THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, July 25, 1996 TAG: 9607250001
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A15 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: OPINION
SOURCE: By Patrick Lackey, Staff Writer
LENGTH: 77 lines
In all the hullabaloo over PETA's recent arrival in Norfolk, it seems as though everyone is supposed to support either animal or human rights - no middle ground allowed.
Some people suddenly think writing terrible things about animals is funny and, in fact, pro-human.
An anti-PETA article by James Frasca in the July 16 Port Folio describes ways to torture cats. ``My favorite torture,'' he wrote, ``is one I've practiced since childhood.'' He stuffs a cat in a pillow case, so it can't land on its feet, and throws it out a window. ``For world-class kitty tossing,'' he suggested, ``try the middle of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel.'' Frasca meant to be humorous, of course. I've given only the most-amusing parts.
In search of middle ground between animal and human rights, I talked to a woman who has worked to ease the suffering of both animals and humans. She is Sharon Adams, who for several years has directed the Virginia Beach Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Previously she worked 20 years with humans, part of that time as a parole officer; later she set up shelters for battered women.
Adams said she never worked with any murderers or rapists who didn't have in their files reports of their being cruel to animals or children or both.
As a child, Albert DeSalvo, the ``Boston Strangler'' of the '60s, trapped dogs and cats in orange crates and shot arrows into the boxes. Frasca never mentioned that funny game. Ted Bundy, who may have committed as many as 50 murders, passed much of his childhood torturing animals with his grandfather.
Many studies have shown that children's cruelty to animals is, in fact, a human problem, because sick children become sick adults who prey on people, especially children.
Conversely, people who are kind to animals generally are kind to humans.
Cruelty is cruelty, no matter the victim, and kindness is kindness, no matter the recipient.
At the Virginia Beach SPCA, Adams said, ``we are trying to increase the capacity for love, compassion and kindness.''
Does anybody object to that?
Yet many people would have you believe that to be kind to animals is to turn your back on human suffering. The time spent saving a wounded animal, they claim, should have gone to help a person.
But kindness doesn't work that way. When you give kindness, somehow you have still more to give. You probably remember the parable of the cup of love. Although love pours out, the cup never empties.
What's unclear is how kind we should be to animals, and to which animals. PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, says not to fish or hunt and not to eat animals. Don't use animals for your own purposes, PETA says. (Adams, by the way, fishes, as have I, though not lately.)
Adherents to the Jain religion in India would say we shouldn't kill any creature. They don't burn candles for fear of igniting moths. They wear masks to keep from inhaling and killing creatures too small to see. They seem nuts.
I once told the North Carolina animal-rights philosopher Tom Regan that I kill fleas, as many as I can catch. Where, I asked, should I draw the line on killing animals?
Regan told me he didn't know where to draw the line. He kills fleas himself. Still, he said, uncertainty as to where to draw the line is no excuse for cruelty.
In restaurants, I tend to order either vegetables or meat from the dumbest animal on the menu. I never eat humans, cats or dogs. I seldom eat ham, since pigs are really smart. When I eat animals, I tend to eat chickens or fish. As far as I know, they aren't that bright.
But I don't deny that birds and fish can feel. I would have them killed to be eaten by me, but I wouldn't torture them.
All of us can agree with part of what PETA says. Many of us will disagree with part of what PETA says. But none of us should intentionally cause pain and suffering to animals.
Cruelty is cruelty, and it stinks.
Albert Schweitzer said, ``Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives.'' MEMO: Mr. Lackey is an editorial writer for The Virginian-Pilot. by CNB