RSS feed
<< My Boss, Prayer, and God | Home | Fireproof your marriage >>

PETA and Milk

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) made another of their over the top statements - this time about milk.  They have found one Swiss restaurant, Storchen, that uses 75% human milk and 25% cows milk.  They wrote a letter on 23 Sep 08 to Ben & Jerry's (the very large US ice cream producer) pleading with them to do the same thing:  "The breast is best! Won't you give cows and their babies a break and our health a boost by switching from cow's milk to breast milk in Ben and Jerry's ice cream?"
   There are several problems with this ludicrous proposal.  Practically, one objection is price.  Human milk makes gasoline or diesel look cheep.  Chef Hans Locher desires human milk and will buy it at $4.30/pint (3 euro for 14 ml for my European audience). Thus, in America at least, it is eight times the cost of cows' milk.  Further, it is impossible for mothers to produce all the milk required. 
     This is obviously a publicity stunt, but their entire attitude is that animals are more important than humans.  Thus, they write about cows being forcibly impregnated, produce milk, and then "their exhausted bodies are turned into hamburgers."  Their solution is to use human milk!  Another example of this backwards view is that on 26 Jan 03 a donkey was used to carry explosives and was blown up by the Palestinians as it neared the checkpoint in Bethlehem.  PETA does not come out and protest against the Muslims who use suicide bombers.  In the last nine years, there have been 29 suicide attacks by children (under 18) in Israel, and in Iraq, the Muslims even resorted to a Down Syndrome child (31 Jan 05).  PETA is strangely silent when children are used to blow themselves up, but are in a tizzy when a donkey is blown up.
    Their arguments against using cows' milk is theologically unsound.  They have on their website statements like humans are the only animals who drink another animal's milk or milk is only used in animals for the first months of life.  Humans should do the same.  They have fundamentally missed the point that humans are created in God's image, and animals are not.  God has placed humans to rule over nature.  Thus, humans raise cows for milk, and meat.  And their hides are used to make shoes and jackets, and their manure is placed on plants so they grow.  Humans are also the only ones that plant vegetables.  Logically, PETA would say that is wrong as no other animal intentionally fertilizes plants.  Humans not only plant vegetables, but also weed gardens and fertilize gardens with manure so that the plants produce lots of fruits and vegetables.  PETA makes no distinction between man and animal and therefore makes mistaken judgments.  In the above example, they wrote about "cows and their babies."  No, no, no.  Cows have calves, and humans have babies.  The Bible says that humans are made to rule the universe.  Only humans are created in the image of God.  We are not animals.

