he's given me over the years through good times and bad with regard to the project and my other work. tuberous chapman and deep appreciation of his leadership, personnel support and abiding friendship. i think all people involved the discovery institute would agree with me bruce is a sterling leader and a fumble in his promotion of the work of the various fellows in the various things discovery us three i'm also proud to be associated with discovery. i'm not involved in example for the intelligent design but i certainly notice the yelling and screaming about it and the things that i've noticed is that people who work in that field here discovery are malae and more than they are engaged. and i find that very telling and it is very disturbing, and what

is it sarah palin does a shout out, i think that is younger than my generation, but i just want to associate myself with the discovery institute because the people here whether one agrees or doesn't have integrity, intelligence and commitment. so that being said, let's get on to the animal rights movement. how did i get involved in this issue of animal rights? it certainly wasn't something i planned but one day i was out at a high school and i was speaking to an onerous high school class and i was talking about the importance of universal human ecology. the importance of human exceptional was and that is the intrinsic value of human life, and i was speaking in terms of bioethics, there is a probably most famous and i'm afraid for the reasons i will be made clear in a few minutes, most influential figure were times, peter singer now at princeton.

.. which really started to become the animal-rights movement although peter singer as utilitarian philosopher is not an animal rights activists does not believe in human rights or animal rights and is a utilitarian. i was describing this to the

class that if we accept the idea with less value of human beings to others there is no fundamental ability it would be such a setback after hundreds of years of striving to reach equality to setback based on a different type of discrimination we have done in the past would be tragic and a young woman came up to me very earnest you know, how the young are there was a long time ago. and she said you aren't telling me that a human being has greater value than a but the? i was a bit taken aback and i said yes. [laughter] and she said no. a buddy can feel paid we are equal i thought where did that come from? that planted a seed that resulted in "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" i was on a show a few years later

that a talk-show host gave me permission to do that and i told the story i just mentioned in the talk show host got a very big and she gasped and said oh my gosh yesterday my son came home to announce that the family dog is equal to the rest of us. there is something being sold to young people in particular the animal-rights movement that particularly targets young people i think there is the reasons for that but that planted the idea because as people who know me pretty obsessed and the last fiber 10 years with him an exceptional the sum the idea that being human matter simply because we're human the idea of universal human a quality of human life the rights exclusively human in my view and the time commitment duties exclusively human and this particular issue of animal

rights fell right into the sweet spot of my advocacy and i realized as i was working with bioethics and assisted suicide that this was parts of the bigger picture. but they challenged fundamentally what it means to be human and whether being human is even relevant anymore because there are a lot of movement said think being human is zero event and one of them is the animal-rights group. so i got into the issue after several years also from the discovery institute they brought me on it and supported of the work again as a consequence is this book that could not happen without the discovery institute. let me describe my purpose and my thinking in this

field as importunes with animals. it is not my purpose to act as a defender of animal industries rather two perrelli expose the ideology of the animal-rights liberation movement and expose it too many deceptions and by land tactics are also defend the use of animals necessary and appropriate to pante welfare and prosperity and happiness and will mount the unequivocal defense that human being stand put in a call at of moral worth called him an exceptional december 0 i will read these positions once universal excepted have been controversial. few generations generate such appearance as animal-rights. want to make it clear at the outset as it will throw the book that i love animals and like most people i wince when i see them in pain and believe strongly the be a

city will have a profound moral and ethical obligation to treat animals humanely and respectfully a court obligation of the human exceptional as some. never causing them to suffer for frivolous reasons i also support a lot against cruelty to animals and to strengthen when a per piper orben the ban animal abuse is a terrible wrong not only because across the victimized and will to suffer but also because cruelty to animals diminishes hour own humanity. consider why i found it necessary to make such an unusual disclaimer. the past 30 years the concept of animal-rights have seeped into the bone marrow of culture at it is often taken to mean little more than the nicer to animals. although and all rights groups do some time engage in activism the term

