Animal Rights vs Human Rights

dilemma: an argument presenting two or more equally conclusive alternatives

Dilemma is no stranger to me - seems now more of an old friend or familiar garment, but wears like a prickly pear sweater, still. In a perfect world these unruly creatures would never be allowed to live. Their only purpose seems to be the creation of indecision - a state of being I detest. 

I challenge you to consider the following question. Make it a daily thought as you live life and prepare your meals. Do human beings have a justly obtained right to end the life of fellow creatures for the purpose of consumption? Does the answer seem obvious? It may, but consider these notes:

• In the United States, it is illegal to kill and eat a dog, cat, or dolphin, but not a cow, sow, or catfish.
• What are the monumental differences in these animals? Some make us feel warm and fuzzy inside. Others do not.

Obviously the general public has concluded that animals in possession of attributes that make us smile and feel tender, have more of an established right to life than those who are less charming and lack the charisma to which we attach so much importance. Can we live with such grossly skewed logic and pretend to be civilized? Is there one ounce of morality in this reasoning? 

Alas, I am a hypocrite and selfishly feast on fish, chicken, venison, elk, and bison. I make a meal of these animals regularly. They are no longer necessary to sustain biological life, but I love the way they taste. The best that can be done with this disturbing complexity is to confess that I continue to consume these children of the earth by nature of my own weakness and lack of conclusion.

I continue to replay this introspection in anticipation that someday the courage of my conviction will overtake the flaws of my character. Until then, I have set myself to the task of earnest gratitude and responsibility in the harvest - the least of meager penance due, until I become a better man.