Freedom Defender

Reporting on politics, society, principles, Christian interest and news that intrigues me.

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Kat Killers!!!

In Austin, Texas the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown is showing the film "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat". The Austin Chronicle has an article about the Cat killing snuff film. The article asks the question if the film is "Art" or is it a vile film glorifying violence?

The article makes no mention of the vicious maliciousness it takes to mutilate and kill a cat. Not to mention the precarious ground one stands on to make a film out of that story.

It seems like killing animals is en vogue now, because even PETA is getting in on the animal killing action. Yes, PETA, the "People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals", has a policy that causes them to kill most animals given to them.

To my surprise, PETA kills 79.6% of the animals they take in. From 1998-2003 PETA killed 79.6% of all animals given to them, almost 1,800 animals per year. You can see more details about PETA's pro-killing animals stance on In fact, "two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were arrested on 31 felony animal-cruelty charges for killing and disposing of dogs and puppies in a dumpster".

How can PETA be for killing animals? How does PETA defend the fact that they've killed 79.6% of the animals given to them?

PETA believes that it is better to "euthanize" animals than to let them out on the streets. They believe that euthanizing almost 1,800 animals per year, is more humane than having them live on the streets. PETA believes it is better for animals to be killed than to let them look for food or to rely on the kindness of people who leave out food for stray animals. PETA believes this... do you?

Are PETA's actions morally equivalent to the perpetrators in "Casuistry: The Art of Killing a Cat"? Or is PETA's killing better?

PETA "programs include euthanizing animals it considers to be unadoptable.' However, Ahoskie veterinarian Patrick Proctor called at least two of the animals 'very adoptable' kittens".

What do you think about killing stray animals, like PETA does? Do you think that they have a better chance of survival as a stray than 79.6% chance of death they have at PETA? PETA believes that these strays have such a poor quality of life that it is better to kill them? Do you?

Here's what I think about PETA's pro-death stance:
I am quite spiciest. I believe that man and woman are made in God's image. God gave us the command to “fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground”. We have a spirit that animals do not have. I recognize that God gave man a special place above animals and I know that others do not recognize this. Because I believe this truth and others don't, PETA’s position on this is troubling to me for other reasons.

For those of the paradigm that people are not different than animals (and I bring this up because many in PETA have this view that man is not greater than animals), this is really a question of life versus quality of life.

For those who believe man is no more special than animals, this is the question "if the person or animal will not have a full healthy quality life, should we kill it"? It disturbs me to condone the ideals of the Culture of Death that PETA is promoting among animals. But on the other hand, I don’t feel that the sanctity of animals lives is as valuable as the sanctity of a human life.

I do feel that PETA is being hypocritical and that some animal protection organization should oppose their penchant for euthanizing animals. I believe their arguments for animals quality of life undermine the sanctity of those animals lives. Maybe I don’t disagree with their ends (although I have some suggestions for PETA to increase adoptions in their offices), but the means they use to mentally justify their killings is very troubling. I believe PETA is being hypocritical, but since we have been given authority to rule over the animals of the Earth, it may be best to euthanize these animals to avoid rabid wild animals from roaming the streets.

What do you think?


At 8:48 PM, Blogger Travis Fell said...

Dear FD,
It's great to see your first Austin Blogger post. You are so big time!
One note on etiquette: when posting to austinbloggers, please be sure to include the link to the individual post, not just your top-level blog URL. For example, for this story you should post the URL:

PETA and euthanization: Well, it's not optimal, but it is probably better than letting animals roam wild and reproduce. What do you think would be better stewardship of these animals?

At 8:11 AM, Anonymous Jette said...

If you read the Chronicle article about this movie thoroughly, you would have noticed that it clearly states that "none of the actual footage of the killing is shown." The documentary is about the controversy surrounding the people who did such an awful thing and does not condone the action.

At 2:09 PM, Blogger FreedomDefender said...


Thanks for your comments. Yes, I read how the film shows the list of the detailed ways the perpetrators mutilated the cat and does not show it. I would like to hear your feelings on profiting off of someone else’s cat mutilation.

I am also interested in what you think about PETA. Is it an ethical treatment of animals to kill 79.6% of those delivered, because they may not in prime condition or the "fittest"? Thanks for contributing here, but please let me know what you believe on these issues of life and death, that innocent animals struggle with every day. Thanks.


Thanks for the blog etiquette.

I am very concerned about these actions by PETA. I certainly don't want an out of control feral cat situation, like in Wisconsin, which lead to legalizing the hunting of feral cats. But for PETA to say it is safer to bring cats in to their shelter, than to leave them on the cold streets sounds like a lie, especially when PETA kills 4 out of every 5 animals given to them. The animals might be better off taking their chances out on the mean streets, where someone could show them compassion and take them in.

I have added some more of my thoughts to the main post that illustrate the conflict I feel about this issue. To answer your question about better stewardship of these animals, there are a couple of things that could be done. recommends taking some of PETA’s $24 Million dollar a year profit and using it to create a habitat where the animals could roam and be safe. Some of the less healthy animals PETA kills as policy, because they believe that an animal is better off dead than unhealthy. Also I’m sure PETA has overly-strict policies on adoption, thereby decreasing the number of animals that get adopted by families and increasing the number they will kill (those who don’t get adopted). These PETA policies could be changed to increase adoptions by less stringent screening and allowing people to choose the runt of the litter if they wish. PETA could create their own animal utopia with their funds, but that sounds less likely.

At 3:35 PM, Anonymous abstract art said...

Hi there FreedomDefender, I was just traveling through looking for some interesting stuff on and I came upon your Blog. I haven’t seen what I was after regarding Kat Killers!!!, but I’m going to carry on searching for more information on related stuff. By the way your Blogs great.

At 9:28 PM, Blogger criswillis3153 said...

I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. My blog is just about my day to day life, as a park ranger. So please Click Here To Read My Blog


Post a Comment

<< Home