I searched for the word "abolition" in the CBC reader's comments section and only found comments urging that Canada abolish the slaughter of horses. And I found comments that urged regulation of cruelty to horses at slaughter or in general.

But I couldn't find a comment by anyone who urged the abolition of the cause of the abuse - the use of horses.

Abolition is the logical conclusion reached when looking at any form of abuse of sentient beings. On hearing of a child sex-slave market, few (except those who benefit from the market), would urge the market be better regulated rather than abolished. Regulation is a statement that condones, and the abuse of children is one evil that society won't condone by the application of regulations of the child sex-slave trade.

When this logic is applied to the trade in animals, to creatures even less able to defend themselves or control their fates than are children (who, if they live, will be able to name their abusers), the logically inescapable conclusion is that it is as wrong to apply regulations to cruelty to animals as it would be to apply regulations to cruelty to children. Sadly, so far it seems this is only understood by a very few people.

Abolition of owning and using of animals is argued against by those who benefit in some way from the continued use of animals. Although there's almost no one anymore who will say publicly, "It's only an animal, so it doesn't matter how it is treated", as not so long ago most of the world said about our treatment of animals, now most people say what is hardly any different - that they want regulations that will allow the persistence of use and therefore the persistence of abuse.

That's not logical. Regulations arent created to eliminate evil. Regulations only exist to lessen the occurrence of an evil. If regulations could eliminate wrong-doing, there would now be no wrong-doing. We accept that laws and regulations only imperfectly prevent wrong-doing, but recognize that certain evils must be abolished, not regulated. And yet so-called animal lovers accept - even insist - that regulations are the answer to animal cruelty.

This is worse than illogical - it reeks of self-serving. What could be in it for the promotors of regulations over abolishment?

Money is the usual reason. Humane societies that do not ever mention the 'A' word - abolition - do not ask their donators to consider the real root cause of cruelty. These Societies don't lead, not by their words or their examples. They don't challenge the status quo in case it offends donators who like the many personal and financial benefits of animal use.

These Societies pander to the average person's level of awareness, only stopping their own unethical actions when the market tells them it is safe to.

Which being in this photo has all the dignity, in spite of its fear?