I tend to stay away from current events in my blog, because they generally annoy or depress me so much. I also like to spare any readers of my blog similar discomfort. But this story, which I read in today's paper, just couldn't go by without a sarcastic comment from me.
"PETA accuses SeaWorld of enslaving orcas"
(follow this link if you'd like to read the whole story)
Here's the scoop: Some folks from PETA, concerned over the health conditions of some orcas at SeaWorld, got together and began forming a lawsuit against SeaWorld. They worked on this suit for 18 months. Why it took them that long, I don't know. Did it take folks that long to come up with the simple bumper sticker slogan "Save the whales?" At any rate, it took them 18 months -- probably because they were scrabbling for any scrap of legal law/document (like the 13th amendment) that could somehow be applied to whales instead of humans. But more on this later. For right now, suffice it to say that SeaWorld replied that PETA's suit was "baseless" -- an understandable remark, as any average pet owner with a little bit of common sense knows. (Although there seems to be a considerable lack thereof, so maybe we should call it "unusual sense"?)
As if this wasn't bad enough, read this statement from Jeff Kerr, PETA's general counsel:
"By any definition, these orcas are slaves — kidnapped from their homes, kept confined, denied everything that's natural to them and forced to perform tricks for SeaWorld's profit."
Kerr's beginning statement, By any definition, fascinates me. Interesting choice of words, wouldn't you say? I was compelled to look up the actual definition of the word "slave", as it's not a word that I've ever had to look up before. Until now, every English-speaking person seemed to agree unconsciously on the exact meaning of "slave". So here's what I found:
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person
"Person" seems to be the key word here. According to Kerr, an orca is a person. And if an orca is a person, then any animal is a person.
Quick, let's rally to the cause of the poor little house flies! These helpless persons are being trapped and enslaved in the webs of the nasty, mean old spiders!! But wait a minute -- these spiders have rights too! They're persons, after all! Stop stepping on all the spiders, you evil human beings, because they're people just as much as you are!
Enough of that. Moving on, let's look at PETA's claim regarding the 13th amendment. According to tbo.com:
"People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is accusing the SeaWorld parks of keeping five star-performer whales in conditions that violate the 13th Amendment ban on slavery. The suit...hinges on the fact that the 13th Amendment, while prohibiting slavery and involuntary servitude, does not specify that only humans can be victims."
This also intrigued me, so I decided to look up the 13th Amendment as well and see how PETA could get evidence for their claim from this integral part of our constitution. They are right on one point, that the Amendment indeed does not specify that only humans can be victims. (I'm sure Abraham Lincoln did not feel that such detail was necessary.) It does, however, say that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" shall continue in the United States. Involuntary, hmm. Do whales really have the will to make voluntary choices?
In case you're wondering, here is the meaning of the word "voluntary":
1. done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice
2. of, pertaining to, or acting in accord with the will
"Free choice", "in accord with the will" -- these seem to imply that slavery is only slavery when the person (or maybe PETA would say the creature) involved would choose to do otherwise than what he is currently doing but is forcefully prevented from doing so.
Sure, the whales would immediately swim for the open ocean if they were given the opportunity. But is this not merely the act of instinct? Could you really imagine the whale keeper standing in front of the whales with a bucket of fish and saying to them in a reasonable tone, "Now you can choose between freedom and food; which would you like to have?"
The point is, WHALES DO NOT HAVE FREE WILL, because they do not have sophisticated intellects like humans do. They do not have reason. They can't look at the whale keeper's bucket of fish and say, "Oh, that looks really tasty, and the open ocean is too dangerous, so I think I'll stay here." (On a more spiritual level, they also do not have immortal souls, but that's beside the point.)
Perhaps I am getting too wound up about this. But it's hard to see something like this going on, and know that millions of unborn babies have been murdered because they do not have rights. It's also hard to see fellow Americans disrespect the dignity and sacredness of our Constitution by lowering it to the level of mindless beasts.
This is not to say that I don't love whales. I think they are beautiful creatures, but please don't ask me to treat them like human beings. This is just taking "Save the whales" a step too far. Instead of "Save the whales" it should be "Save my sanity" -- please!
Lady Clare