Is there something in the air? Earlier this year, a friend and former colleague introduced me to someone on Facebook – an amazing guy who has what looks like a bottomless well of energy and passion, judging from the status messages I see and the info on his info page.
Sometime after I posted this entry about the economic considerations that dominate decisions about whether to get medical treatment or euthanasia for a pet, I was drawn into a discussion with these two about linking animal rights with disability rights. The concept wasn’t new to me, as I have had a couple of individuals who are both disability rights activists and animal rights activists make a similar case to me. The idea is that both animals and people with disabilities share common ground in terms of mistreatment, devaluing, and other forms of oppression.
My reaction then was the same as it always has been – I do not see any upside to linking disability rights issues to animal rights issues. At least, I don’t really see the upside for people with disabilities.
I’ve been checking around and it looks like – in some animal rights circles and in some academic circles – this argument is being pursued, although I don’t think anyone’s floated a trial balloon at, say, a national meeting of ADAPT.
Anyway, the conversation with the friends on Facebook led to a discussion of a possible inclusion of me articulating my objections in a proposed volume on Critical Animal Studies. That fell through – due entirely to my failure to follow through on any of the necessary steps needed to prepare for inclusion in any kind of project like that. My plate tends to be pretty full and once in awhile I get foolish enough to think I can add more to it. The big problem, of course, is that I don’t always inform people that my plate was fuller than I thought – and I just drop communication.
All this was a few months ago. The reason I am writing today is that a few people on Facebook have shared and applauded an article they’ve linked on the site – one that makes the case that “choosing between the rights of nonhuman animals and the rights of people with disabilities is a false dichotomy.”
The article in question, Animal rights and autism pride: Let’s heal the rift, is written by Daniel Salomon, appears in The Scavenger. The article here is a shortened version that appeared early this year in the Journal for Critical Animal Studies. While Mr. Salomon is making a case for linking the Autism Pride movement specifically here, it’s obvious he’s making a case for disability rights in general.
The article opens with this:
Peter Singer and other activist-scholars have established the philosophical legitimacy of discourse regarding animal ethics; thus, animal ethics can no longer be dismissed as sentimentalism by the Western intellectual establishment.
It’s a bad sign when an article that looks like it’s intended to make a pitch to disability rights activists opens by acknowledging the role of Peter Singer in legitimizing animal ethics. (Note – the second link on Peter Singer’s name is to a recent protest letter endorsed by multiple disability organizations – the link in the article excerpt is to a wikipedia entry.)
You can read Salomon’s article yourself, but his main message is contained here:
I propose a variation of the linked oppression model, namely that there is a correlation between how autists are treated by neurotypical society and how neurotypical society, as a whole, treats nonhuman animals, and that the causes of autist pride and animal liberation are intricately linked, interdependent on one another.
Both oppressions have the same primary cause: the ideology of neurotypicalism. When those without a fully functioning vermis, including autists and nonhuman animals, do not conform to the wishes of neurotypical society, neurotypical society starts to interfere with, censor, and control those understandings or behaviors which do not conform to neurotypical standards or desires.
This model is consistent with reality and it helps resolve the conflict between animal rights and disability rights which is manifested in some religious, ethical, and public policy debates.
Again, the emphasis here is on autism, but at least some of the arguments are aimed at a broader linking between disability rights and animal rights.
What’s wrong with that?
On one level, it could be appealing. A glance at progressive sites such as Change.org or even the progressive publication shows that there are is space, acknowledgment and energy given to all varieties of human rights issues – and animal rights issues, but disability rights is absent as a cause or concern. Who wouldn’t want to grab onto those coattails?
Me, for one.
See, one thing that Salomon and others dance around is that if there is a “schism” between animal rights and disability rights, it’s mostly been caused on one side.
- Glossed over in the article, the “father of animal liberation,” Peter Singer, is an advocate of public policies that would legalize the killing of disabled infants and people of any age who don’t meet his own criteria for personhood. In a recent NY Times essay, he advocated a rationale for limiting the amount of healthcare given to people with significant disabilities relative to nondisabled persons. This same person was honored and one of the first inductees in the US Animal Rights Hall of Fame. In fact, the year that Peter Singer was honored, one session included a discussion of when killing is OK, with “defective” human newborns on the list for discussion.
- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), arguably the most prominent animal rights organization in existence, has used ableism and other offensive tactics, in its media outreach. This article gives a pretty good overview.
