Comment (12)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiSeal pup silliness
Regulations are piled upon regulations in Canada about killing seal pups, but there is no law about abortion.
Maybe I should make a New Year's resolution to avoid spending so much time following the news, in order to help me cultivate a more cheerful disposition. Reading the newspaper can often be an exercise in discouragement, not just because of the actual contents but also because of the relative importance given to news items and the types of items that happen to be published simultaneously. We shake our heads as we note full page stories with accompanying colour photos of the Jolie-Pitts appearing in the same editions as tiny articles picked up from the wire services about families left homeless after a house fire, or death tolls from famine.
Earlier this month a letter to the editor of our local paper caught my eye. Its author, who was both a mother and a pet owner, objected to the way two different crimes had been covered on the same day. I well remembered the newspaper page she was describing. One story told of a cat that had died as a result of terrible abuse. It took up at least one third of a page in the paper and included a photo of and interview with the grieving owner. Taking up a fraction of this space on the same page was the story of a three month-old infant who died one month after being admitted to hospital with a head injury. The letter pointed out that the suspicious death of a baby should merit at least as much if not more outraged media coverage than the abuse and death of a cat.
No doubt it is difficult to obtain interviews and photographs where an abused child is concerned, in large part because of laws governing the privacy of individuals and families. In this case, the infant had been apprehended by child welfare authorities soon after her admittance to hospital, and the infant's mother was legally, at the age of seventeen, a minor. Still, there was an indignant tone to the cat story, not only because of the space it was allotted but also because it included quotes expressing the justifiable sadness and shock of the community. There was no such tone, no such space, and no such quote solicited by the reporter who covered the baby's suspected abuse and subsequent death. I sincerely hope it's because the reporter chose not to use quotes from the community, or that he did but his editor didn't. Either of these two explanations would be preferable to the worst -- that the community just couldn't summon up any real outrage over a tiny little girl meeting such a terrible, premature end.
Two more contrasting articles in the National Post made me wonder if we really have reached the point where the worst explanation above is in fact the most plausible. On the one hand was a Post article about an amendment to government regulations (in response to international protest) meant to ensure the humane slaughter of seals in the annual hunt that takes place in Newfoundland and Labrador. And on the other hand was an article reporting how our current prime minister has no intention of re-opening the abortion debate or introducing any bills that mention gestational limits (Canada has not had any such limits on abortion since 1988, when existing abortion laws were struck down by our supreme court).
Just let that sink in for a minute. My country has rule upon rule governing the seal hunt (the length of the season, the minimum age for a seal to be harvested, the manner in which they are killed, bled and skinned), and no law governing abortion. Do you think it would have helped the pro-life cause if Sir Paul McCartney had helicoptered on to an ice floe with his soon-to-be-ex-wife to wag his finger at Canada because of the number of abortions performed here each year instead of because of the seal hunt? Of course I'm not arguing against sealing regulations or for the wanton slaughter of animals. I'm not even necessarily arguing in favour of the hunt itself. But it is worth noting that the hunt is in support of human beings -– those rural populations who derive a small income from not only the pelts but also from the oil and meat. Whether other industries should be encouraged instead is a subject for another article. The fact remains, however, that unborn Canadian children are treated with less consideration than Canadian seal pups.
It's not only seal pups that get more consideration. Canadian MP Rod Bruinooge, chair of the multi-party pro-life caucus, points out that the rules governing organ donation mean that even Canadian kidneys get more consideration than Canadian embryos. Bruinooge's op-ed was actually in the same edition of the paper as the previous two articles I've mentioned. A daily newspaper, both national and local, really can give us a snapshot of ourselves as a society. Sometimes it's not such a flattering picture. But we can take heart when people like Roy Bruinooge say, this time in a Globe and Mail article about the pro-life caucus, "The bottom line is that people like myself are not going to stop until, at the very least, unborn children have more value than a Canadian kidney." Now that's a New Year's resolution.
Michelle Martin writes from Hamilton, Toronto.
This article is published by Michelle Martin, and MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it or translate it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
The strength of this article is its simple emotional appeal: the call to arms based on a perceived clear imbalance in protecting different valued entities. “Is it possible that the human life is so much less valued than seal puppies, that it deserves less legal protections?” asked in other words the article. The answer being obviously no, its reading should fire us to act on repair of those faulty laws. Simple. I understand why Michelle write it and I think she’s honest when she says “I don’t think humane treatment of animals is a frivolous concern”
But this simple approach is problematic too. For instance, because it downplays other causes, it alienates them as we saw. The intention might be to show that we are being incoherent in the causes we are supporting, giving priority to less valued ones, but that might backfire and support the withdraw of the other protections instead. And Michelle doesn’t help it, when she understands the hunt as “in support of human beings” (Forget that the Bible says that the calf shouldn’t be eaten with the milk of his mother, or that the puppies pelt are for never-ending markets… are we aware that this argument might support pro-choice attitudes since they might present themselves as a measure to ensure the supported lives of some human, where with sons, they might not?).
A second problem is the arbitrariness of its comparisons. A more honest one would be to compare the legislation about seal puppies with born live children. But then, we wouldn’t have a case: born children are a lot more protected than any seal puppy. So, the target of the comparison is changed… except everything can be argued, doing that.