actually do know it's a believe system, an ideology or quasi religion with both implicitly looks to seek a moral equivalent in the value of human lives and those of animals. in fact, look at the titled "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" i did not claim that title i stole it. stowage from anchorage newberg a leader of the people of the ethical treatment of animals, which is probably the most famous and will rights group, peta she has said this over many locations but this is the best example that illustrates quite vividly of the true in all rights activist people are animal welfare activists the want us to be kinder they think they believe in

animal-rights but they don't. they believe an animal welfare. writes is used so loosely it can mean anything from stopping michael vick from nurturing dogs to perhaps perhaps -- torturing dogs or prevent engaging in necessary medical research. 19809 angered said this did it is very clear what she means. and all liberation does not separate out to the human animal so there is no rational basis for saying human beings have special rights. "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" they are all mammals. i was going to call my book four legs good but two legs bad and nobody reads animal farm anymore so i turned to her and her many comments and i thought that was the best. the subtitle is the human

cost of the animal rights movement" and in due there's a tremendous cost if we ever went down the animal-rights road because the true goal of animal-rights to distinguish from animal welfare is the end of all animal domestication. it is not about being nicer to animals are improving our humane care for animals but about doing away with all animal domestication perhaps even for some, dogs, our beloved dogs. one very famous notable animal rights leader, a law professor at rutgers has come up with the adm of the abolition obviously borrowing from the abolitionist slavery and that animal-rights activists believe voided to is done to an animal should be perceived as the same thing being done to a human being.

therefore since cattle ranching involves controlling what cattle do and where they go it is as odious as slavery and this is not a matter for zero or hyperbole but what is believed by a true animal-rights believer not and will welfare beaver. and gary is very candid he agreed to be interviewed and i trust and tried very hard to present his position not only accurately in terms of what he said and also in context that was very important to me because i considered gary to be very radical but he is principled provide disagree with him completely but he is candid about what he believes it has a lot to tell us. he said to me "we have a moral obligation to care for

the domesticated nine unions we brought into existence but we should not produce more. they're goal of animal-rights is the end of all domestication no matter how beneficial it is too humans. i asked him does that include dogs? our beloved pets? yes. a and he does take and the stray dogs that nobody else will adopt. but he does not believe they belong on the planet earth. >> we can sell them to be refugees in which a the world they do not belong. so think of a consequence of animal-rights should it prevail not only would you not be able to have a stake, and no medical research or leather shoes, no dogs are seeing eye dogs, animal-rights activists and see that grazing sheep is wrong and

if you go to the peta web site and take a look at what they say about will and sheep raising they think shearing the sheep is a form of terrible abuse. they don't even feel they should have domestic tiny they say i don't know how domestic honeybee is down but they say in disseminating the queen rape. [laughter] some of this is have extreme the absolutist thinking is part prowess animal-rights differ from animal welfare? animal welfare is a honorable tradition roll over 100 years. it does not deny him an exceptional was some serious human beings have the highest moral value. they do not deny we have the right to make proper humane use emphasis on proper and humane. they are constantly pushing

us toward greater compassion and higher standards of animal husbandry. but at the end of the day there is a difference between humans and animals and knowledge that humans benefit from animals and seek to inspire us to use animals and a better fashion and in more humane. and all rights activist loath animal welfare. the lows and will welfare because it believes in human exceptional is some that is discrimination against animals animal-rights does not believe that being more humane is the proper goal although sometimes they will bring that activism efforts in to the public square primarily that is a good way to raise money because they convince people we hope to cause less suffering for the animal you have seen the

pictures of animals looking very bathetic and by the way sometimes the animal rights people exposed to cases of abuse and when they do that should be stopped. but that does not ago. the goal is no use of animals peta says they are not ours to keep your experiment on or to be entertained by or to use in any fashion whatsoever because it in the "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" ingrid makes it clear it that there is a moral equivalency. i am almost 61 the idea of animal rights would have thought to be completely nuts. how didactic the wing and how did that become such a powerful force that today 40 percent believe we should

