x--Opinionation--x

[AnimalAvenger]

Welcome to my new blog!

I will use this blog to share my opinions on certain issues, raise awareness on others, and so much more! Hopefully, I'll be able to regularly post as frequently as possible.

I guess that's all for the intro. Read on!

[AnimalAvenger]

What’s the difference between the animal rights and animal welfare causes? In my opinion, there is a thick, heavy line between animal rights and animal welfare, though most people fail to even notice it. According to the dictionary on Microsoft Word , the word welfare means “somebody's state or condition with respect to whether he or she is healthy, safe, happy, or prospering.” Most animal welfare organizations strive for more “humane” conditions, such as “free-range” eggs, larger pens for pigs, and many other improved conditions. These organizations do not strive for a meat-free world, and some are even against it. Many people do things they think are for animal rights when they’re really doing things for animal welfare.

Also according to the dictionary on Word, the word right means “a justified claim or entitlement, or the freedom to do something.” Animal rights activists and organizations strive for a world where animals are free to live the way they wish without worrying about unnecessary human interference. That means no meat, no animal entertainment, and no experiments on unwilling animals.

Why aren’t animals entitled to the same rights as us “humans?” In my opinion, smartness does not make anyone superior to shit. If smarts made people superior, we’d be testing products on the mentally retarded. Why aren’t we fryin’ up some kitty or grilling some dogs? Is it because these animals are more “special” than the cow on your plate? It seems like humans are all about thinking “up with superiority; fuck everyone else!” Who has concrete PROOF that animals do not have the same rights as us? HOW can you have concrete proof that animals have fewer rights than us when “rights” are an abstract idea often created by society? Was this idea of “superiority” created and defended over and over again just to keep you comfy, little ass in your leather chair while munching on the rotting animal flesh you call “steak?”



Hmm, it seems this has turned from a blog about the difference between animal welfare and animal rights to a rant against meat-eaters. Not really the way I wanted it to initially turn out.

[AnimalAvenger]

"Pain"

This is quite an unfinished entry. I will finish it when I am feeling better (I'm having my female time at the moment, so I definitely don't feel my best.)

No one will ever be able to feel what pain another feels, because they cannot step into their shoes, their eyes. They will never know what it’s like to be another person, especially when all they do is say, “Oooh, you attention-whore!” They need to at least try to sympathize with others, even if they cannot empathize. Maybe they have something that’s driving them to be “attention whores,” or maybe they aren’t “attention whores” at all. Maybe they’re completely honest, and you just have to make yourself feel stronger by calling them weak.

Truth is, you don’t know what triggers emotional pain in another person, because you aren’t that person. One thing may seem like a walk in the park for one person, but it may be a trek in Hell for another. You mustn’t tell anyone to “suck it up,” because you truly have no idea what they’re going through. You don’t know what it’s like to have the pain triggers they have. Pain is pain, no matter what caused it or who is experiencing it.

Also, about “attention whores.” Have you ever considered why people are “attention whores?” Maybe they don’t get enough attention from their parents or something, What if you never received attention from someone you care about? How would it make you feel?

[Linn]

I agree with the above. Sometimes when people are hurting, or upset, or just confused, talking about it helps. They aren't doing it to get attention, or sympathy. They just need to borrow an ear, and after they're done they just feel better.

[AnimalAvenger]

Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?


NOTE: This entry is based 100% on free thought, which also means that whatever I have typed here may still be thought upon in my head and may not actually be my final belief in it.

Lately, I've been thinking a bit about abortion and whether it is ethical or not. Previously, I was 100% pro-choice but have really started thinking.

The fetus has to be considered as well as the mother. Before recently, I didn't really consider the fetus as much. A potential life (yes, maybe at the time of the abortion a clump of cells) will be ended and will never have the chance to come into the world. What if I or someone I knew had actually been aborted? Not to exist? This is a life we're talking about. A life that never had a chance. If you don't want a baby, you can give the baby up for adoption to a home you believe would be best for him or her. Abortion is permanent.

Sure there is an over-population, but should we destroy a potential life because of this? Does this mean that the person shouldn't have even a chance? This sort of reminds me of how animal shelters euthanize their animals due to over-population...

Now, if the mother's life were in danger, then I believe she definitely has the right to choose.

Then there comes the right part. Does the woman not have the right to choose what happens with her body? Then again, the baby can't choose, either.

Maybe I believe that she does have the right to choose whether to get one or not, but I don't believe she SHOULD do it, depending on the circumstances. I don't know...

Maybe I believe it shouldn't be against the law but should be just educated against. But that'd be justifying killing. Then again, who has the right to rule over another when they, too, are just a member of the human species like the person they are ruling over?

--below isn't about abortion but just where my mind went--

Maybe I believe in anarchy (or at least the dream of it,) but I've been debating this a tiny bit, too. Just because there are no policemen to punish a rapist doesn't mean he or she won't be punished. With anarchy, rapists can be punished quite severely. Then, there is the corruption. How much does the rapist deserve to be punished? Even with laws, though, why should they decide how much he gets punished? How much free will should one have? What about the welfare, the happiness? Would that be destroyed if anarchy were to occur?

Then, maybe there could be some sort of group, but not some sort of governmental group, like an organization, that goes out helping victims and punishing bad guys. Some group everyone respects and is afraid of. Okay, maybe that WOULD be too much like government and actually be barbaric.


Strange where my mind has gone...

---Back on topic---

Does a woman have the right to kill off a potential life? One that would maybe someday be happy and even have a wonderful future if he or she were adopted? Yes, the mother should be considered, but should the potential life not be? Which would be at more of a loss?

Maybe the woman would enjoy having a child. If not, then she could give him or her up for adoption.

Rape is where it gets a bit tricky. Still, the mother could give the child up for adoption. However, won't the baby inside of her remind her of what happened for the full nine months? I guess it depends upon whether the mother could deal with it or not and if she wanted to. I did just read that rape only causes .3% of abortions. www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/

Guess I'll get to bed for now.