Re: PETA and Milk

Good day to you Mr. Palmer. I just finished reading your text on Peta and Milk and I can agree with you on some things that you wrote. Yes, PETA can and does often make over the top statements and does do things that are very silly for the sake of publicity. I also do not agree with some of their methods to get the attention that they want in order to promote their agenda. However, that being said I can also say that I AM VERY THANKFUL FOR PETA. Lets start with their name. PETA --- People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Sounds like a noble cause to me. Treating animals with decency is NO sin. Treating animals in a cruel manner IS a sin. You state that PETA's  entire attitude is that animals are more important than humans. I dont think that this is a true or factual statement. Where is your proof? Does PETA construct large buildings with magnificent flowing springs containing plush beds for the animals while they themselves sleep outside on hay and straw? I have not heard that they do. PETA very well may place animals on the same level as humans, but I dont think that they believe that humans are subanimal even though it appears sometimes that humans act far worse than animals do. You also state that God has placed humans on Earth to rule over nature, including animals. This is very true. You state that only humans are created in the image of God. Also, very very true. Again you state that humans are not animals. Your three for three on those, its also very true. All that being said, just because God placed us in a position of authority over the animals, just because we are to rule over them does not mean we are to treat them poorly. In fact we are to be GOOD STEWARDS of this planet. After all, the Bible also states in Genesis 3:16 that "...your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Just because a husband is to rule over his wife doesnt mean he is to treat her like garbage. Therefore, I am sure that just because we are to rule over animals doesnt give us the right to treat them like garbage either. I believe that one of PETA's main agenda's is to stop the horrible cruelty towards animals. Its very wrong to leave a dog tied to a stake in a backyard without food for days until they appear emaciated and lifeless. Yet people do. It is wrong to hang chickens upside down in slaughterhouses and kill them by beating them with bats. Yet people do. It is wrong to shove a pole up the backside of an ox until it shrieks in pain and falls to its knees because it wont do what you want it to do. Yet people do. It is wrong to stomp on the head of an animal over and over until you crush its skull and blood flows from its nostrils, eyes, and ears. Yet people do. I know that these are graphic and disgusting examples of cruelty towards animals, but there are people who treat them this way. PETA stands against these acts and for that I say THANK YOU. PETA was there when the story broke about Michael Vick and his inconcievable acts of torture towards dogs came out. Michael Vick held dogs by the neck and shoved their heads underwater until they drowned and laughed while doing it. He strung them up by their necks and beat them and electrocuted them when they lost fights. He placed puppies in the ring with dogs he trained to fight and timed how many seconds it took for them to be destroyed. PETA was there to stand against this vulgar and unimaginable behavior. You ask in your text, where was PETA when muslims strapped bombs to children. How far do you want PETA to branch out Mr. Palmer? Dont many law firms specialize in one or two areas of law? You cant expect every law firm to practice all types of law can you? Then why cant PETA specialize in protecting animals so that they are not tortured? If a man straps a bomb to himself, he himself made his own stupid decision. A donkey had that decision made for them. I am glad PETA takes a stand against that. PETA has freely taken in animals and paid for their veterinary bills and saw that they were fed at no cost to their negligent owners. They have stopped the gross mistreatment of many animals in slaughterhouses. I am not a vegetarian. I dont think I ever will be. Hamburgers are still my favorite food. I believe it is ok to kill cows, chickens, etc ... for their meat. BUT DO IT IN A HUMANE MANNER. There is no need for them to suffer. Once again, I dont agree with all of PETA's tactics, but their cause to have animals treated properly is noble and right. I am not trying to put you down in making this comment, but I do think that you might want to know a little more before bashing PETA.

Re: PETA and Milk

PETA is not as ethical to animals as you might think.  Back in 2005, some PETA employees were arrested for killing and dumping the dead bodies of dogs and cats into a restaurant dumster down in North Carolina.  Read this article.

