Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I admit I did donate annually to PETA in spite of some rumblings that they were not all what they are cracked up to be. No one was ever able to provide any proof to me that those supposed surveillance videos were staged or anything else. I came upon this today and here is the all the proof you need:
I donate sometimes to PETA, as I think they are helpful to take care of those pets, who haven't found their new owner. I have never thought they are different from what they should be.
How are they extremists? Seems to me they are more consistent than any other. The others don't look at all animals, they pick and choose their cause, such as wolves, puppy mills, horses, seals, whales, but PETA takes it all on. They don't us global warming either, they focus on the treatment of animals.
The problem with liberals is that they always want to control others, they even eat their own. I am a conservative that supports PETA and all they do to educate the public. You want to abolish them because they euthanized animals. You are willing to throw all the great work they do away, because you are offended by their putting these animals to sleep. There isn't a shelter on this planet that doesn't put animals down, it's a necessary part of rescue. So you are saying you refuse to donate to any rescue group or shelter, because you find euthansia distasteful. You are not being consistent.
Now you'll say, it's not the euthanasia, it's just that Peta did it. Yes they did, get over it, it happens every minute of every day, across this nation.
They don't teach fishing lessons either, or how to run a humane fur farm. They do transport animals and provide free spay and neuter - that costs money. The undercover investigations they do, cost money.
Their intent is and always has been to end the suffering. You can put PETA out of business by helping them end animal suffering.
Once again, PETA does not simply euthanize animals because of a lack of space or the inability to find homes. They never try to find homes for them at all. And they directly lie to people in order to obtain more animals to kill...animals that would not have been at risk of death if PETA had not been involved.
You will find very few shelters that hit a 95% euthanasia rate. You will find even less that hit a 95% euthanasia rate while having funding in excess of 35 million dollars a year. This is not about overpopulation. The fact that PETA tries to pass it off that way is insultingly illogical. You can not cry overpopulation when you never attempted to adopt the animal out. Instead of asking if I would support a shelter that euthanizes if they weren't PETA, ask yourself if you would support a shelter that takes in animals, lies to people about finding them home, and then kills them within hours without every making the least attempt to find them a home. Would you support that shelter if it was a little no-name organization in your hometown?
And PETA will never be done in their mission so long as people keep pets, because owning a pet is an act of abuse in and of itself in their minds.
PETA's relentless and damaging efforts at 'education' only turn people away from their cause. If you were to ask everyday people not already involved in animal rights what PETA thinks about fish, they will giggle and say 'sea kittens'. They won't know anything about how fish feel pain, because that's not the message PETA is getting out. The only message stunts like that send are that animal rights people are whackos, and on one listens to whackos.
I donate sometimes to PETA, as I think they are helpful to take care of those pets, who haven't found their new owner. I have never thought they are different from what they should be.
Dear heart, PETA does not help pets to find a new owner, that's not their thing. There are many other rescue groups that do that.
Go to their site and see what they are involved in, here is one item from today.
PETA provided undercover evidence so this woman who ran a hospice and rehab center for animals could be charged with cruelty.
Angel's Gate Founder Charged
PETA had provided the District Attorney with the evidence that our investigator gathered while volunteering at Angel's Gate. Our investigator saw Marino allow animals to suffer, sometimes for weeks, from treatable conditions as well as terminal illnesses without providing veterinary care, medication, or pain relief. Paralyzed animals dragged themselves until they developed bloody ulcers. Animals developed urine scald after being left in soaked diapers for up to two days. Dehydrated animals were denied water, and others were forced to stay outside in freezing temperatures. The bodies of dead animals were left among those of the living for days. Victory! Angel's Gate Founder Charged | PETA.org
Once again, PETA does not simply euthanize animals because of a lack of space or the inability to find homes. They never try to find homes for them at all. And they directly lie to people in order to obtain more animals to kill...animals that would not have been at risk of death if PETA had not been involved.
You will find very few shelters that hit a 95% euthanasia rate. You will find even less that hit a 95% euthanasia rate while having funding in excess of 35 million dollars a year. This is not about overpopulation. The fact that PETA tries to pass it off that way is insultingly illogical. You can not cry overpopulation when you never attempted to adopt the animal out. Instead of asking if I would support a shelter that euthanizes if they weren't PETA, ask yourself if you would support a shelter that takes in animals, lies to people about finding them home, and then kills them within hours without every making the least attempt to find them a home. Would you support that shelter if it was a little no-name organization in your hometown?
And PETA will never be done in their mission so long as people keep pets, because owning a pet is an act of abuse in and of itself in their minds.
PETA's relentless and damaging efforts at 'education' only turn people away from their cause. If you were to ask everyday people not already involved in animal rights what PETA thinks about fish, they will giggle and say 'sea kittens'. They won't know anything about how fish feel pain, because that's not the message PETA is getting out. The only message stunts like that send are that animal rights people are whackos, and on one listens to whackos.
The people that don't want to hear the message won't. I got it, and so did you. I wouldn't worry so much about what people think, worry more about the animals and what they endure.
Dear heart, PETA does not help pets to find a new owner, that's not their thing. There are many other rescue groups that do that.
Go to their site and see what they are involved in, here is one item from today.
PETA provided undercover evidence so this woman who ran a hospice and rehab center for animals could be charged with cruelty.
