The Silent Scream of the Asparagus: Get ready for 'plant rights.'

[EveningStar]

Wesley J. Smith
The Weekly Standard
May 12, 2008

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated...More (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp)

[MaximumSam]

He lost me when he reasoned that the though of animals having rights is some sign of cultural disease. To cause unnecessary pain and suffering in an animal is wrong.

[DesertFox]

Then you're misunderstanding a "right." Animals don't have rights, but that doesn't mean a person has a right to inflict pain and suffering on an animal.

[sunsettommy]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

The Silent Scream of the Asparagus<!--sizec--><!--/sizec-->
Get ready for 'plant rights.'

by Wesley J. Smith
05/12/2008, Volume 013, Issue 33
Weekly Standard

Excerpt:

You just knew it was coming: At the request of the Swiss government, an ethics panel has weighed in on the "dignity" of plants and opined that the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong. This is no hoax. The concept of what could be called "plant rights" is being seriously debated.

A few years ago the Swiss added to their national constitution a provision requiring "account to be taken of the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." No one knew exactly what it meant, so they asked the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology to figure it out. The resulting report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is enough to short circuit the brain.

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

The committee offered this illustration: A farmer mows his field (apparently an acceptable action, perhaps because the hay is intended to feed the farmer's herd--the report doesn't say). But then, while walking home, he casually "decapitates" some wildflowers with his scythe. The panel
decries this act as immoral, though its members can't agree why. The report states, opaquely:

Article (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp?pg=1)

[EveningStar]

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=59061

[DesertFox]

Threads merged.

[Suzie]

Plants' Rights
It isn't just the rights of animals that some are promoting. The Weekly Standard reports an ethics panel in Switzerland is expressing concern that the arbitrary killing of plants is morally wrong. The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology says that humans cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants; that "individual plants have an inherent worth," and that man may not use them as he pleases.
It cites a hypothetical example of a farmer "decapitating" wildflowers as expressing a moral stance toward the organism and possibly doing something bad to the flowers themselves.
One critic of the report says the concept of plant dignity provides what he called "another tool of opponents to argue against any form of plant biotechnology."
HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354236,00.html)

Scroll down the page.

[Neil Peart]

Like Doc has said, once you stop believing that humans were created in the image of God, then we fall of a pedestal and don't have any special rights that other creatures don't also have.

[dPrasse]

Wonder what the good Ethics committee thinks of partial-birth abortion ? Or Abortions in general ... are thistles and dandelions more "precious" than the unborn ?

[Wolfcounsel]

"Wonder what the good Ethics committee thinks of partial-birth abortion ? Or Abortions in general..." --dPrasse

I think someone should bring that question up to those sissies.

[DesertFox]

This has already been posted but I cain't find it.

[The_Elucidator]

Found it Fox.. threads merged

[CONSERVATIVE HERO]

He lost me when he reasoned that the though of animals having rights is some sign of cultural disease. To cause unnecessary pain and suffering in an animal is wrong.
Animals don't have rights. Only people have rights. Granting rights to everything under the sun besides people is merely a way of deceptively taking rights from people.

If animals have rights then they must be held accountable when they violate the rights of other animals.

[Taylor1]

If I kill a pear, will it be considered one step towards a revolution against the swiss gov't?

[DeclinetoState]

The Weekly Standard reports an ethics panel in Switzerland is expressing concern that the arbitrary killing of plants is morally wrong. The Swiss Federal Ethics Committee on Non-Human Biotechnology says that humans cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants; that "individual plants have an inherent worth," and that man may not use them as he pleases.I have to agree with the panel. Even human plants are known to exist. Look at those who ask softball questions of the Democrat candidates at their town hall meetings/campaign rallies. (McCain's supporters, however, may have done the same thing, for all I know.)

Here are some other humanoid plants:

http://www.nrbinc.com/Las-Vegas-Shows/Carrot-Top/carrot-top-main.jpg
http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/tv/blog/alGoreFat.jpg