Sep 10 2010
Animals > People: An HSUS Legal Fantasy
Remember Carter Dillard? Until last year he was a lawyer in HSUS’s Farm Animal Litigation department (also known as the “Sue the Hand that Feeds Us” campaign).
In 2008 Dillard took a position at Loyola University’s (New Orleans) law school while remaining “Of Counsel” to HSUS. He has since become Director of Litigation at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a California-based animal rights group that (surprise!) sues a lot of people.
Along with his animal rights focus (or perhaps because of it), Dillard has worked extensively on the subject of human population control. Dillard doesn’t believe Americans should have the unlimited right to have children. Really. We're not making this up. He argues that this right should be balanced against the “rights” of other things—like the wilderness and “non-human species.” We can safely say that the “Octomom” isn't on his Christmas card list.
Dillard’s most recent academic papers are a fascinating read, because his already bizarre philosophy of thinning the human herd to save animals has taken a turn toward even greater absurdity. And because the animal rights movement apparently thinks he's on to something.
In a paper titled “Procreation, Harm, and the Constitution,” published in the Northwestern University Law Review, Dillard argues that there is (or should be) a constitutional limit on an American’s right to have kids if—wait for it—the kid’s life won’t be “worth living”:
[A] state can constitutionally justify a legal prohibition on procreation in certain circumstances using the notion of threshold harm, because it accounts for what has been recognized as a compelling state interest: the prevention of children living in certain existences that fall below a given threshold level of well-being.
Remember the psychic crime predictors in the movie “Minority Report”? This is worse, because the “crime” is merely going through the motions of a life that the government would rather you not lead.
Maybe you’re a lousy parent, by some bureaucratic standard. Or maybe you’re poor. Or maybe your unborn child tests positive for Tay-Sachs disease (usually fatal by age four). In Dillard's world, all of these might be constitutionally acceptable reasons for the state to force someone to ... well, not reproduce.
It’s easy to see where this is going. Taking one step further, this logic could easily justify eugenics. And what about people already living “bad” lives—would it be reasonable to “put down” the homeless? The mentally ill? Toddlers with Down syndrome?
Dillard’s past writings suggest that he's trying to build a case for “overpopulation” as a legal reason to stop all human procreation in America beyond one or two kids per female—for the animals' and the wilderness’s sake. (They have "rights" too, he says.)
Remember, Dillard built his legal chops at HSUS, which has spent some of its donors' money supporting a group called “Zero Population Growth.” There’s a current running through the animal rights movement that sees thinning the herd of “human animals” as essential to preventing cruelty to “non-human animals.” Just ask Wayne Pacelle, who nicely sums up the intersection of animal rights and population control: “I take it as a very serious personal responsibility not to put another consumer on this planet.”
You can trace most of the animal rights movement’s anti-human sentiment back to its intellectual Saint Peter, Princeton University professor Peter Singer (author of the book Animal Liberation). Dillard’s presumption that some human lives aren’t “worth living” are pressed from the same mold as Singer’s approval of infanticide for diseased or deformed newborn babies.
Singer reasons that newborns don’t have “rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness,” which define personhood:
Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings.
So an ape is equivalent to a “normal” human being, but a newborn child isn’t?
This explains how animal-rights true believers come to view human life as not being inherently valuable.
When Wayne Pacelle dupes his donors into thinking HSUS is a pet shelter group, one of the perverse outcomes is the flow of money to lawyers who seem to think that saving animals depends on preventing (or killing) people.
That's quite a “big picture” vision. It's time we all faced up to it and let ourselves imagine that it might someday become reality.
Got a comment? Be sure to leave your thoughts below. From August 23 to October 29, 2010 we will be choosing the two best comments each week of 25 words or more, and awarding $100 (each) to the local pet shelters of the commenters' choice. Click here for more information and the official rules.
Related People
Related Organizations
Comments
I guess controlling the lives of animals wasn’t fulfilling enough so he’s moved on to people. Does he not have control of his life so he needs to control others lives?
I have joked with friends that all people should have to take an IQ/common sense test, and if they don’t get certain questions right or don’t score a certain percentage they will be temporarily sterlized when they walk through the door. I feel people should at least have a chance to smarten up. This only came up as a responce to keep stupid people from procreating, becuase our society keeps getting more and more stupid. But I think if you’re born you should at least get at shot a life and not just killed because you carry a bad gene, or are deformed.
