Readers of both The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and The Seattle Times got an earful of truth recently with the publication of a column by Shaunti Feldhahn on the incoherence of the worldview that assigns “rights” to animals. Published as a rebuttal to a column that supports Chicago’s foie gras ban and Whole Foods’ newly live-lobster-free stores, Feldhahn sagely observes that rights must come attached to responsibilities:

For example, a few years back, animal-liberation activists (a polite name for terrorists) raided a British fur farm, setting loose 6,000 mink. Because mink are ferocious creatures, they immediately did what mink do – killed household pets and terrorized families with small children. But no one blamed the mink: Animals simply don’t have the capacity to take responsibility for whatever “rights” they are given.

But it doesn’t end there. To take her argument over the finish line, Feldhahn turns to the Center for Consumer Freedom. We told her:

Animals deserve welfare absolutely! … No one should be cruel to animals. But if you want to give rights to animals, then they should expect to embrace responsibility in return. As soon as chickens can make a sensible decision at the ballot box and pay taxes, then they can have rights. Until then, chicken is for dinner.