OK – so all I listed was two general issues, and even though most people can probably see that the Singer issue is a big one, a lot of people might think that shouldn’t be an insurmountable barrier in and of itself. I don’t know if that’s true or not, because there are plenty of other reasons for the disability community to steer away from equating our situations and struggle for rights with those of animals.
First, animal rights advocacy is a cause that operates by defining and advocating for a set of principles which should govern human-animal interaction. It is not the animals themselves demanding this. That doesn’t mean the advocacy is meaningless, but animal rights advocates and activists can define the terms of rights advocacy for animals and never have to worry about the animals telling them they got it all wrong or that they want to speak for themselves now – which has happened to Jerry Lewis and Autism Speaks, to name two prominent organizations that have found that some people they advocated for don’t agree at all with the agenda they’ve set. So the most obvious connection between animal rights advocacy and disability rights falls in the area of people with significant cognitive disabilities.
That brings me to the second concern. Aside from Peter Singer, there is a scary amount of support in our society for killing old, ill and disabled people – especially when significant cognitive disability is involved. Often such killing is justified by making comparisons between the killing of old, ill and disabled people and the comfortable myths we have about the euthanasia of pets (namely, the myth that all or most pets are killed because they are dying and in unrelievable suffering). When disabled people are equated with animals, it never works out well for us.
Think I am making too much of this? PETA, which I mentioned previously, has been criticized because the organization kills most of the animals it takes in at its shelters. Here is how Ingrid Newkirk, president of PETA explains the high kill rate at their shelters:
Most of the animals we took in and euthanized could hardly be called “pets,” as they had spent their lives chained up in the back yard, for instance. They were unsocialized, never having been inside a building of any kind or known a pat on the head. Others were indeed someone’s, but they were aged, sick, injured, dying, too aggressive to place, and the like, and PETA offered them a painless release from suffering, with no charge to their owners or custodians.
Translate that line of reasoning to humans with significant intellectual disabilities and it begins to resemble – and even outstrip – Peter Singer’s suggestions for when it’s OK to kill humans. As Newkirk explains in this essay, much of what they see in animals is the result of irresponsible human behavior. That irresponsible behavior has led to a drastic overpopulation problem with cats and dogs. The failure of people to spay and neuter has compounded the problem. So what they are doing may sound bad, but is understandable on some level.
But the animal with the biggest overpopulation and resource-eating problem is the human species. Singer’s policy proposals become highly defensible when oppressed, stigmatized, abused and neglected people with intellectual disabilities are situated similarly to our animal cousins.
At the very least, it’s too irrational to expect people who make up the ranks of disability activists to want to build serious bridges with the animal rights community. I can’t see us joining hands with a group that holds Peter Singer in such high esteem and at best expressing “regret” for his writings on disability.
Maybe it’s just that the animal rights community – or parts of it, anyway, finds it easier to forgive some things and to even find them praiseworthy – even if those things seem shockingly antithetical to your cause in the view of others. That would explain why PETA gave Temple Grandin an award for her work in designing more humane and efficient slaughterhouses.
Personally, I give Grandin credit for her work. But I don’t think I would be a big fan if I was against killing animals for meat. Just like I don’t think that Amnesty International would honor some warlord who made it a point to commit genocide in a humane manner. It doesn’t compute.
And the idea that disability rights and animal liberation are interconnected? That doesn’t compute, either. –Stephen Drake
As someone who has been both active in both animal rights advocacy and disability rights, I applaud Stephen’s willingness to address the bizarre inconsistencies which, to the outside eye, seem to coexist within animal advocacy.
Contrary to the appearance given in his post, however, the issues Drake skims above (Singer’s narrow views on personhood, PeTA’s odd eugenics, Grandin’s glaring inconsistencies) have long been debated by both rank and file members and influence makers within the animal rights movement. I know, I’ve often been in the middle of them, and have initiated more than a few.
Contrary to Drake’s assumptions, philosophers like Tom Regan (author of THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS) have worked long and hard to differentiate the true animal rights position from the more objectionable views of Singer, whose utilitarian and often inconsistent views allow for the killing of animals, infants and people with disabilities if their demise is thought to serve the annoyingly nebulous, and rhetorically convenient concept of the “greater good. “
Asserting the animal rights movement falls in lock step with Singer illustrates a profound ignorance of the inner workings of the animal rights movement as a whole. When I was speaking at the national animal rights conference a dozen or so years ago, a friend quipped, “How many animal activists does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer: 10. “One to do the work and nine others to argue about philosophy, strategy and tactics.” I’ve been largely out of the mix for the last half-decade, but if I follow Drake’s lead of using Facebook posts as a barometer, it appears that little has changed – specifically as the movement relates to polarizing positions of Singer, Newkirk and Grandin.