This is absurd. The beauty of being an American is that we have the freedom to reproduce, eat meat, own pets, etc. Yes I agree that some people should not reproduce but why punish everyone for the mistakes of a few. If we are to remove the mentally ill from society then we should start with all of the extremists. I hope no one in the HSUS has more than 1 or 2 children.
Who the hell does this guy think he is?
I am curious where Dillard would put his status as far as procreation and harm goes. I would venture a guess that his genetic issues would somehow never become public, and that, instead, he will remain childless and without a long term adult partner as well—as it should be.
What is truly pathetic, though, is that he has published in the Northwestern University Law Review. His attitude of seeing no harm in killing babies and children because they are not yet rational and self-conscious simply reflects what many psychologists would describe as one of many severe personality disorders that is borderline dangerous and may require eventual removal from society for its protection. We see this anti-social behavior and attitude attributed to some of the most dangerous serial killers in the world—all of them have no remorse for their behavior and are convinced that they are doing good for mankind in some sort of perverted way.
I think that 80% of my friends & family members shouldn’t had kids!!! I myself don’t have kids (personal choice) I would adopt a child(ren) but I would never have my own! I agree with him and can see what he’s trying to do & say. I really think that kids need to be educated on how easy it is to respect earth and all its creatures & humans so by the time they’re adlts they’ll have that in mind & there will be less animal & human cruelty! It all starts from home so we need to blame the parents too!!! Again, I do understand what he’s trying to promote and I stand aside to make this a better earth.
I just find it hard to kill something that eats , sleeps, bares and loves their babies, has eyes, organs and poops. Remember that we humans ARE the most destructive to earth and all on it. How about when a marrage licence is posessed it should be marked if these two are allowed to reproduce. Have the two people who want to get married get evaluated mentally so the decision will be based upon should a child be handled by these two.
The “culling of the herd” can begin with the members of HSUS, once they’ve led by example, the rest of the World could follow suit. 
I totally agree. I’m not an American and this country is a mess. People on charity care, food stamps,with 5 kids…this is out of control.Plus the biggest problem in America is obesity,I wonder why.One kid per family,that’s all it should be
One thing I do not understand about these anti-human humans is, if they are so convinced humans are less valuable than non-human animals, and are over-populating the planet, why do they not, among themselves, organize a mass suicide? Would hate to see that of course but if they follow their own warped reasoning to it’s logical conclusion, they would be taking themselves out. Has Mr. Pacelle simplified his consumer lifestyle in addition to not reproducing?
One positive in this is that Wayne Pacelle’s genes will not be passed on. Who defines “worth living” ? Helen Keller? Stephen Hawking? Each child is a precious gift.
Yes, we need to focus more on conservation, and preservation of our natural resources. And yes, more affluent, better educated people tend to have fewer kids. His proposal sounds like something in a future society type movie thriller. The truly scary part is that animal lovers are unknowingly funding this warped thinking. Please give locally!
Eugenics? Murder of the unfit? Does anyone else see where this is leading?
Who decides how “a given threshhold of well-being” is determined? That is one sad delusional piece of humanity. God help us all if he is training our next generation of legal minds.
Sounds like the students who watched a video of a man in a Superman outfit being beaten to death and they howled with laughter. yet had tears streaming down their faces when a rabbit is killed for food.
Noooo, the animal rights folks bear no responsibility for what happened at the discovery channel…....
A pregnant woman’s stomach labeled “animal Killer”? Sheesh.
Wackaloons.
This image begs the question: what right do we have to take the life of any living being? Not just unborn babies! We are not God. The world is either already overpopulated or on the verge of it…You don’t see the President putting babies to sleep.
Full disclosure: I am an older Catholic woman who has tried to live an ethical life: vegetarian / vegan for 40 years, etc. I have adhered to the requirements of the CLE (consistent life ethic). God really has a great sense of humor because when I was contracepting at age 21 with an IUD, I got pregnant (odds about 1-2/100) - and not only that - I had identical twins! They are now beautiful 42 year olds who treat their old Mom very well. Would love to win, so that a contribution could be made to Delta Rescue. Thanks!
