That’s how some animal rights activists prefer little Knut’s life, or rather death, would have been handled. Knut and his brother were abandoned by their mother. The sibling died, but Knut was “adopted” by zoo workers who fed him and helped him thrive.
Now, according to an aol story, animal rights activist Frank Albrecht asserts that the cub should have been left to die as “nature intended” or since humans intervened, they should now kill the unwanted cub rather than have it grow up befouled by human hands.
Huh?
Am I the crazy one, or aren’t animal rights activists supposed to be pro-animal? I agree that living the authentic wild life is what’s best for wild animals, but if you are an animal rights activist shouldn’t you be promoting the most fundamental animal right–the right to be alive. After all, take that away and does it matter much what other rights animals have?
Besides, how do they know this polar bear wasn’t just a poor mother or suffering from polar post-partum depressionor something? Maybe they should have sicced on her some of those lactation experts they keep on maternity wards that threaten you with dire health consequences if you dare to entertain the notion of giving your child a bottle.
How does killing a healthy, uninjured animal become more humane than letting it live? Color me confused.