not use animals in medical research even though that would impede medical research appointed could not go forward? how did that happen? we have to turn back to peter sr.. back when he published the book and will liberation he was a utilitarian and does not believe in absolute principles he believes in the analyses that's which i would like a vase seminar but that maximizes happiness and minimize the suffering it generally speaking the right thing to do in a utilitarian vehicle pro prior to peter singer and in my a two a other book i get into utility area philosophy which has really permeated the bioethics movement before peter singer it was always about to humans and

joseph fletcher who was a very big pioneer of bioethics and a utilitarian used to talk about what matters to maximize human benefit. peter sr. took a different step. he said not only should we do they utilitarian analyses in terms of how humans are impacted but we should give animals equal consideration when remake those analyses. he accepted the idea of speciesism he did not going to popularize it was coined by animal-rights a man named richard. to say that too there simply -- special simply because they're human that we should include them in these types of determinations. equal consideration a think is what sets of movement off. peter singer will say what

matters is quality of life so if a human being has a greater quality of life and an animal than the animal can be used instrument lead to benefit the humans and also believes that if one type of human has a better quality than the lower standard of humans can be used as a mentally as well. said recently in a bbc documentary peter singer was approached by a scientist working with monkeys to find a cure for parkinson's and the scientist said i have used a couple hundred monkeys my goal is to help the parkinson's patients think of the benefits that can come to the patient and peter says when you put it that way that is appropriate and that is the reason end parkinson's patients have greater value they and the monkey but he would say the same thing about a baby and

have said when asked by a psychiatrist or psychology today, what about using chimpanzees and creating the hepatitis vaccines which have done so much benefit from human beings? >> host: said of using the chimpanzee they should have used people added diagnosed persistent a vegetative state. people who are profoundly disabled because the disabled him and have a lower quality of life and a chimpanzee because the chimpanzee have greater mental faculties. that is peter sr.. that is not animal-rights. and all rights took the india ofmoveast it almost made him a conservative. they came up with the idea that the human that gives a

value of seat ability to feel pain and not just a painful sensation but the year, boredom, anxiety and this kind of thing richard ryder has written that what gives one membership has said in a dirty newspaper if a man's routers space or if we ever manufacture machines, then we must widen the circle to include world community to include them "they are the only convincing basis for treating late or interest to others. getting back to my example of the fed kept of the ranch and some say how can feel pain in human can feel pain we are part of the committees so what is done to the cows should be perceived if it were done to a human.

that is civil-rights. not animal welfare. unfortunately because the term animal-rights is used so loosely most people that would reject that completely still think they believe in animal-rights when they believe been animal welfare. and gary goes even further and says sen defense give individuals the right think about it a fly lands on my paper if i smack it the fly will try to take off. of course, president obama will codify. [laughter] but to think about a low common denominator that becomes. why? it is the only way to bump human beings off the pedestal because the reach down and such a low level you can create a moral equivalency across the broad

swath of biological life on the planet mostly animal life that rob alluded to and with dignity of plants that was pushed into the constitution of switzerland. we can get into that later if you would like. once you created the a dia that it is pain or the ability to suffer, then you have created a whole situation where human exceptional was and is completely out the door. that is very harmful to human beings because it strikes me that if we look tattersalls us just animals animals, if we see this world we have hit accidentally, if we think of as grow as equivalent to us, then we have really

changed the very basis of our society and the foundation of how we perceive ourselves and how we perceive ourselves impacts how we treat each other and the nash -- natural world as you would get to the end of my presentation i submit that if we reject human exceptional is the we will not treat the animals better. we will not treat the environment in a more responsible manner. to the contrary we will treat them worse. because we will have given up that aspect of self identity which causes us to sacrifice their own interest to benefit other species and 72 levy a better environment to our posterity human exceptional the sum is for all of the best things that humans bring to life the

idea of destroying human exceptional was and is extremely dangerous and eventually could lead to terror in april once you accept this idea that being human is not what gives value but instead the ability to feel pain and once you start the levying fact what is done to and and all should be perceived in the same way as if done to a human being you begin to understand the odious comparisons the animal-rights movement makes in terms of the way they describe animal treatment and is a human use of animals in a denigrating and over the top extreme hyperbole from my perspective and they made that literally. and people from peta the gift that keeps on giving. [laughter] a few years ago they ran

