I hoped to avoid comment on the killing of Harambe the gorilla. But I keep getting asked, so here goes.
Rich is correct, it is not a close call, but I think a bit more needs to be written:
- The sturm und drang over the killed gorilla is a disturbing sign of our emotionally-driven times, in which “feeling” counts so much more than “thinking,” and many seem to value animal life as high–or higher–than that of human beings.
- The life of the child was infinitely more valuable than that of the gorilla.
- The question of whether the gorilla was “protecting” the child is irrelevant. The boy was in mortal danger, whether or not the gorilla intended harm.
- Saving human life is paramount, so in the heat of the mortal danger, I don’t see what other choice could have been made to ensure the child was not injured or killed.
- Drudge used the word, “murder” to describe the killing. He’s hyping clicks (I hope). Only human beings can be ”murdered,” which is a particularly heinous act because it involves the death of a human being.
- It is, indeed, very sad that the gorilla had to die because somebody screwed up so terribly, resulting in the child placed in mortal danger.
- Only humans would care so much about a killed gorilla, our empathy being one of the aspects of our natures that make us exceptional.
- There should be an investigation, and if warranted, legal accountability for the outrageous endangering of the child, whether of the parents or the zoo, or both.
SUPPORT LIFENEWS! If you like this pro-life article, please help LifeNews.com with a donation!
Here’s the most disturbing part: I suspect many people are more emotional about the killing of the gorilla than they would have been had the child been killed.
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism.