Abolitionist? Welfarist? Why? Does it Matter?

I call myself an abolitionist vegan. I have read debates and analyzed this subject, and for me the bottom line is there is a difference in how abolitionists view issues that go beyond the individual’s personal ‘journey’.

The simplest way to sum up the abolitionist approach is not to send mixed messages. And really, there is only ONE message when we are talking about true veganism.

I'm NOT implying all abolitionists would agree with me, or feel as I do. We are all different and there are differences amongst everyone, I am just going to give some examples of things I’ve read and/or what thoughts come to mind when I think about welfarism vs. abolitionism...

What if animal products suddenly were made to be healthy? Or produced in ways that did not negatively affect the environment? Of course that won’t happen, but the baseline questions is “Would you still be vegan”? If all pigs for slaughter ran on green fields and eaten only when died of natural causes, would you still be vegan? I would be vegan, no matter what, so giving other definitions to veganism is mixed messaging, because in reality, there is only one reason for being ‘vegan’.

I definitely talk about health, and I definitely talk about the environment, and famine, and all the other great reasons there are to be vegan, but the very bottom line, and the very essence of the word ‘vegan’ embodies a moral stance that says animals are not ours to enslave or oppress, and that we have no rational reason to live violently and harmfully. That must be the baseline message. Is attending a circus any different morally than eating at a restaurant that serves meat? Our message must be as broad as possible to avoid further speciesism, while narrow enough to save individual lives.

When signing certain petitions, such as taking foie gras off a restaurant menu, do the cows, pigs, and other animals served there not get a petition? It is animal ‘use’ too, and certainly entails much needless suffering. If people boycotted the restaurant for menu foie gras removal, do they resume eating there if they stop serving it? Even if the restaurant is still serving pigs, chickens, and cows?

I’m NOT saying never eat out again. I'm NOT saying to never sign a petition. I'm NOT saying not to protest cruelty at every opportunity. I am just talking about the way we communicate our goals to others in the most effective way.

Pursuing welfare reform such as larger cages is generally a meaningless gesture designed to soothe people's conscience and is not effective in ABOLISHING (e.g. abolitionist) the death and suffering. (see article posted at bottom of page for interesting reading)

If one truly felt animals mattered morally, then their suffering is of dire need – right now. As noted, we would not say a rapist should rape less nor a murderer should murder less. This is because lives are at stake, suffering can be prevented – right now - and we care about those lives! So, no, we don't advocate for 'journeys' or 'baby steps'. The need is immediate for many.

I am not talking about not encouraging or helping someone become vegan. I am not unkind to those who state they are "trying." But I do not deceive anyone to believe one form of use/abuse is better than another, nor that time is not of the essence for many whose lives hang in the balance as I type, and certainly I will [kindly but bluntly as is possible] voice my confusion as to why someone would continue to do something nonsensical and cruel.

Why WOULDN’T one stop - immediately - if they were able to grasp that message all at once? That they were critically important to help stop oppression and suffering? That is what I am trying to figure out, as the one thing I know for sure is [so far at least] there is no perfect way to communicate this to others!

I am not saying I know everything, again, these are just some of the things I have thought. Debate on method, approach, and perception is unlikely avoidable and is likely healthy to the movement, but we should be in alignment with the long-term goals and continue to read, learn, and strive for the best ways to make those goals a reality.

I personally feel it is OK to talk about other things (health, environment, etc.), but the message should not be mislabeled. I went vegan a long time ago after reading something PETA sent me, so I certainly ‘get it’ and had to resolve my own turmoil with how they have been known to relay the *message* versus their impact on me personally. I am not currently a PETA supporter despite the positive effect they have had on my life, and I had to really think ling and hard about that - due to the loyalty of hem saving my life. But it isn't about me, it is about what I feel is effective for reaching *most* others.

There are conflicts within, no doubt, but the baseline message needs to be that veganism is NOT difficult, it is the LEAST we can do, and that IT IS NOT ABOUT US. I posted a great article below about how welfarism-type tactics are likely very detrimental. There is a lot of debate about this subject online if anyone wants to read further - and they really should.

Please everyone hug now lol. Thank you.

http://freefromharm.org/animal-products-and-psychology/humane-meat-and-veganism/