what they call the holocaust on your plate campaign it promoted vegetarianism i am certainly not against vegetarianism and people one to choose other food or a moral purpose that is to amend exceptional is some. what other animal would turn it snows up to normal food for that and will based on the ethical concept and the ethical purpose? nine. we're the only species that would do that. that is exceptional. [laughter] yet the animal-rights people say we are not and i think that is a logical but we can get into that later holocaust on your plate was not aimed at people like me. i was raised in the fifties and sixties it was at the

memories and teaching the dangers of the death camps and all of that was very powerful in my education. i think young people today perhaps have less of a memory of that two and therefore a very odious comparison can sometimes be made and this budgetary campaign was aimed at the kids and young adults around the world and college campuses and it was odious because they were juxtaposed pictures from the holocaust next to normal animal husbandry making the explicit comparison there was a floor and famous

photograph of the auschwitz triple stacked bench and people packed in they ran aid juxtaposed next to the chickens in the cages. the most odious were pictures of dead in me ceded jewish inmates after the emancipation of the camps. juxtapose next to a pile of dead big spurt realizing these were jewish dead people that makes that disturbing more than one level. listen to the text. mrs. from "holocaust on your plate." like the jewish and the concentration camps animals are terrorized with their house did zero of both the warehouses and ascend for slaughter. the hand vegas are the moral equivalent of the of lampshades made of the people killed in the death

camp" end quote. i have been to auschwitz and i have stood in the gas chamber i have seen the crematoria and i walked that rail terminus in which the jews were separated for immediate slaughter or torture in the forced labor camps and it strikes me that anybody who would conflate normal animal husbandry with the worst evil ever perpetrated against human beings has no business preaching morality to anyone. but understand the and all rights people who say these things, which i think is nuts, and i trust you think is nuts, they believe it literally, thoroughly, it is not a metaphor. when peta talks about the rape of the queen bee they think it is real and true because they believe moral value comes from suffering and the ability to steal

paid not that we know that the queen bee feels pain but this is something they mean completely. it is not hyperbole or metaphor but liberal dogma almost a religion in some cases. and it explains why walking around ucla researchers have had bob threats and why children have been threatened they have received videos of their kids playing at the school saying we know where your kids go to school. i talked to one researcher who love this field doing research on monkeys because he believed he could restore sight to human beings that lost their vision by implanting a chip in the brain hooking up to a very tiny optical camera to put it on glasses and if you could stimulate the optical

nerve you might be restore some measure of vision and is using monkeys to try to prove that because if you went too deep you could cause seizures are not deep enough it did not work. and his family was threatened. he was so scared he left his research. who knows what is suffering might not be alleviated because of that. uc santa cruz one year-ago one house was firebombed and children had to escape down 82nd story latter because the house was filled with smoke and one researchers said i am just trying to find of a cure for breast cancer with lab rats and i am doing the work he mainly buy they care more about the lab rats or with the women

with breast cancer. when you think that medical research is the equivalent of auschwitz which clearly they do with "holocaust on your plate" you can begin to understand some of the actions that seem so irrational. because from the belief system with a true animal-rights believer but if you understand that mindset is logical is the same thing as joseph mangling doing the experiments on the twins you can understand acting now to occurs on the terrorist groups. i will tell you about the silver spring monkey case this is the direct action and the silver spring monkeys case tells you and

vividly illustrates the harm that can come from attacking researchers. and the national institute of health food steady because he had a theory. the theory was unlike the thinking at that time he believed the brain had claire greater plasticity fit too actually change he theorize at day's theorize the menace stroke victims use the loss of their limbs they might be able to be retrained and have the brain changed through training even though they could not feel it. this is a new breakthrough of biological thinking and

was given nih grant and approval to do experiments with monkeys to see whether or not that theory was true. alex appeared one day volunteered and unknown to the doctor was the co-founder of peta alex has said this will show you where he is coming from the time will come when we look upon the murder of animals as we now look on the murder of men. of course, animals cannot be murdered only animals and only humans can commit murder because of a we have the moral ability to look at decisions and the animal cannot murder a human because they are a moral. so when the whale kills the tree near in florida that was not murder that was a

