It is an unquestionable reality that all animals that "render service to humans..." that is, who are used by humans... in any fashion whatsoever, will have their bodies, their genetics, their reproductive systems, their offspring and their living space managed, manipulated and mutilated in ways that will cause them pain throughout their lives. They will not be permitted to die a "natural" death at the end of the life span Nature has decreed for their species. It is the destiny of animals that are useful to humans, to be put to death at the peak of their profitablility. When their "productivity" or "usefulness" declines and the cost of keeping them alive exceeds the dollar-yield of their flesh, their eggs, their milk, their wool, their honey, their entertainment value, their labor or other utilitarian purpose they are killed. Typically, (with the exception of used insects, like bees and silkworms) it is customary for the dead bodies to be eaten... either by humans, their pets, or other "useful animals."

The blunt truth is that all animals that are used by people will wind up dead... sooner ..not later.. on a hook in a slaughterhouse, on ice in a supermarket or in a laboratory trash can. Chickens that lay fewer eggs are killed to become pet food or chicken soup. Horses that can no longer work, race, perform or produce estrogen-laden urine to make Premarin become horse meat, horsehide leather, gelatin and glue. Dairy cows whose milk production declines are killed to become low-grade beef for hamburger, pet food or food for minks being raised on fur-farms. And these minks themselves, once they have been killed and their pelts removed, provide a profitable product for the mink "rancher" who sells their flesh as food for other captive animals.

There are many people who, because of their concern for animal suffering, are not willing to buy what comes out of the slaughterhouse. After all, "meat is murder." But seeing no bloodstains on milk or eggs they buy these products. There are many who drink cow's milk and eat hen's eggs, are willing to provide a steady and profitable supply of what goes into the slaughterhouse. What is involved in the production of veal is so horrifying that many cannot even think of buying veal, and condemn its production. Yet if it were not for an abundant demand for milk, yogurt, butter and cheese there could be no veal industry with its torment and killing of baby cows.

Designing, breeding, using, buying and selling sensate creatures is to assume full responsibility for bringing them to life and putting them to death -- all for human convenience, enjoyment and profit. Can we accept this as legal and moral? Of course it's legal: As long as you own something, you can do what you like with your possessions. The word chattel, meaning an article of personal, movable property, is a variant of the word cattle. Is it morally acceptable? The ethical defense most frequently offered is that animals, although like us in some ways, are quite simply "lesser beings." They may share some of our physical senses, like those for light and heat, hunger and thirst, perhaps, but they certainly possess no "sense of self," or any genuine soul or spiritual existence.

For more than two centuries of American history the breeding, selling, use and disposal of living beings was considered to be legal and morally acceptable even when the sensate creatures were humans. A Virginia law of 1740 declared slaves to be "chattel personal in the hands of their owners and possessors for all intents, construction, and purpose whatsoever." The "industry," known as "the slave trade," was justified on the grounds that African Blacks, although like white people in some ways, were also "lesser beings."

There are, however, two prominent differences between the breeding, using and killing of people and animals. The first is the fate of the cadavers. To the best of my knowledge, it was never considered appropriate to kill and eat the body of a slave who could no longer "earn his or her keep," that is, when the cost of their feed exceeded the value of their labor. Perhaps what made this unlikely was the fact that many slaves in America were also Christians who attended church, prayed, composed and sang hymns called "spirituals," and insisted upon burying and mourning their dead. While theywere bought and sold as "lesser beings," it was grudgingly conceded that perhaps they had souls and a spiritual life.

Second, and most significantly, since they came to speak the language of their "owners," it was difficult to deny the reality of their mental life, however limited it was considered to be.
Racism is still with us, but its rotten odor has crossed the threshold of people's consciousness: Thinking about progress toward compassion and decency at least has a place on society's agenda.
But the living creatures called "animals" that we use, abuse and destroy by the billions face a future of suffering with no hope of redemption. Since people recognize no "religious practices" in cows and sheep and chickens, and precious few clergy ardently proclaim the existence of their souls and their spiritual life, the animals' liberation will be much later in coming.

Most importantly, since they can never talk or write the language of their "owners," they can never speak in their own defense or on their own behalf. It is up to us to do the talking and the writing.