Universal Healthcare is a Human Right. And an Animal Right.

Dr. Harry King, gives a cat a check-up, as the owner, Rendi Gause keeps the cat still at the base veterinarian clinic April 22. The veterinarian offers vaccines,sick call, micro chipping and check-ups for base personnel's cats and dogs.

The right to medical care should be universal, for people as well as animals.

But many people who fully subscribe to the right of humans to be cared for are oblivious to the plight of animals who desperately need care and treatment but who are owned by people who do not have the resources to provide that care.

Opposition to universal healthcare comes from the political right. Conservatives begrudge healthcare to the poor and infirm as wasteful government expenditures. Using that logic, one would assume that conservatives in the animal movement also oppose healthcare for animals in need.

I personally cannot comprehend why anyone would consider tax dollars to be more valuable than human and animal life, but such is the case with political conservatives.

All domesticated animals, and all wild animals in captivity, are the result of human interference with nature.

There are no wild poodles. No collies running through the woods. No packs of pit bulls or rottweilers hunting game. No Persian cats in nature.

Nor are there wild Jersey cows or wild Duroc pigs. No Rhode Island Red chickens in nature, either.

Humans have created genetic changes in animals that have made them unable to survive in nature. Humans fashioned animals to make them more docile, to produce more meat or milk, to lay more eggs, to do work for humans, to make them dependent upon humans. The result is that there are billions of animals that humans can exploit, enslave, and murder.

In creating companion animals, humans bred dogs to work, to hunt, to amuse, and to serve human vanity.

Every single one of those animals and their offspring are entitled to be cared for by human society.

Nor should any companion animal be killed for convenience in municipal death camps (euphemistically called “shelters”). Whatever the cost in taxes, staffing, training, and veterinary care, every single unwanted animal has the right to live, and human society has the responsibility to keep them alive, safe, and healthy.

We have made animals our slaves and our companions, and their well being is human responsibility.

So long as society continues to possess animals, and so long as our law permits it, so should our law require that medical care be made available to any animal that needs it.

 

 

Author’s Notes:

I am unaware of any other blog with the Armory’s mission of radicalizing the animal movement. I certainly hope I am not alone, and that there are similar sentiments being expressed by comrades unknown to me.

If you know of other blogs dedicated to animal rights and the defeat of capitalism, please comment with a link.

• Be sure to follow the Armory and share it with your Facebook friends and email contacts, as well as on Twitter, Google, and all other social media platforms. Our influence and effectiveness is dependent upon you!

Natasha Sainsbury, of Good Karma Graphic Design, has joined Armory of the Revolution as Editor, and is responsible for the transformation of the blog’s appearance. Visit and follow her blog V Kind.

If you are not already subscribed to the Armory, please do so before you leave.

There’s a button to Follow us in the upper right sidebar.

• Be sure to visit Armory of the Revolution’s new commissary and bookstore: The Supply Depot

You will find recommended reading on Animal Rights, revolutionary theory, politics, economics, religion, science, and atheism. There is also a section of supplies for animal liberationists, hunt saboteurs, and social revolutionaries. This is all brand new, and we will be adding lots more merchandise in the near future!

Feel free to comment. I encourage open discussion and welcome other opinions. I moderate comments because this blog has been attacked by hunters and right wing trolls. I approve comments that are critical as well as those which agree with me. Comments that I will not tolerate are those that are spam, threatening, disrespectful, or which promote animal abuse and cruelty.

If you support the Amory’s work and mission, please help us grow.

Just $3 per month will allow us to advertise!

donate2

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Universal Healthcare is a Human Right. And an Animal Right.

  1. The problem with your narrative is the now accepted entitlement of animal ownership. People who can’t feed themselves should not have animals. The prevailing pathology is animal ownership for human sanity. We have entered a psycho-place where people seem to think an aspect of being human is possessing another species and continuing with the further abomination of particular species for amusement, employment, labor, companionship, etc. I don’t own animals; I don’t share an abode with animals; I don’t employ animals.

    I DON’T HAVE A USE FOR A NON-HUMAN ANIMAL.

    YES, LET ME SAY IT AGAIN: I DON’T HAVE A USE FOR A NON-HUMAN ANIMAL.

    However, most people have a use for an animal. They assign a role to their preferred, owned animal. Even the proud claim of having rescued a canine is a use by self-righteous “animal lovers,” many of whom share bovine burgers with their beloved, privileged canines.

    A house we own is surrounded by 9 canines (from 3 properties). What do these canines do all day? Nothing. Well, actually they bark. This is the fate of many canines in our culture. The human animals who own these docile, abominated non-human animals is put at ease when they hear their pointless canines barking at nothing in particular in the backyard.

    Let me be fair. The point of the canine is the soothing of a man’s conscience. Unfortunately, there may not be one man whose conscience isn’t twisted by overt prejudice and delusion.

    Animal ownership is a prejudice. A negative one.

    Now, the man who doesn’t play the game of animal ownership is the bearer of a more truthful conscience.

    Like

      • Yes, Roland, I know you don’t own your animals. You just provide shelter, protection, food, healthcare, etc. to them. However, from my perspective, you own them. You own them because they are essentially a disabled species unable to care for themselves, as you like to say. However, I still make the distinction that humans don’t intentionally breed disabled humans, but this is precisely what we do with the canine species. Therefore, from my perspective, you endorse this position of continued canine abomination.

        Again, I don’t participate in this game. I leave animals alone. I don’t make excuses for animal ownership. From my perspective, shelters and sanctuaries are a joke, particularly because they do little more than soothe man’s twisted perception of himself.

        Like

      • You are wrong, Jerry. I do own my animals, because that is the current state of the law. My position is that the law should be changed. Were conservatorship replace ownership, people would be required to act in the animal’s best interests, just as the conservator of a minor child or an incompetent person is required to act on their best interests. Changing the law is needed not for those who love and sacrifice for their animal companions, but for those in society who abuse, exploit, or neglect them. Conservatorships would effectively end all animal exploitation, as it would hardly be in the interests of an animal to have its throat slit or its legs chainsawed off.

        Like

      • Thank you for your diplomacy, Roland. I don’t know if I endorse conservatorship. Obviously, every species is different, but it is apparent some species are more conducive to conservatorship than others. You say the abolition of pet ownership is unrealistic, yet, I often think the abolition of eating the flesh of other earthlings is unrealistic.

        The juxtaposition of 10 billion land animals killed in this country annually with 200 million owned pet animals whom people think ought to have healthcare access is distorted.

        Animals should not be our ward. Why? Because we can’t fairly provide for each of them. When our species stops eating bovine burgers, how many bovines will be permitted to live? How many pigs will be permitted to live? How many sheep will be permitted to live? Do we continue breeding these abominated erstwhile farmed animals so we can take care of a determined number of them on sanctuaries? Is a sanctuary enclosed? Which species will benefit from sanctuaries? Do we have preserves and sanctuaries? Do we monitor the lives of all critters and maintain an artificial balance of “nature” for our mental solace?

        Well, right now, the ridiculous human critter drives around in a machine with a “toy” canine on his lap, both of whom are on their way to a haircut.

        Man’s supposed love of animals is merely the feeling he has toward the one(s) he possesses.

        My motto: change your metaphysics; be a leaver, not a taker, honor your conscience; and leave the animals alone.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s