killer whale be a killer whale program i had done the same thing to the woman that could be murder because i have the moral agent that is a huge distinction between human beings and animals. alex is not there to be a student volunteer but to destroy his life and ruin his work. and still peta it boasts about the section on the website one day the doctor went away for a two week vacation and suddenly and inexplicably we don't understand quite what happened but the custodian of the lab stopped showing up and you can imagine how filthy and disgusting the lab became now alex job if there was a problem while the doctor was a way to

alert the administration we have a problem in the lab to fix it. he did not say a word to the administration instead he brought in the animal-rights activists and took a lot of photographs and eventually call the cops. the police came in to see the terrible situation in the lab and confiscated all of the animals and with the doctor came back from vacation ready to go back to work he was arrested on 119 counts of cruelty to animals. "the washington post" ran a front-page stories about this the emotional narrative drive is everybody these days and the doctor was called frankenstein and received death threats and it took him eight years to clear his name eventually found cleared of all criminal culpability with five different professional organizations conduct

detailed investigations of those experiments out of which he came completely clean because he had done nothing wrong then he was able to get back to his work and he produced a tremendous breakthrough of therapy for stroke called constrained induced movement therapy stroke patients can drink a cup of coffee and open the door. the new treatment has been deemed non experimental so it is covered by medicare and health insurance and training therapist from around the world coming to alabama birmingham and training people to take this technique that required the monkeys to be able to even begin to be developed and the tens of thousands of stroke patients have benefited already and will

benefit in the coming years and now being used on children with cerebral palsy a tremendous benefit to humankind to none of which would have occurred have the animal rights movement idea of "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" prevailed and have alex succeeded in permit me foiling the research. thank goodness he didn't. the last time i looked, they were the first have an animal researcher restaurant for cruelty to animals. that is true but as paul harvey used to say you have now heard the rest of the story. the doctor allowed me to interview him and he put it quite well, he said "we have two sides of the scale to ponder on one side is the real and potential hoping

will research offers to countless human beings but on the other is the difficult knowledge that detaining many benefits means that some animals will be harmed. he has a right negative all rights liberation believe monkeys matter as much as stroke victims and children with disabilities people like the doctor believe suffering of animals is a serious matter and should not be counted into frivolous reasons by promoting bribing matter most did not show is enough of the entire animal-rights urbane. getting back to the old paul peter sr. again, you'll see why think he is the most influential thinker of the last two or three decades peter with another loss of her came up with the great ape project.

it seeks to create a community of equals that is a quote common among human beings carell was orangutans chimpanzees. by the way we reduced since tavis to a great ape from human exceptional as a he acknowledges that is speciesism he chose them because they are the most like us. number he wanted to end but to start and calls this a way to "break the species barrier" end quote. to. if you are a great ape under this idea it is a parody of most of the declaration of independence. those great apes another project of the right to life liberty and freedom from torture which means not being used in buckling

experiments. here is what peter roach with the co-author, the request comes at a special moment in history never before has dominion over other animals been so pervasive and systematic this is also the moment in civilization that his 10 exorable eight extended its dominion irrational aspect, i disagree with rational, challenging the moral significance of membership of our own species. human exceptional the senate is what is at stake in these issues and the consequences and benefits that derive from human exceptional was some part of stake as well this challenge goes on the quote consideration for the interest of all animals human and nonhuman then goes on to say members of the community in this particular sense are not to be a rich

early deprived of their liberty for if they should be imprisoned without do they go process they have the right to immediate release those that have not been convicted of crime should be allowed only where it could be shown for their own good to protect the community who could clearly be a danger to others of that liberty and in such cases members must have the right to appeal either directly or if they lack relative capacity to a tribunal many animals having lawyers. of course, the way the eight is capable of committing the crime it does not distinguish right from wrong and cannot form the intent criminally. let's talk about the adrs of lawyers for animals. switzerland just had a broach on march 7 for a constitutional amendment