Rather than rely on a few admittedly troublesome examples – we could, if inclined, use the opportunity to delve deeper into areas of common ground which many in disability and animal circles both seem inclined to ignore.
In the debate over animal experimentation, for example, emotional, negative attitudes about disability (“You don’t want to end up like this poor bastard in a wheelchair, do you? Then let us cut up some monkeys…) remain the basis for most arguments in support of animal studies despite overwhelming scientific evidence challenging its efficacy.
Let’s not confuse profile with substance. Just as the average person on the street is not likely to make any distinction between disability organizations, most disability rights advocates would not consider groups like “Autism Speaks” or the “Muscular Dystrophy Association” to be representative of the disability rights movement as a whole – if they’d include them at all – despite their massive profiles.
The divisions and distinctions within the animal rights movement might cut differently but they go just as deep.
Singer’s well publicized, often sensationalistic rhetoric has unwittingly affirmed society’s worst fears about animal advocates, leading many – including Drake, it seems – to “throw the baby out with the bathwater“ rather than hoist Singer on his own philosophically anemic petard.
As is the case with humans warehoused in nursing homes, slightly better isn’t good enough. Singer, Newkirk and Grandin all work to make conditions for animals better, sure, but to suggest accepting or adopting their rhetoric is the best we can, or should, do is not that far from adopting Kevorkian’s view of “assisted suicide” as release from suffering or Jerry Lewis’ pity-mongering as an suitable stand-in for independence.
Are disability rights and animal rights interconnected? They are if we want them to be. If we dare to look. They won’t be if we fail to link them. The choice is ours. To dismiss such intersections offhand based on the sensational rhetoric of a select few does neither side justice.
Steve – I applaud your willingness to address the bizarre inconsistencies which, to the outside eye, seem to coexist within animal advocacy. Contrary to the appearance given in your blog entry, however, the issues touched upon in your post… (Singer’s narrow views on personhood, PeTA’s odd eugenics, Grandin’s glaring inconsistencies) have long been debated by both rank and file members and influence makers within the animal rights movement. I know, I’ve often been in the middle of them, and have initiated more than a few.
Philosophers like Tom Regan (author of THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS) have worked long and hard to differentiate the true animal rights position from the more objectionable views of Singer, whose utilitarian and often inconsistent views allow for the killing of animals, infants and people with disabilities if their demise is thought to serve the annoyingly nebulous, and rhetorically convenient concept of the “greater good. “
Asserting the animal rights movement falls in lock step with Singer illustrates a profound ignorance of the inner workings of the animal rights movement as a whole. When I was speaking at the national animal rights conference a dozen or so years ago, a friend quipped, “How many animal activists does it take to change a light bulb?” The answer: 10. “One to do the work and nine others to argue about philosophy, strategy and tactics.” I’ve been largely out of the mix for the last half-decade, but if I follow Drake’s lead of using Facebook posts as a barometer, it appears that little has changed – specifically as the movement relates to polarizing positions of Singer, Newkirk and Grandin.
Rather than rely on a few admittedly troublesome examples – we could, if inclined, use the opportunity to delve deeper into areas of common ground which many in disability and animal circles both seem inclined to ignore.
In the debate over animal experimentation, for example, emotional, negative attitudes about disability (“You don’t want to end up like this poor bastard in a wheelchair, do you? Then let us cut up some monkeys…) remain the basis for most arguments in support of animal studies despite overwhelming scientific evidence challenging its efficacy.
Let’s not confuse profile with substance. Just as the average person on the street is not likely to make any distinction between disability organizations, most disability rights advocates would not consider groups like “Autism Speaks” or the “Muscular Dystrophy Association” to be representative of the disability rights movement as a whole – if they’d include them at all – despite their massive profiles.
The divisions and distinctions within the animal rights movement might cut differently but they go just as deep.
Singer’s well publicized, often sensationalistic rhetoric has unwittingly affirmed society’s worst fears about animal advocates, leading many – including Drake, it seems – to “throw the baby out with the bathwater“ rather than hoist Singer on his own philosophically anemic petard.
