The animal rights group, PETA, has sunk to new depths of absurdity. This organization now analogizes the treatment of animals to human slavery. Chaining elephants is akin to the chaining of slaves; hoisting animal carcasses on hooks is the moral equivalent of lynching, etc.
Having smuggled other species into the concept of "rights," I wonder why PETA would stop with animal life forms. Why not vegetables as well? I am certain that our incarceration of lettuce in refrigerator crisper drawers must violate some principle of which I am unaware. And how does the skinning of a banana differ from the whipping of a slave? Nor can my wife's potted plantation of nasturiums escape moral condemnation.
In fact, a stronger case can be made for the protection of vegetables than for animals. Animals are able to run, swim, and fly to escape the clutches of humans. But vegetables remain stuck in the ground, unable to move. Which class of our "brethren" are more in need of our rescue?
Of course, all of this might make it difficult for us humans to nourish and sustain ourselves. Perhaps PETA's answer to this dilemma will be found in the question: "if vegetarians eat only vegetables, what do humanitarians eat?"