What disturbs me as much as his inane ideas is that he is, or was, being paid to impart them to a new generation of lawyers.
So stupid—and ignores the fact that we have already achieved zero population growth (when you ignore immigration).
Most North Americans are not having enough children to maintain our current population which is why both our governments are encouraging immigration to stimulate the economy.
Population growth is happening in third world countries where women are denied an education and access to birth control. If you want to save the planet, educate women and give them a choice.
I have been researching in depth all aspects of , H$U$ and the AR agenda for quite some time now. My findings have led me to conclude that this is a cult with a large bank account feeding off of many innocent people. The cult, H$U$ in this event, has set a goal in what they want their perfect utopia to be and have been slowly “brain washing” people from all walks of life and all financial levels. Those people whom they are able to bring to their side are changed to the point that they loose all respect for others and others’ constitutional rights and many forget who they are and where they came from. They want to impose their way of life on each person in society and will stop at nothing to achieve this goal. H$U$ is a way of life and not an organization that wants to help animals. If we include this aspect of a change of life into our campaigns against H$U$, maybe then the public would finally realize that this cult is trying to take away personal freedoms and choices. How many people would actually support no domestic animals, a vegan menu leading to no animal agriculture and human population control? I for one would fight to the death for my rights as an America…the rights that have been promised to me under the Constitution of the United States of America.
We all live on Space-Ship URth !!!!!!!!
What happens when the population growth exceeds the ability of said URth to feed the Population?
Anybody living on a Space-ship would be a total fool to destroy that ship…to do so would mean suicide!
I have to say I agree to a certain extent. I am a definate animal rights activist and also a mother so I am coming from both sides here. I do believe that we have invaded their territory(animals) leaving them with no place to go and there should be harsher penalities for animal cruelty, I also believe there are MANY people who should not of had children, and I am really tired of all these people who are on welfare and have 4,5 + kids obveously that comes out of my paycheck! Aside from that point there are many children out there in some bad situations, however I don’t believe in murder,abortion etc. It’s a real tough call on how to fix either problem but there needs to be more respect for the earth, animals and all GOD’S creatures!!
This is not an animal rights issue, this is a human quality of life issue! Every environmental problem is the direct result of one thing: TOO MANY PEOPLE. One does not need to be an animal rights activist to support limits on human breeding. ONE BILLION people were added to the planet in just the last ten years. How long until another billion are added to this finite planet?
I feel pity for every baby born now who will never have access to the open outdoor space I was able to explore as a child. I seriously wonder if the incredibly selfish and deluded human species will ever be able to see beyond the end of its own nose and act rationally on this issue before it is too late.
There certainly is something wrong with this world when people are more worried about the plight of animals than their fellow human beings. And we wonder why the world is crazy! However, there may be one positive outcome to the mindset of animal rights activists that believe they shouldn’t have children… They won’t have children of their own to brainwash and carry on the cycle… Maybe one day the AR advocates will become extinct!
There is oodles of animal welfare, environmental and consumer research happening in our country and abroad that targets population growth and the co-existence of human/animal populations in their surrounding environments. It would be nice to see the H$U$ funding a solution that seeks real BALANCE instead of legally raping the Constitution of the United States with ‘word plays’ to shove a minority lifestyle on the majority of people. The scientists and the companies that are actively researching these solutions will be the real heroes for the future welfare of ‘Spaceship URth!’
Lori wrote: “I just find it hard to kill something that eats , sleeps, bares and loves their babies, has eyes, organs and poops. Remember that we humans ARE the most destructive to earth and all on it. How about when a marrage licence is posessed it should be marked if these two are allowed to reproduce. Have the two people who want to get married get evaluated mentally so the decision will be upon should a child be handled by these two.”
———————————————————
So, Lori, you think that the government and its bureaucrats should be deciding who is “fit” to reproduce and who isn’t? That sounds an awful lot like eugenics and social Darwinism to me. It also smacks of tyranny. Freedom, much like human rights, is such a silly, outdated, old-fashioned notion, I guess, huh? Who would be considered “fit” under your system? Those with blond hair and blue eyes? It’s sad that this philosophy lives on in some people.
