other animals. After all, most of the abuse done to animals is not committed by people but by other animals. Moreover, it is illogical to say that we will only protect the rights of animals when those rights are being violated by humans.

So how do we fix the long-standing problem of animal-on-animal abuse? Should we assign police officers to patrol the nation’s fields and forests? And what do we do when the authorities catch some furry or feathered miscreant? For example, if a hawk has been apprehended for swooping down and eating a chipmunk, does the arresting officer have to read the hawk his Miranda rights? And how do we make sure that the hawk understands his rights if the cop isn’t fluent in hawk? Also, if the hawk can’t afford an attorney, do we appoint one to represent him at trial?

Another question is whether we should create an animal DNA database so that when one mouse steals another mouse’s cheese we can identify and prosecute the right mouse. After all, as an enlightened and civilized people, surely we would not want to incarcerate an innocent mouse.

As we contemplate these weighty matters, let’s not forget that over 3000 innocent human beings will be sent to the gallows today with no trial, no judge, no jury, no appeal, and no stay of execution. And this holocaust will be repeated tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, and the next day, and so forth. Meanwhile, not one animal rights organization takes a position against it.

Now that’s hypocrisy.