Our inconsistency

John Sorenson on OSPCA debacle.

The outrage over the killing raises questions about our inconsistency in designating some animals as pets and awarding them better treatment than those we designate as research tools, food, or raw material for clothing. In fact, the animals killed by the OSPCA will suffer less than those processed through factory farms, slaughterhouses, and laboratories. These animals receive even less “protection” from animal welfare organizations like the OSPCA, which endorse our commercial exploitation of other living beings and go out of their way to distance themselves from “radical” animal rights groups.

But even if we limit discussion to those animals designated as pets, we still are faced with these moral inconsistencies. Every year, thousands of unwanted pets are sent to “shelters” that are in actuality killing centres, established to dispose of those animals people find it too inconvenient to maintain. However, public callousness does not mean those organizations that exist to offer “protection” to animals are not culpable. The OSPCA could have pursued a more humane strategy, but it did not want to spend the money to do so.

Advertisements

0 Responses to “”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




@AIC

REVIEW

Yann Martel's Beatrice & Virgil

INTERVIEW

Trevor Herriot

INTERVIEW

Erika Ritter

VIDEO

Toronto's cat problem

INTERVIEW

Don LePan

REVIEW

Don LePan's Animals

REVIEW

Justine Pimlott's Cat City

REVIEW

Erika Ritter's The Dog by the Cradle, the Serpent Beneath


%d bloggers like this: