Posted by:
seaaggie
at Tue Jul 6 19:12:05 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by seaaggie ]
"On the other hand, I also understand that PETA isn't interested in taking people's pets/animals that are well cared for to have them set them free."
Actually, that's exactly what they are interested in - only that 'free' in most cases means dead.
"I don’t use the word "pet." I think it’s speciesist language. I prefer "companion animal." For one thing, we would no longer allow breeding. People could not create different breeds. There would be no pet shops. If people had companion animals in their homes, those animals would have to be refugees from the animal shelters and the streets. You would have a protective relationship with them just as you would with an orphaned child. But as the surplus of cats and dogs (artificially engineered by centuries of forced breeding) declined, eventually companion animals would be phased out, and we would return to a more symbiotic relationship – enjoyment at a distance" -- Ingrid Newkirk, PETA's President, quoted in The Harper's Forum Book, Jack Hitt, ed., 1989, p.223.
“In the end, I think it would be lovely if we stopped this whole notion of pets altogether.” -- Ingrid Newkirk, Bewsday, Feb 1988
“There is no hidden agenda. If anybody wonders about -- what’s this with all these reforms -- you can hear us clearly. Our goal is total animal liberation.”
— Ingrid Newkirk “Animal Rights 2002” convention, Jun 2002
“One day, we would like an end to pet shops and the breeding of animals. [Dogs] would pursue their natural lives in the wild ... they would have full lives, not wasting at home for someone to come home in the evening and pet them and then sit there and watch TV.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, The Chicago Daily Herald, Mar 1990
“I wish we all would get up and go into the labs and take the animals out or burn them down.”
— Ingrid Newkirk, "National Animal Rights Convention", Jun 1997
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: CNN promotes the Animal Rights Agenda - seaaggie, Tue Jul 6 19:12:05 2010