that would have given animals a constitutional right to a lawyer. it lost 70/30. but 30 percent voted to give a constitutional right and also a lawyer. there is one canton in switzerland in which if there is a charge of abuse is appointed zero lawyer as of the animal was a child in a human abuse case did the "wall street journal" had an article the other day in which the animal rights lawyer represented a pike caught by a fissure man and he was charged with abuse because it took too long to really been. -- rielle it in. the client had been eaten. [laughter] although the case was lost

they were threatening an appeal. you may think that the switzerland's. in the united states granting animal standing is a huge agenda item for the human rights movement because it is not the animals bring in the lawsuits they have no idea what is going on. it is animal-rights activists bringing the lawsuits and they would destroy industries with malice aforethought. right now there are more than 100 law schools in this country yale harvard wreckers and others who are training lawyers to advocate for animals. they want to unleash the power of the lawyers and believe me, i am one. i know what we're capable of

[laughter] on an assault using industries prepare you may say they have these wasting time and money, you have people very high places that supports the standing. >> president obama regulations are the man in charge of the warehouse of overseeing of all aspects of government before he entered government supported and double standing. the famous harvard law professor who has argued many cases represented out court against george bush has advocated animal's standing when you have people at that level of influence and how are you cannot say this is something that can have been here or more dangerous.

the ninth circuit court of appeals in a case brought by the world's dolphins and whales to stop the navy from conducting sonar test the refuse to permit the whales and dolphins to the litigants but said in the opinion. whales and dolphins sued the u.s. navy? the whales and dolphins had no idea this was going on in the environmentalist was sued the navy and a lebow and wales it got to the ninth circuit court of appeals that said you will not do this we will not let them the litigants but in theory, animals can be granted standing and the example is if congress decided to pass a law firm realized today an accord to

anything can happen you just have to find the right judge to declare that animals have the right. in the european court of human rights has taken their rights at of austria animal-rights activists brought a lawsuit to have a chimpanzee and her cent so that the chimpanzee could have a guardian named for it in the same way an independent child would. the supreme court of austria's said we're not going there. no way. the court and human rights except in the case and is now pending. it does not mean they will say yes but often a court does not take the case because a plan on saying no. said it certainly means they

take the issue very seriously. animal litigation thomas standing is something you'll be hearing a lot about in the next decade. what about the great ape project? that will never happen, will it? a human declaration? it was legalized by spain you may notice there are not a lot of apes in spain. why would they do that? because there is a deep fervent desire to destroy human exceptional listen and blur the distinction between the human world and what used to be called the beast in the field pregnant pigs have constitutional rights in florida not to be kept in gestation crates because they humane society of the united states which is not affiliated with the local humane society does not have

cut shelters paid with other animal rights groups to bring the initiative of florida to say that pregnant pigs should not be kept in gestation increase i am not arguing if that is proper or improper husbandry techniques that is a legitimate question that needs to be decided in the animal welfare manner what is the human benefit or the harm to the animal and done with expert bought and thinking. why florida? florida is not the pig farm state. there are two words react according to this campaign but why florida? there is no resistance. there was no resistance because there are no pig farms in florida and did to

farms that use the gestation crates slaughtered the herd and the activists cheered because they said that his years of less suffering for the pigs. peta was once involved in a lawsuit about elephants there is a lot of the anger and the animal-rights movement with an assault radical movements one this matthew sculley the conservative writer there wrote speeches for george bush and the convention speech four sayre of palin a brilliant writer the anti-hunting% rate team for serapeum and is interesting. [laughter] but in his book, ed dominion calls elephant herds in the african wild animal parks but if you did not call them at then the elephants, they take out everything in their

path you have ecosystem destroyed so you have to keep their herds within a particular level to maintain the ecological balance for the parks and make sure to have too many elephants you'll have starvation because it is a close system. and i think it was south africa said dealership's the elephants to wild animal parks in the united states instead of killing them you think that would make the active is happy. no. they sued to stop the importation the judge said if i grant you the lawsuit they will be killed and the lawyer said that is better than having them imported because to them from killing the animals was better that