As is the case with humans warehoused in nursing homes, slightly better isn’t good enough. Singer, Newkirk and Grandin all work to make conditions for animals better, sure, but to suggest accepting or adopting their rhetoric is the best we can, or should, do is not that far from adopting Kevorkian’s view of “assisted suicide” as release from suffering or Jerry Lewis’ pity-mongering as an suitable stand-in for independence.
Are disability rights and animal rights interconnected? They are if we want them to be. If we dare to look. They won’t be if we fail to link them. The choice is ours. To dismiss such intersections offhand based on the sensational rhetoric of a select few does neither side justice.
You’re absolutely right Stephen, equating disability rights with animal rights is a *really* bad idea.
There as many reasons why linking these two issues is a bad idea as there are reasons why assisted suicide is a bad idea. Assisted suicide is a bad idea because
– It exploits the vulnerable in society which includes the aged and disabled.
– It further entrenches negative stereotypes of the disabled
– It violates the dignity of human beings and is an assault on an ethic of life (“human exceptionalism” as Wesley Smith likes to call it).
If there are synergies between disability issues and other causes, my opinion is that the synergy between disability rights and “human exceptionalism” is far more legally and ethically potent.
The “animal rights” movement is contemptuous of human exceptionalism. Trying to court this movement would alienate a far more important ally. Until animal rights supporters reject the likes of Peter Singer then people interested in protection of vulnerable humans should stay far clear of this movement.
the upside is that a lot more people are concerned with animal rights than will ever think about disability rights.
there might be a overflow effect to bring animal folks to see the issue of disability.
The downside would be the presumption that PWD are incapable of independance & self direction.
Oh good god…PUHLEEZE…my daughter is not a pet. I am all for animals being treated properly and for significant penalties for animal cruelty. But disability and animal rights “joining hands”, it’s just so idiotic. Animals are animals, humans are greater than the sum of their animal parts. Why is it wrong to say that? Thanks for this piece. You are right on.
PosterBrat,
First, I don’t remember if people are notified of deleted comments. I deleted two of yours because they were exact duplicates of your first comment – duplication happens on occasion, and sometimes for no reason that I can fathom.
You say there are internal debates about Singer. That’s fine – what distinguishes debates in the animal rights movement about Singer and PETA is that they are *internal* – while the disability rights criticisms of organizations such as Autism Speaks are aimed at the public.
I haven’t heard any complaints when Singer is referred to as the “founder (of father) of the animal liberation movement” – he has a high profile and he draws attention to the cause. And it sure didn’t stop the animalrights2000 conference from making him one of the first batch of inductees in the Hall of Fame.
What few critiques I have read of Singer within the animal rights community have had more to do with his acceptance of killing some animals in some situations than what he writes about humans. Steve Best came closest to a real critique in terms of disability, but even he pulled up short, maybe intentionally.
The *real* attack on Singer has to do with the lack of intellectual honesty he exhibits when writing about disability and killing. When he’s not dishonest, he’s just careless and sloppy.
That’s not a critique that would be welcomed within the animal rights movement. If you acknowledge less-than-honest analysis around disability, doesn’t that mean one also needs to take a second look at works like “Animal Liberation?” That would definitely be the case in those instances he builds a case for a different set of standards for treatment of animals – on the backs of (and at the expense of) people with intellectual disabilities.
As for PETA – it’s hard to see any external sign of criticism. Right now, at the website of the Institute for Critical Animal Studies, they’re featuring both a link to a PETA film and announcing a new student chapter of PETA (one of many).
Regardless of what anyone might think, I really don’t have much of an opinion on animal rights.
What I do know is this – after almost 15 years of working on the issues associated with NDY, plenty of PWDs – and the families of people with intellectual disabilities – have experienced professionals or members of the public treating them as less than human. And that many people still hold those views.
I cannot think of any compelling argument that would convince them that endorsing the message and mission of the animal rights movement would be anything other than a step backwards. They/we/I are all still busy making sure that the recognition of our status as full members of the human race are secure. We’re sure not there yet.
Roger,
There are many things that it would shock people to know that I don’t have strong feelings about – human exceptionalism is one of them.
I find I have a limit as to the number of things I can feel passionate about. This particular bunch of battles that NDY engages in pretty much eats up that limit.
I’d like to point out, too, that saying connecting the two movements is a bad idea IS NOT the same as saying the movements should be opposed (even though it can feel that way when some activists sing the praises of Singer).