Brice Walk wrote: “I guess controlling the lives of animals wasn’t fulfilling enough so he’s moved on to people. Does he not have control of his life so he needs to control others lives?”
—————————————————————
Absolutely. Remember that animal rights actually has little to do with animals, but the desire to control other people is what really lies at the heart of it. These people want to control everything from what you eat, to what companion animals you may or may not have, to what entertainment you may or may not enjoy, to what medical treatments may or may not be available to you. Animal rights = people control.
WTH is wrong with people here? I guess xenophobia, classism, and eugenic sentiments are alive and well. I wish they’d teach some population stats or economics in schools. Either way, The Coming Population Crash: and Our Planet’s Surprising Future is a great book.
Well, if Wayne is honest (good lord, did I really say that?) about his decision not to procreate, maybe we should nominate him for a Darwin award.
First of all, to knowingly and willfully bring a child with a disease like Tay-Sachs should be illegal, but not because they aren’t worth their salt as human beings. Secondly, it would be nice if population growth slowed down, but not by force. I understand the sentiment, but not the reasoning. I consider people to be animals as well, and yeah, I valued the life of my dog over the life of any random person walking down the street, but not because she was a dog, it was because she was MY dog. As the “intelligent” species on the planet, I do think it is our responsibility to help and protect those that can’t save themselves, especially from our destruction. This doesn’t mean just protecting humans, but it also doesn’t mean only protecting animals. This guy is a quack.
They have a point. Do I agree with them on the subject of killing infants? Absolutely not. However, you have to look at it from an ecological aspect. The human population is increasing rapidly, well over the carrying capacity. We are becoming a danger to our own biosphere. And the worst part? Most people have no idea about this. Young people should be educated about what the ecological footprint we are leaving on the world. They should know how our population growth is snuffing out the populations of other species worldwide. We’re killing ourselves. Eventually it won’t matter how many children we have, or if we kill them after birth. They will starve. Excess pollution and contamination of bodies of water and other terrestrial ecosystems will cause epidemics that will wipe out mass amounts of people, even with modern medicine. Wars will break out en masse over resources like food and water. And if that doesn’t work, global warming will take its part. It will be “The Day After Tomorrow” all over again.
i think aniamls are as valuble as ANY again ANY stupid humin…exept God of course! i mean would you relly let a horse,ect surrfer while you save peeple?! no way!! i woudlo be the one soving flash,flffy,or fido…and humans!! but at the same time!
I don’t think that’s what he’s getting at. The idea is that we’re clearly destroying our world, due to the amount of people in it. That’s evident and scientific fact that no one can deny.
If we reduce the population from this date forward, we are helping our world. Naturally, we CAN’T do it by killing unborn infants, or those that are incapacitated. That would be just as bad as what we’re doing now, and it’s unethical. The idea is, though, if you are a carrier of a disease, you should not create more babies that are subject to the same disease. And, if we’re smart, we won’t just keep increasing our population, causing more stress on our world’s supplies.
Don’t we have enough starvation and thirst going on in the world? Do you want to see more children suffer?
And, if a person is incapable of taking care of their children, such as a KNOWN child abuser, would you want more children to suffer under their hand?
I think that’s what he’s really saying.
The way we are living is not sustainable. You don’t have to be a scientist to figure out that if the population continues to grow, there will be problems for humanity in the future. Unless we wake up and start showing respect for the earth and all life on it, the future will be full of misery for future generations. As the most intelligent beings on this planet we have a moral obligation to look after the the earth and all its creatures.
Humans take, take, take goodness from the earth and don’t give back nothing but waste. This can’t go on forever.
Everything taken must be given back!
Humans and Animals (we are animals, too!!) should be treated equally! If we share this world, we cant just think of us! Animals are being pushed out just so we can have what we want of this Earth and not give anything back. Its time to stand up against people who are like this! These creatures have every right we do!
Comments are moderated, and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. Extremely lengthy comments and those that contain obscenities may be edited before they are posted.
Add a comment:
I never understood the anti-human sentiment of the AR movement. If indeed they believe that animals deserve the same rights and liberties as humans, why would humans have to reduce their population to preserve animals? Sounds like speciesism to me, with humans being the species given the lesser value. If the ARs can make exceptions to kill a human animal so a cow, for example, can live, then they should support my right to kill a cow so that I can live.