Letter: Animals shouldn't have more rights than unborn babies
Tuesday's Star Tribune article (by Washington Post writer Robin Givham), "Fur Industry Finds Itself Being Pelted by Opposition," reported on the anti-fur movement, specifically a recent seven-hour hearing in New York's City Hall held to discuss pending legislation that would, like California, ban the sale, distribution and manufacture of new fur products.
Quoting the article, "Folks in favor of the ban used graphic language to describe the slaughter of animals, making repeated references to the precise placement of the electrodes and the amount of time required for asphyxiation. Would you do this to your dog or cat?"
My question for them is, would you do this to your child?
If only these people would be so passionate to describe in graphic language the slaughter of as many as 60 million innocent human babies that has taken place, and continues to take place in this country. If only they were so passionate to describe the precise placement of the tools used to murder our own children; how they are dismembered, how their skulls are punctured and their brains are sucked out, moments from being born.
New York of all places! Where in the past year legislators stood applauding and cheering while their governor signed legislation that stripped away what little protection pre-born human babies still had, basically legalizing infanticide. Yet now they want to outlaw fur because it is cruel to animals!
I am all for humane treatment of animals, but when animals have more rights than innocent human babies I consider that a very frightening symptom of a very sick society.