Re: PETA and Milk

  First of all I would like to thank Good Steward for a calm discussion.  So many of PETA people will not sit down and discuss things.  So thank you.
   Second, I wish there had been a little more discussion on the prevention of cruelty to animals from a historical perspective.  For you see, Christians have been in the forefront of prevention of cruelty of animals.  The leader of this movement was William Wilberforce, who strove so hard to outlaw the slave trade in England.  The film Amazing Grace portrays much of his life in fighting slave trade, but it also briefly touched on his love for animals in the scene where he gets out of the carriage in driving rain to berate the man for whipping his draft animals.  William Wlberforce, a Christian who applied the Bible to all of life, was the founder of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty of Animals.  He also worked for prison reform, supported missionary efforts, etc.
     The problem with PETA is that they can not distinguish between human and animal.  They equate them as the same.  From PETA's website: "As PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk has said, “When it comes to pain, love, joy, loneliness, and fear, a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. Each one values his or her life and fights the knife.  Only prejudice allows us to deny others the rights that we expect to have for ourselves. Whether it’s based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or species, prejudice is morally unacceptable. If you wouldn’t eat a dog, why eat a pig? Dogs and pigs have the same capacity to feel pain, but it is prejudice based on species that allows us to think of one animal as a companion and the other as dinner."
   There are many things that are interesting here.  First, they say that "Prejudice is morally unacceptable."  So they believe in morals, but that is based on what?  Do they believe in God?
   Second, this is obviously written by a Westerner as Chinese think that both dog and pig are delicious to eat.  The same with horse and cow.  It is only because we think of horses for riding that we don't eat them, but horses used to be eaten on a regular basis.  They are very high in iron, and taste delicious (yes I have eaten horse and deer and alligator).
   Third, they are saying that humans have no more or no less rights than other animals.  Thus, I do not have a right to build a house as that may take away some habitat for a fox or a deer.  If that is followed to its logical conclusion, I do not have a right to eradicate mosquitoes that carry yellow fever and that will kill me.  I do not have a right to use pesticide on my crops to feed me.
   If you believe in evolution, then the survival of the fittest should allow me to kill those that threaten me.  If you believe in God's creation, it allows me to kill pests - mosquitoes that carry diseases, etc.
   Fourth, I noticed he mentioned only mammals.  But I will kill a fly, and a mosquito without a moment's hesitation.  I will poison a mouse in my house.   
   Fifth, they state:  "We wore wool and silk, ate McDonald’s burgers, and fished. We never considered the impact of these actions on the animals involved."     PETA is even against using wool which can be gotten without killing any animals and now they are against using silk from silkworms!
   So I stand by my earlier blog.  If PETA was against the cruelty of animals, then I would be for them.  But their philosophy is based on "Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, [who] incorporated the essential basis of moral equality into his system of ethics by means of the formula: “Each to count for one and none for more than one.” In other words, the interests of every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being. …"
   PETA thus says that the silk worm has the same as the rights as a human.
   No, only man is created in God's image.  We may not abuse animals, but animals are created for our use.  We are to be good stewards of creation.  But God does allow us to kill them for leather, for food, for our survival.

Re: PETA and Milk

Thank you for your reply Mr. Palmer. I am glad that you received my comment. It appears that you have done your homework. I appreciate the fact that you did a little research before responding. I would never try to debate you on the things that PETA does wrong. If I did I would lose. I only try to bring to people's attention that PETA has done good things as well. I love animals and cannot stand to see them mistreated. I reread my previous comment and maybe I came across a bit harsh. I guess I do that sometimes. 

I also want to say that I agree with some of the statements that you made. At some points you seemed to make up your own conclusions based on statements that people from PETA or other liberal minded people made, but you are indeed entitled to your own opinion. I dont think that PETA sees humans as subanimal, but they are WRONG in putting humans on the same level. Insects are not animals and I could go on and on ... We may, in the end, have to agree to disagree.

I must admit upfront that I am not, nor will I probably ever be, a member of PETA. I only defend their organization from time to time because they have done a lot of good in regards to the mistreatment of animals. So when I hear someone say something negative about PETA, I try to remind them that PETA has done some positive things as well.

I am also not sure, but you made a statement that made me believe that you feel that I am anti-Christian. I am actually very pro-Christian. When I speak of Christians, I am talking about the REAL Christians, not the pew warmers who attend for social hour. I admire real Christians so much, I wish very dearly that I was one. But only God saves as you know, and He chooses who He saves. So dont think that I hate Christians because that just isnt so. It is good to hear about people like William Wilberforce. I will try to do a little research on him and see what I find.

I do agree, as I said before, that PETA has their faults. Ms. Newkirk, if I am correct, is a self proclaimed Athiest. I dont agree with her philosophies on life as I dont agree with PETA on all that they do. The entire comment that I originally sent to you could be summed up by saying that PETA has done many good things regarding the ethical treatment of animals. I applaud their good works. I do remember that article that Mr. Grant sent from years ago regarding the two PETA employees. I found it as disgusting then as I do now. It seems so contradictory, and it is, that an organization could do so much bad and good at the same time. I DO NOT DEFEND THEIR WRONGFUL BEHAVIOR and as I stated in my original comment, I do not support everything that PETA does. I will, however, give credit where credit is due. If PETA does something wrong I will oppose it. If they do something good I will say THANK YOU.

I have thoroughly enjoyed talking with you, Mr Palmer.

Thanks again for your reply.

Re: PETA and Milk

Add a comment Send a TrackBack