Arguments

She seems either a crack pot attention seeker or someone put forward by the horse racing industry in an effort to use animal rights as a way to criticize the government.

Either that or she holds to some kind of Singer Utilitarian Welfare (i.e. 911 attacks caused more suffering than chicken farms/killing animals is better than letting them suffer) view which I have no respect for.

But I think someone put forward by the horse racing industry seems most likely. Its like when someone burns down a pet store to collect insurance and tries to blame it on animal rights people. I honestly hope its the horse breeders doing it because if she actually thinks she has an animal rights position then talk about something fitting the saying "with friends like these who needs enemies."

My perspective is a fairly simple one in this case. I would highlight one particular word that reveals all we need to know about this supposed animal rights stance. That word is "their", from the following excerpt: "… who will experience both a "loss of livelihood along with the loss of their horses. …"

Now, while giving room for the possibility that this person's quote was mixed up by whomever wrote the article (which does seem doubtful), I would simply say that so long as one is holding the perspective that these horses (or any animal, for that matter) belong to any human being, one has not yet stepped into the realm of animal rights. One may have a toe in the door, but the true ethics of animal rights is far above any possessives. While compassion is always a good thing, always noble, it becomes lost in the mire if it is used to excuse, or if it is confused with 'feeling sorry' for someone, which it seems like it may be in this case. Slave owners, even if they come to be emotionally attached to their slaves, are not the ones in need of compassion in such instances as this. We would not say that a kidnapper deserves compassion for the "loss of their person".

The other thing to highlight is the absurd notion that this is also a case of human rights. No humans have had their rights violated, have they? (unless one considers it their right to exploit animals - another hole in the statement provided).

Lastly, why are the horses being killed off? Whose choice is that, and have they looked into alternatives? If it is a case where the horse breeders decide to kill off their horses because there is no more money coming in from their exploitation, then it would be absurd to extend concern over human rights to this case.

Edwina is neither an animal rights activist nor an ethicist. There can be no sympathy for the breeders who profit from the exploitation of animals who were never theirs to own. If these breeders care about the horses they have enslaved and oppressed then let them make it up to them by not allowing the government to slaughter them and retire them to pasture where they will be free to roam and given the food and care they need to live out their lives in comfort and peace.

Seems like these breeders are now unwilling to support the very horses who supported them. If they can't produce a profit then off to the abattiors!

Would Edwina feel sorry for Puppy Mill breeders who profit from unimaginable suffering if their mills were shut down by the government. I don't see any difference in breeding horses to race or dogs to sell. It's all slavery and money driven; surely not for love of the animals.

I personally have no sympathy for anyone who makes his/her living off the backs of other beings.

This statement just doesn't make sense. How can Edwina be opposed to horse breeding and feel compassion for the breeders? Losing this kind of livelihood is a good thing! Where does human rights fit in here? No one has the right to enslave animals. I understand that papers rarely print what someone actually says, but it really is a stretch to figure out how human rights can even enter into the picture. Bringing it up wrongly deflects attention from the real horror - the horses are being killed!!!

Edwina might have a long way to go in her ethical journey - seems to be making moral sacrifices in favour of business.

IMHO, the breeders need to take responsibility for the fact that those foals have been born. For the sake of the big picture, I'm glad that the funding is ending, and for the smaller picture (the sake of the mares and the foals at risk right now), I'd like to see the breeders and breed associations step up to the plate to make sure that the animals can live. A valuable lesson may be learned here - that greed and animal exploitation simply don't pay. A great deal is being lost, and it's not just money. With all the media attention, some breeders might just be looking for a place to hide in shame.

There are 2 issues here:

1. A contradiction in Edwina's sentiment and statement as presented: specifically, to be opposed to horse breeding while simultaneously claiming that it is a human right.
2. The idea of there being a violation of some human right.

Item #1

While it can be argued that Edwina did not specifically say that horse breeding is a human right, in the present context, it is difficult to see what else she could be referring to.

The principle of charity in philosophy encourages one to interpret

a speaker's statements to be rational and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation. In its narrowest sense, the goal of this methodological principle is to avoid attributing irrationality, logical fallacies or falsehoods to the others' statements, when a coherent, rational interpretation of the statements is available. Principle of Charity

Since she has already stated she is "opposed to horse breeding itself", it can be argued that she cannot be referring to horse breeding when using the word "livelihood".

However, since

• horse breeders engage in the practice of breeding horses through which they make money which constitutes at least part of their livelihood,
• it is the demise of the market for selling these bred horses that results in their loss of livelihood

one would have to be very charitable indeed to conclude that "livelihood" refers to something other than horse breeding.

Hence, there seems to be some rationale to claim her statement at least carries odor of contradiction.

Item #2

Livelihood in the specific commercial sense (ie doing business) is not a human right. If it were otherwise, robbers and slave traders could whine that those trying to stop their commercial ventures are violating their human right to engage in such activities.

However, it can be argued that livelihood in the general sense of "being able to sustain oneself" or "having a means of supporting one's existence" is a human right. One does require the opportunity to do certain things in order to live and these should not be denied on unreasonable, discriminatory bases.

Edwina claims that the loss of livelihood experienced by the horse breeders somehow violates a human right.

First consider livelihood in the general sense. The horse breeders are not being denied the "means of supporting their existence". They are quite free to engage in other activities such as generating income through some alternate business venture or retrain themselves to find some other mode of employment. Therefore, no human right has been violated, so it is difficult to see just why all this compassion is being sent their way.

Now consider livelihood in the specific sense of horse breeding. There is no human right which requires that an individual be permitted to make money through some commercial venture. In other words, engaging in commercial ventures of any sort is not a right by any stretch of rationality even in a grotesquely capitalistic society. Therefore, loss of livelihood due to not being able to breed horses (and subsequently sending these sentient beings off to a life of dangerous servitude within the horse racing industry), is not a violation of any human right at all. The practice of breeding horses for commercial gain is an atrocity, so one better not find compassion for such oppressors.

In essence, the entire compassion/rights argument boils down to: "I feel great compassion for the suffering you endure because you can't oppress other beings."