When Wesley was ready to publish “Culture of Death,” we were sent an advance copy and invited to write something to promote the book. We declined, with sincere regret, when we discovered he had decided to attack the animal rights movement. We regretted it because we respect and value his work on opposing euthanasia and assisted suicide. We didn’t see the value in being seen to endorse the attack on the animal rights movement – why make an enemy of someone who hasn’t declared themselves to be such?
Claire,
It’s good to see you commenting here! I apologize for not answering the email you sent me awhile back. I think your reaction is pretty typical of the reaction of most (but not all) people who have intellectual disabilities or care about someone who has that label.
Claire qrote “Animals are animals, humans are greater than the sum of their animal parts. Why is it wrong to say that? “
Its not wrong, it’s inaccurate.
There is NO ABSOLUTE PROOF of what you claim, because no one within Civilisation appears to have ever had an insight into the actual thoughts experienced by any animal. Much is assumed by comparing animal behaviour to ‘civilised’ human behaviour. Often the justifications for dysfunctional human behaviour are attributed ot the ‘animal’ within us.
And the justifications for the superiority of the human being are most often based upon quasi-religious beliefs that our ability to exert CONTROL over others in a myriad of ways is evidence of intelligence – I would argue it is evidence of technical capability, and given the state of the world we live in, of nothing mnore than that.
An insecure, cognitvely dissonant tool making animal will of course pursue the exerting task of control to the limit of it’s ability.
And what we see in nature is an almost complete lack of that desire.
As for being equvilant to the mere sum of the parts, the human is part of the entire known and unknown material expression of natural life on Earth, and in that context, even the smallest single celled organism, many of which live in our bodies and for which you and I depend upon for our very lives, is more than the sum of it’s parts.
In making any kind of linkage between disability rights, the very first question that must be looked at is the question of cultural assumptions that take precedence over the meaning of the lived experience.
REPLY.. PART 1
It is simply bad logic to say that since Singer supports animal rights that that somehow means we shouldn’t, or that we shouldn’t examine the parallels of disability oppression and animal oppression. How many feminists support abortion with logic that often uses disability discrimination? Does this mean we should throw out feminism or reproductive rights, or fail to examine how our struggle is connected to the struggle of women? No, certainly not. Singer does not own animal rights and neither does PETA.
The disability community should look deeply at the parallels these two struggles have in common instead of disregarding these parallels just because we don’t like what a few animal rights people say…. or because we actually just don’t like the idea of questioning our habits and privileges- like meat eating.
Steve, you say ”I really don’t have much of an opinion on animal rights.” Do you eat meat? Do you drink milk? Then yes, you do have an opinion. What would you say if someone said they really don’t have much of an opinion about disability, but continued to support ableist ideologies? It’s not possible to be apolitical about an issue of social justice and oppression that touches us daily.
To say that connecting animal rights with disability rights is a ”bad idea” but then to not even give any of the arguments for why animal rights is a valid, important and urgent issue of social justice, is incredibly biased, incomplete and problematic.
Coreilius,
Whether it’s accurate or not tends to be a matter of debate. There’s a fairly robust body of literature, for example, that explore explanations for human consciousness, regarded as something of an emergent property, that isn’t adequately explained.
In any case, what Claire said was short, concise and coherent. You should try that sometime – along with some basic manners when introducing yourself in a new venue.
REPLY PART 2
Animals are physiologically very similar to us. Even fish, whose capacities to feel are far too often disregarded, have similar physiological reactions to pain as human beings do and react to painkillers as a human would. It is impossible to ignore the immense amount of evidence that shows that the animals we exploit are sentient, which means that they are able to experience feelings –pleasurable ones and painful ones. The question thus must be asked -if an animal is living its own life, feeling pain and pleasure, perceiving and experiencing- do we not have an obligation to avoid causing unnecessary harm to that animal? Further more, do we not have an obligation to acknowledge that animal’s right to its own life –a life that it alone is experiencing? Do we not have an obligation to try to co-exist rather than exploit?
How any of this is in opposition to or not related to disability oppression, I can’t comprehend… It seems to me that disability advocates argue for realizing new ways of valuing life that aren’t limited by specific physical or mental capabilities. We argue that it is not specifically our intelligence, our rationality, our agility, our physical independence or our bipedal nature, that give us dignity and value. We argue that life is, and should be presumed to be, worth living, whether you are a person with down syndrome, cerebral palsy, quadriplegia, autism, or like me, arthrogryposis.
At their roots, all arguments used to justify human domination over animals rely on comparing human and animal abilities and traits. We humans are the species with rationality, with complex emotions, with two legs and opposable thumbs. Animals, lacking certain traits and abilities, exist outside of our moral responsibility. We can dominate and use them, because they are lacking certain capabilities. But if disability advocates argue for the protection of the rights of those of us who are disabled, those of us who are lacking certain abilities that are highly valued by our culture, like rationality and physical independence, then how can disability advocates ignore and exclude animals for these same reasons?
Is it simply that nonhuman animals aren’t human? Remember that at one point woman, people of color, and disabled people were denied rights because they weren’t considered fully human. Why should having human DNA be the only morally relevant factor? If animals feel and are experiencing their own lives, what right do we have to own, exploit, hurt and kill them?
How can disability advocates who are deeply aware of how often our rights as disabled people are erased, ignored, and disregarded, not be more aware of how we are doing the same thing to nonhuman animals by disregarding their suffering and oppression?
It seems that some disability advocates are largely caught up in the same paradigm of human domination over animals that most people are – speciesism. I would hope as politically aware disabled people who want people to recognize and educate themselves about ableism, that we’d be a little more willing to examine our own human privileges and our biases towards animals.
Apologies for the lengthy post and I’m glad to see these ideas being discussed. Thanks, Sunaura
REPLY PART 3
Is it simply that nonhuman animals aren’t human? Remember that at one point woman, people of color, and disabled people were denied rights because they weren’t considered fully human. Why should having human DNA be the only morally relevant factor? If animals feel and are experiencing their own lives, what right do we have to own, exploit, hurt and kill them?
How can disability advocates who are deeply aware of how often our rights as disabled people are erased, ignored, and disregarded, not be more aware of how we are doing the same thing to nonhuman animals by disregarding their suffering and oppression?
It seems that some disability advocates are largely caught up in the same paradigm of human domination over animals that most people are – speciesism. I would hope as politically aware disabled people who want people to recognize and educate themselves about ableism, that we’d be a little more willing to examine our own human privileges and our biases towards animals.
Apologies for the lengthy post and I’m glad to see these ideas being discussed. Thanks, Sunaura
Corneilius, thanks for your comment on my comment, but I will never buy into any sort of “quasi-religious” belief that puts animals on par with humans. Never. I have acquaintances who, when queried as to whom they would save first from a burning auto wreck, choose the dog over the human, hands down. That is as sick as it is pathetic. The one kudo I give to animal rights activists is that they seem to really know how to get good press. Would that those of us trying to get disability to be properly understood had the same ability!
Stephen, I really relate to the comment you made about PWD Persons/People with Disabilities (some readers may not know what the initials stand for, and my memory is not perfect altho one PWD I know uses it all the time in emails to me) are not always considered “fully human”. I have heard a radio commentator, on alternative radio, who is among the many who are not well informed about disability, ask the question on the radio, “when is someone human?”. He was referring to people with severe disabilities. The care we, the disabled receive from the medical community and the media coverage of it points out that we, people with disabilities are not always/often considered “fully human”. That has made it easy to justify killing us in the past and in the present, or neglecting us or not holding accountable, nor supervising caregivers of PWDs.
While I consider human beings to be animals, I do not wish to join forces with the animal rights movement, for the reasons given in your blog entry and for the number of animal rights activists who I have heard say, on the radio, that a healthy animal is more valuable than a disabled or ill human being. Peter Singer is not the only one.
Sunaura and all,
My apologies for the delay in getting back to this. Things are a little chaotic here right now.
I really only have the time and energy right now to respond to Sunaura’s three long posts – but I do hope she reads Sanda’s comment.
It’s frustrating that so far – neither you, Sunaura, or PosterBrat actually responded to anything I actually wrote in response to him – such as the inappropriateness of comparing internal and outwardly invisible debates to highly public ones such as I highlighted with Autism Speaks and the MDA.
You brought up reproductive rights – NDY has no position on prebirth issues as an organization. As someone whose name is closely tied to the organization, I don’t make any public statements about prebirth issues – and frankly don’t focus much attention on them.
Without going over every point – I really do NOT have that much time and energy – your long comments remind me greatly of the occasional calls and emails I get from people in the prolife/anti-abortion community who say that NDY has to be against abortion. In their view, the two issues are intimately linked and that it is impossible to see it any other way.
The reality is, of course, that most people *don’t* see things that way. There are people who oppose abortion but support euthanasia and assisted suicide. There are people – like the majority of disability activists who have worked with NDY in one way or another – who identify as “prochoice/pro-abortion” but vehemently oppose euthanasia and assisted suicide.
Just because it makes sense to you doesn’t mean that it *has* to make sense to anyone else.
I am probably repeating myself here, but a major break in any comparison between “animal rights” advocacy and disability rights advocacy deals with “who speaks.”
More and more, it’s disabled people who are advocating for ourselves, much to the consternation of some former nondisabled advocates who *thought* they knew what was good for us.
Animals aren’t making the case for rights – humans are. But even some of the practices really run contrary to respecting what the individual animal if it could choose. Do you really think that cats and dogs really would choose to be sterilized? If a cat had its way, would it stay in the house or apartment, or roam as it wanted?
But those animals may be a special case – since nature didn’t fashion them. Both cats and dogs are the product of long-term selective breeding programs – primitive but effective. I sometimes wonder if there are people calling for a phased extinction of the animals, since they are not the products of natural selection and they are “exploited” in many ways by people who call themselves owners.
See, if there is any similarity between the advocacy for animal “rights” (although the animals aren’t the ones doing the advocacy) and disability – it’s with that part of our community that are believed to have significant cognitive disabilities.
That group of people have historically been targeted for sterilization, exploitation and extermination (euthanasia). Sterilization and euthanasia are both seen as acceptable in at least some circumstances for animals.
Doing what you suggest would be a step backwards in the goal of helping people viewed as having significant cognitive disabilities from premature deaths in medical settings.
I can see that there seems to be rising interest tying animal rights with disability rights in disability studies. It would be great to see as much interest in some of the real and urgent threats that are being fought now by activists and advocates – assisted suicide, euthanasia *and* the nonvoluntary killing of people through withholding of treatment (there seems to be an increase in the practice).
I’m pretty much done with this. I have things I need to turn my attention to regarding humans with disabilities.
What I appreciate about all these posts is that each person takes these issues seriously, and has a different level of engagement, or energy to devote to your point of view. NDY has steadfastly remained committed to issues of assisted suicide/euthanasia, and this is critically important to us all. It is a narrow focus on purpose, and Steve has made excellent points addressing this, and I respect that.
The animal rights movement is just as diverse (and wacky) as the disability rights movement, and none of us would like to be characterized as agreeing with any extreme of either group. This is all part of the debate enterprise.
But, I would like to point out, in response to Stephen’s last comment about “who speaks for” either PWD or animals, that animals in fact do communicate. Once again, the parallel is that humans are just beginning to figure this out, akin to figuring out the communicative intent behind people with significant communication impairments. To say that animals would have this opinion or that, is an interesting thing to consider. A whole new field in biology is dedicated to this study, and it is not “fringe” science. The basis for these assumptions is rooted in notions of competency, innate intelligence, expectations, and it does not matter to what degree or level. Coordinated activities within a beehive, migratory flight patterns of birds, dolphins fleeing capture sites and warning others, all provide clues in animal behavior and communication, and we are infants in our understanding of this.
To say that animals do not communicate is the same hubris as saying that people with significant disabilities do not have communicative intent. Are animals telling us they would rather not feel pain? Yes. They try to move away and escape under those circumstances. Do animals rebel? Do they want to vote? Who knows. Please just don’t call them “dumb animals”.
We don’t have to oppose each other, and make enemies either, as Stephen points out.
Police found a van dumping some garbage late at night. When they opened the bags, they found freshly killed, perfectly healthy, dogs, puppies, and cats. The police had already been notified that someone was dropping off dead animals. The group had been going around to shelters and “rescuing” the animals. They told the cops that they worked for Peta. Not putting much faith in their story, an officer called Peta just to check–and they did indeed work for them!
Some of these people are not what they appear to be. I love animals, but I don’t link their lives with human lives. I tend to stay away from the people who want to draw a lot of attention to themselves. I have adopted abused dogs and dogs from shelters. All of the vets and staff at the animal hospital, that I take my dog to, show their love and support for animals (including shelter animals) by their actions, not by grandstanding. I don’t think any of them would be idiotic enough to link animal rights with disability rights.