And finally, it’s a way of arguing that only works if there is a clear order of priorities being violated. But this brings several problems like inviting to a relative reading of the ethical system (priorities means that principles may be negotiated for others) and seeding division where it was not needed (consider the absurd of people sharing the same 6 ideas, but divided by the 120 different ways of how ordering them, forgetting mixes). It would have be better if not advocated. Consider the presented New Year’s resolution: things being different, all unborn children would be born but organ donation wouldn’t exist. Children were brought to existence but some sick ones would eventually die for lacking of compatible organs. What sense is in that?
Almathea-- thank you for your response. I do see your point as well. Don’t let yourself feel pushed out of the pro-life movement because of your respect for animals. Remember that it is very important for pro-choice people to understand that we prolifers come from all political leanings. Diversity of opinion on many other matters outside of abortion is what makes the pro-life movement strong-- we cannot be painted with the same brush no matter how hard the other side tries.
Michelle- Fair enough. I respect that. It IS a well written article and I do appreciate anyone who respects life. This just happens to be a sensitive issue for me personally as I feel like I’m being pushed out of the pro-life movement, because I also care about animals.
In my defense, I would like to point out that I am not the author of the headline chosen for my article, and point to two sentences to indicate that I don’t think the humane treatment of animals is a frivolous concern:
“Still, there was an indignant tone to the cat story, not only because of the space it was allotted but also because it included quotes expressing the justifiable sadness and shock of the community.”
and
“Of course I’m not arguing against sealing regulations or for the wanton slaughter of animals. I’m not even necessarily arguing in favour of the hunt itself.”
This is why the pro-life movement is failing. You alienate people with different beliefs for example those who are both pro-life and animal rights activists. We are squabbling amongst ourselves while women and unborn babies are being harmed by abortion. Even I, a staunch animal rights activist, am appalled that most who fight for animals to be treated humanely don’t think of the plight of unborn humans, but this kind of attitude (i.e. calling the fight for humane treatment of seals “silly") is not helping anyone. As I said it is alienating part of the pro-life movement. I understand your frustration, but please try to see things from others point of view.
Thank you.
I agree with AR - the title of this article is very unfortunate. It’s not “silliness” to try to protect animals from cruelty - it’s an ethical imperative.
Moreover, even from a protection of humans point of view - among whom we can include unborn babies - it’s important to do so. People who lack sensitivity to cruelty to animals or engage in that themselves are also more likely to lack respect for the lives and well-being of fellow humans and cause harm to them.
I believe that respect for all life is necessary if we are to maintain respect for human life, in particular - we need to create a general climate of respect and to work from a basic presumption that such respect is required and that any given exception must be clearly justified. That does not mean that what respect requires in the case of humans as compared with animals is the same. But clearly in all cases respect requires the prohibition of intentional cruelty such as in the way that seal pups have been killed traditionally.
Do people in Canada, US, Aus, etc. know about bats in England? Well, they’re a species protected by law, and often they set up home in the roofs of old churches. But the congregations aren’t allowed to get rid of them by any means. So the churches have to be soiled with dirty and offensive bat droppings - which nobody can do anything about. Now, obviously our society considers such as bats as being more important than religion or religious practice, and probably even more important than people; but art and architecture are quite highly valued too, particularly if it’s old; but still the owners of (often Medieval) churches are not allowed to do anything that might stress the poor bats, Medieval art or not. Just in case a congregation gets tempted to do something radical, there’s an officious quango called English Nature ready to drag you before the courts. It’s a mad, bad world.
Well said and well written. In Britain it’s hunting with dogs by a small number of people that gets a larger number of people upset, but abortions go on apace. As to reportage: priority can be denoted in print by column inches devoted to this or that; on radio and television I look for it in the tone of voice. But too often the tragedies in society are rattled off by newsreaders with little visible emotion. One could argue that indifferent viewpoint requires equal treatment, but it’s a sad reflection on the state we’ve arrived at. In one ear, out the other.
Seal pups are not at the same level as human babies - I’d agree with that. However, this doesn’t mean that they deserve a brutal killing at the hands of individuals who try to justify such a barbaric act because it’s their source of income.
Watch any video that shows how these pups are brutally killed and you may have a different opinion. I don’t mean to place this at the same level as human babies, but these are two different topics with different players and different dynamics. They can’t be compared side by side and argue that protecting baby seals is “silly.”
Don’t blame the seal pups - it’s not their fault. Just keep fighting for protecting the unborn.
“ ... unborn Canadian children are treated with less consideration than Canadian seal pups. “ - well not surprisingly, in societies such as ours in the West, where the “rights” to life of proven mass-murderers are carefully guarded, but the unborn can be destroyed at will - even, in the US (when Obama gets in) if they have been lucky enough to survive hideous “termination” procedures. Clearly, when the values (the Culture of Death) that rule our world, are as inverted as they are, our former-civilisation will rot (and is doing so, fast).
Canada, like the U.S., most of Europe and most of Asia, is dominated by a culture of death. When pre-born infanticide is regarded as an absolute right, any emotion that might arise in defense of innocent human life is quickly squashed. After a long process of such emotional repression, is there actually any surprise that the source of such emotion, natural human solidarity, is dead?
Not to drag out the same idea, however, the note above concerning the covering Creative Commons licence, indicates that we give more legal standing to intellectual content, or a piece of paper, than an embryo.
Page 1 of 1 :