Speciesists Say the Darndest Things: Canine Teeth

Speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species) is wrong because, like sexism, racism, and other forms of irrational prejudice, it uses an irrelevant criterion (in this case, species) to devalue certain sentient beings.

In this section, we (non-violently) rip apart your silly arguments in favour of species discrimination.

(Image courtesy of Emmy James)

Once upon a time, a speciesist said to me…

“So what if human beings don’t have sharp teeth, like most carnivores? We can make tools (such as spears) instead. Perhaps our canines started shrinking once they were no longer as useful, but the fact that we have them shows that they were useful.”

Even if humans once had sharp teeth, big claws, and bodies that could actually digest meat easily, does that justify eating meat now? In this day and age, humans can be perfectly healthy without consuming animal products, so unless we’re lost and starving on a desert island where there’s nothing but animals (who somehow survive despite the lack of vegetation), we have no reason to.

Our puny little canines – which, by the way, some herbivores also have, and are more like ours than the teeth of carnivores – aren’t a good justification for continuing to participate in violence towards other animals, just like owning a sharp knife in your kitchen drawer doesn’t justify murdering humans.

The animals we use have no say as to whether they live or die. But we do have a choice. We can choose between violence or non-violence. These are sentient, feeling beings with an interest in continued life. They don’t care about what sort of teeth we have or about our ability to make tools. They care about their lives.

~Emmy James

Emmy is a vegan living in New Zealand. You can find her at her personal blog, The Peaceful Abolitionist.

Speciesists Say the Darndest Things: But Nature is Crueler!

Speciesism (discrimination on the basis of species) is wrong because, like sexism, racism, and other forms of irrational prejudice, it uses an irrelevant criterion (in this case, species) to devalue certain sentient beings.

In this section, we (non-violently) rip apart your silly arguments in favour of species discrimination.

(Image Courtesy of Emmy James)

Once upon a time, a speciesist said to me…

“You seem to forget that animals in the wild don’t get to live without eventually being eaten. I look at it this way: at least domesticated animals are raised properly and live a decent life before they are eaten. It’s far better than what they would get in the wild.”

Perhaps we should still keep humans as slaves as well. There’s a possibility they could get killed in a natural disaster if we don’t!

The thing is, domesticated animals are owned by us. They don’t have a choice as to how long they live for or what happens to their babies. They can’t even raise their babies. We are in control of them and every aspect of their lives. They are, in effect, our slaves.

Even though there is a chance that a predator might eat them in the wild (not all ‘wild’ [or free-roaming] herbivores end up getting eaten), they get to be in control of their lives. They can raise families without the pain of losing a baby after every birth. They can live without the stress of moving to other herds and never seeing their friends and family again. They live for as long as nature intends them to live, on their own terms, rather than living and dying on our terms. Undomesticated, they are free. At the end of the day, slaves that are treated well by their slave-owners are still property. I would much rather be in control of my own life, than have another control it nicely. That’s why I, and many others, are working to abolish the property status of animals. Their lives are just as valuable to them, as ours are to us.

~Emmy James

Emmy James is a vegan from New Zealand. You can find her at her personal blog, Peaceful Abolitionist.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.