they put in with the best design of the buy-out animal park. it also kills animals they have a shelter have been revoked headquarters and they say a lot of our defense a lot of the animals are not adoptable but they admitted some of adoptable ones are euthanized. i am not sure why that is. i have theories but i will not speculate but the idea that and will rights is about loving animals is not necessarily so and certainly not about being nicer to the animals. as i said earlier, the primary targets are children and the reason i said that the top of the speech is the conversation with a high school girl that the bunny

could feel the pain just like a human being there is a lot of that going around in the school. i think they do have the ideas brought to the classrooms and then for the teachers to ask for it too and of course, there is no counterbalance. but to show how nasty this can get, peta puts out to comic books one is your mommy kills animals the other is your daddy kills the panels. in the one the woman looks like the leave it to beaver milan wearing a dress and eight string of pearls and the apron and it shows a maniac stabbing a ravaged that looks like bumper and listen to this this is

handed out to 678 year-old kids tell your money that you know, she pays men two her two animals everybody knows and as soon as she stops wearing for the animals will be saved but until then keep your friends away from mommy she is a animal killer until your daddy learns it is not fun to kill keep your doggies and kiddies away from him he is so hoped on killing defenseless animals they could be next. " to imagine your kid came home crying thinking you will kill the beloved pet? it is so strong and for good they are willing to undermine the relationship between parents and children over the issues. i think there will stop here

on that aspect of the book to show that animal-rights is not about the nicer to animals or teenine movement but it is a new and dark anti-human movement. [applause] i am a lawyer. storage wended is not what i do. the second part of the book i get into the use of animals and how the benefit people medical research i put the most focus on and also talk about the three refinement reduction and replacement the idea to reduce animals in research which is a good thing but i explained quite clearly why they are still needed in research and the proper place animal-rights activists all one is carries

approach well there are human benefits it is of the call i disagree but that has intellectual honesty and we can argue the fed is of the call are un of the call the dishonest approach says it does not benefit humans and seeing where it does we see a drug is not 100% applicable to a human soul being used on humans therefore that must be bad that would be true if you go from all-out brad in your doctor's office with that is not what happened. before it ever gets to the human medical clinic you have to go through three stages of human testing and a lot of money and i explained that in the book. finally, i defend him an exceptional with them in the

book the last chapter is on the importance of being human than just a little bit of what i wrote in that regard i will take questions california idea that human being stand at the pinnacle should be noncontroversial after all water this species in the history of life the wonders capacity? when a species have transcended the truth world of natural selection that leads to some degree what other species records in history and creates art and makes music and thinks abstractly income in decades with language and envisions machinery and improves engineering, works out toward the deeper truth of philosophy and religion and with other species has true freedom? we are exceptional and unique we are different than

any other nine species ever existed in the universe. " end quote. i was that the law school giving a speech on human exceptional listen and the questions are always raised that is there again to you think you are better than a butterfly. >> i think i do but beyond that it is the cause the splitting of the planet because we think we can do whatever we wanted that is not true. human exceptional listen also forces upon us, duties that are important and crucial but then i turn it around and say to the students, it being human is not what gives us the obligation to treat animals humanely tell me what does. there is no other answer. a of forceful advocacy that

is to take our own interest to put it into a corner and not to use it to benefit animals but govett is a call to extreme duty. in other words, animal-rights activists seek to destroy human exceptional was done by engaging in the very thing they denigrate. i close the book with this conclusion. i hope it is clear the animal-rights movement is not simply about being nicer to animals it is the appearance while certainly not monolithic share a dangerous ideology that sometimes the most to a quasi religion the dogma of which that any animal is evil and they are deeply wrong purpose human slavery was not as evil keeping elephants and zebras maintained is not.

rwanda and cambodia genocide was reactive the role he may may slaughtering millions of animals to provide the multitudes with nourishing and tasty food and durable clothing is not. the experimentation nine identical twins was hanus testing your drugs to save animals is more laid down% and ethically justified. for the rest of us who love animals and recognize their ability and believe it is human beings leo respect and kindness but also understand the obligation to humanity matters more. let us strive continually to improve treatment of animals first and foremost, three all world equivalencies between human beings and animals as we