Animals Have A Right To Life, Humans Need Not Apply

On New Year’s Eve, 1992 I read a small, innocuous article, little more than a paragraph, in the Florida Times-Union newspaper. The article told of an eagle’s nest that had been knocked to the ground when the tree it was resting in had been cut down by a construction crew. Environmentalists had rushed the nest and its cargo of eagle’s eggs to a local veterinarian so that they could be saved.

The article stated that, after a thorough examination, the veterinarian had determined that the eggshells were intact. The unborn eagles were healthy and clinging to life, inside of their shells. As a member of the pro-life community, my first reaction was to laugh at the obvious irony, but little more. But the more I thought about it, the more that irony began to bother me, as I began to see what I perceived as a rather obvious disconnect in how society views animal life versus human life.

I decided to write a letter to the editor of the Florida Times-Union pointing out that irony and my subsequent perception of that disconnect. I had never written a letter to the editor before, but I decided that I had something important to point out to my community that no one else seemed to have noticed. This was the letter that I wrote:



3 January, 1993
Dear Editor,

Our society has truly risen to a higher plane of enlightenment. A few recent letters and articles clearly illustrate the direction of philosophical change our nation is taking. A New Year’s Eve article told of a veterinarian’s efforts to determine the presence of “life” inside an unhatched eagle egg which had been disturbed. In our nation today, it is a criminal act to harm, or otherwise disturb, the unborn offspring of endangered species, such as bald eagles or loggerhead turtles.

I don’t understand the logic in these laws. I was under the impression that pro-abortion groups had determined that unborn “life” had no rights in this country. I was led to believe that “life” begins at birth (hatching), and at no time prior, Apparently, that principle only applies to the human species.

If life is indeed precious, then ALL life-forms are precious. If we refuse to tolerate the wanton extermination and extinction of plant and animal life-forms, at all stages of development, the principles of consistency require that that same standard be equally applied to human life-forms, at all stages of development.

Double standards are never fair or justified. The principles which are applied to, or enforced on, one group must be done so equally for all groups. It is only then that true fairness will have a chance to exist. To do less, results only in a constant power-shift from one extreme to the other.



Well, much to my amazement, and excitement, my letter was printed about 4 days later. It was the first time I had ever had anything I had written printed anywhere other than my own personal journals. I was more than a little surprised that the letter was printed with just a few minor changes. I made sure that everyone I knew saw the letter.

A few days later, someone wrote a response taking issue with my suggestion of the double standards with regard to the definition of “life” employed by environmentalist, animal rights fanatics, and pro-abortion groups. In fact, he seemed to infer that I must be some kind of idiot. He wrote:



"13 January 1993
Dear Editor,

A recent letter found a double standard, or inconsistency, with the fact that “it is a criminal act to harm or otherwise disturb the unborn offspring of endangered species, such as the eggs of bald eagles or loggerhead turtles”, while at the same time human abortion is legal.

The rather obvious point that the writer seems to be missing is the fact that the only species to which these laws apply are endangered species. Fortunately, they are not applied to other animals or eggs that are not endangered.

While comparing humans and animals is like comparing apples and oranges, in this case at least, the legality of abortion in humans (clearly not an endangered species) is entirely consistent and, in fact, no double standard exists at all.”




I love a good political argument. This guy had challenged my thesis. His letter got me fired up. He had picked up my thrown gauntlet and inadvertently proved my point for me. I quickly dashed off my response to the editor, which the editor decided not to print. I wrote:



13 January 1993
Dear Editor,

The January 13th response to my letter on double standards provided an excellent example of the point I was trying to make. The writer’s emphatic position that there is no inconsistency between one policy to preserve endangered, unborn animal life and another to exterminate unborn human life clearly demonstrates that a greater value has been placed on the life of the animal.

The writer is correct to point out that we humans are not an endangered species. However, if the dreams of our newly elected, liberal, moral-phobic government are realized, I am sure that this will only be a temporary condition. Maybe then unborn humans will be a protected species.




I learned a few lessons in writing letters to the editor from this episode. Editors generally do not encourage sparring matches between letter writers and if you want to have a letter printed, it is usually best to tone down the sarcasm. Nevertheless, my appetite had been aroused. I had found a medium where I could speak and the whole community would take notice, not to mention the buffing my ego received when friends and family commented on my brilliance!

The point I sought to make in my letters remains valid to this day. When it comes to how we protect unborn life in this country, we view animal life differently than we view human life. Even with regard to non-endangered species, we punish those who harm animals at all stages of development under animal cruelty statutes.

At the other end of the life cycle, we move heaven and earth to prevent the deaths of whales and dolphins who attempt suicide by beaching themselves, yet more and more states are passing euthanasia laws to allow medically assisted suicide for humans. Perhaps if we view humans as merely a part of the animal kingdom instead of the elites of the animal kingdom humans could be afforded the same considerations of right to life.

That’s my view……..what’s yours?
Sgt. Eaglebeak