Angel's Gate Founder Charged
PETA had provided the District Attorney with the evidence that our investigator gathered while volunteering at Angel's Gate. Our investigator saw Marino allow animals to suffer, sometimes for weeks, from treatable conditions as well as terminal illnesses without providing veterinary care, medication, or pain relief. Paralyzed animals dragged themselves until they developed bloody ulcers. Animals developed urine scald after being left in soaked diapers for up to two days. Dehydrated animals were denied water, and others were forced to stay outside in freezing temperatures. The bodies of dead animals were left among those of the living for days. Victory! Angel's Gate Founder Charged | PETA.org
And what do you think the end result for these animals will be if PETA gets custody of them? Not just the ones that are suffering or terminal, but the ones that could recover from care, or who have disabilities but are still able to live happy lives with the right owner?
There are many wonderful hospice programs for pets, where pets who have disabilities or are older are very well-taken care of. There are shelters who support fostering hospice for their senior animals, where the animal is adopted out with the knowledge their life will not be long, but with the intent of making it full of joy for whatever time remains.
But PETA's message here isn't be careful what programs you support. It's that all hospice programs are bad, because death is better. Death is always better to PETA.
The people that don't want to hear the message won't. I got it, and so did you. I wouldn't worry so much about what people think, worry more about the animals and what they endure.
I'm worrying about the animals at PETA and what they endure.
And maybe they won't listen, but someone reading will.
I actually used to be a PETA supporter a long time ago. Over the years a lot of things I used to believe in and support have changed. It was easier when I was younger, and I could get the glossy PETA magazine in the mail and nod along.
Then I started actually researching things and realized that just because a group supports the essence of a cause I share doesn't mean there aren't some pretty terrible shady details going on.
Parallel, I read about how Ingrid Newkirk founded PETA. It is a heart-wrenching story about her being in India and what she saw. That story still haunts me, I can't even think about it. She not only thinks about horrors like that constantly, she does all she can to change minds, educate the masses, stop the suffering. She is my hero. I can't even watch a movie with an animal theme, because something bad always happens. Many things on television dealing with animals, I can't watch. I get magazines from many animal groups with articles I can't read. I am forever grateful to PETA for what they do, for their courage and effectiveness.
Quote:
Basic views
* The basic belief of animal rights activists is "that all human use of animals should stop immediately" - Sherry, p xi.
* "PETA operates under the simple principle that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment" - PETA web site.
* "Other PETA sites" specify that they oppose wearing anything from animals, including fur or leather. They oppose all experimentation on animals for medical or any other purposes. They oppose all eating of animal products including, not just meat, fish, and chicken, but also eggs, milk, and dairy products. They advocate complete vegetarianism. They oppose all use of animals in entertainment, including zoos, circuses, rodeos, and movies. (See list of web sites on PETA site.) But there is much more.
* Many people think PETA is an animal welfare agency, like a humane shelter, seeking simply to protect animals from mistreatment. Animal rights advocates completely reject such views, referring to them as merely "animal welfare." "Animal welfare" would sacrifice animal interests to achieve justifiable "human benefits." But animal liberation views animals as having rights, which cannot be sacrificed regardless of the benefit to humans - FAQ from PETA web site.
* Ingrid Newkirk, a founder of PETA, said: "Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals" - Vogue, 9/89 (via Sherry, p xiii).
* Alex Pacheco, also a PETA founder, said: "We feel that animals have the same rights as a retarded human child" - New York Times, 1/14/89 (via Sherry, p. xiii).
If you disagree with the above, then don't donate to them. If nothing else, PETA does make people think, and leaves an impression. They are the largest animal rights organization in the world.
And what do you think the end result for these animals will be if PETA gets custody of them? Not just the ones that are suffering or terminal, but the ones that could recover from care, or who have disabilities but are still able to live happy lives with the right owner?
There are many wonderful hospice programs for pets, where pets who have disabilities or are older are very well-taken care of. There are shelters who support fostering hospice for their senior animals, where the animal is adopted out with the knowledge their life will not be long, but with the intent of making it full of joy for whatever time remains.
But PETA's message here isn't be careful what programs you support. It's that all hospice programs are bad, because death is better. Death is always better to PETA.
You are completely overlooking the fact that these charges would never have been brought, but for the evidence provided by PETA. Did you watch the video?
You are completely overlooking the fact that these charges would never have been brought, but for the evidence provided by PETA. Did you watch the video?
Yes, and I grieve for the animals. Both because they suffered, and because in the end they won't be rescued, only killed.
It is possible for a good person or organization to do terrible things. But in my opinion, the good you do does not outweigh the bad...especially if you do not repent. Especially if you will continue doing bad because you honestly believe it to be good.
Let us say there is an orphanage. They treat all of the children with great kindness and network far and wide to get them adopted. They provide support throughout the rest of the child's life. The child thrive in their new families.
But those children aren't really orphanages at all. The orphanage is a front for human trafficking. The children are removed from their homes without their parents consent...they are stolen, or taken away by violence, or sold.
Does the good here erase the bad?
If you truly believe that animals have rights and the same importance as a 'retarded child', you would agree that killing an animal without true need is wrong, yes?
(And btw...WOW. Way to devalue children with disabilities, as if they had less rights than 'normal' child. That quote does not make me any happier with PETA.)
In a way, PETA's enthusiasm about killing reveals a darker side. If they believe animals have the same right as a 'retarded child' (I really can't get over that), but they kill adoptable animals for no justifiable reason...are they saying it is right to kill retarded children? Ingrid herself I think puts animals more on a level with all humans, without the retarded qualifier (it gets worse every time I type it). So is she saying it's right to kill humans who are not suffering?
So perhaps my much earlier statement that PETA does not truly believe in animal rights was wrong. Perhaps it is human rights that they do not believe it.
If you believe that NO ONE should ever own a pet, companion animal then dontate to PeTA and othe so-called animal rights groups. But, if you wish to have the right to have a companion animal or a service animal should you need one, then donate to groups that actually CARE about the welfare of animals. These would tend to be your local shelters and breed rescue groups.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
