The animal rights movement is divided on a number of issues, including the means to achieve liberation. Some activists are opposed to companion animals, because "owning" other animals as property should be as unthinkable to us as owning other humans as property. Others can accept the idea of companion animals with the understanding that we are their guardians -- they are not our property, and we are not their owners.

Some activists accept euthanasia as a humane means of ending animal suffering, and as a necessary evil to the problem of pet overpopulation. Others, such as Nathan Winograd, who has written an entire book on the subject, Redemption, embrace a "no-kill" philosophy.

In a 1992 interview with conservative talk show host Dennis Prager, Ingrid Newkirk (Executive Director, PETA) said the animal rights movement is divided on abortion. A 1998 cover story on abortion in the Animals' Agenda also discussed the debate within the animal rights movement over the abortion issue.

And in 2003 or 2004, on the Democrats-For-Life e-mail list, Maria Krasinski mentioned a poll which found animal activists evenly divided over the abortion issue. This is significant. It means either animal rights are a bipartisan cause (which conservatives can support as well as liberals), or it means many liberals are uncomfortable with abortion.

So the animal rights movement is divided on a number of issues, including euthanizing animals. PETA has taken flack from feminists within the animal rights movement, for example due to its use of supermodels and the "We'd Rather Go Naked Than Wear Fur" campaign.

But you can't ignore PETA's influence on mainstream society, which is the reason I'm behind it:

peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world. peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.

A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a 2 to 1 margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

Debates over euthanasia, spaying and neutering, animal welfare versus rights, using sex to sell nonviolence, etc. seem trivial in comparison to the number of animals killed for food. Friends Of Animals (another animal rights organization, based in Darien, CT) sells buttons stating "Veganism is Direct Action."

I think everyone in the animal rights movement would agree on that point.

I'd rather she went naked also :)

lol the background isnt the same. x]

She is actually thinner than the airbrushing makes her out to be...sounds like a little jealousy coming from the New Jersey way...LOL

She's smokin Hott some one is jealous I think!

Oh no, they airbrushed out her tan line! Seriously, this woman looks amazing. When will women stop being catty and jealous towards one another and instead be supportive of one another?!

PETA is a joke and the actors that get naked for PETA are also big jokes! A desperate excuse for attention, get naked for PETA....what a crock!

Hey peta DO NOT try to force your views on me about animal rights....I don't wear fur, but I do eat meat.....It's my right. I would like to take all you people and put you in a place all by yourselves for about 2 weeks without any food and then send in a cow or pig and see how long it would take you idiots to eat it.

I believe she looks beautiful. What a great cause( PETA). ANYONE who doesn't support the ethical treatment of animals is a flawed individual. I am simply amazed that anyone could condone mistreating an animal for any reason. Wearing fur isn't a necessity it is a prime example of conspicuous consumption. That isn't in itself a "cause" to celebrate nor defend . There aren't normal average people wearing fur as a rule. It is self important upper income people,too self absorbed, too self righteous, too selfish, and too self indulged , to believe they should put the needs of living creatures before their own wants. No one NEEDS to wear fur in a civilized society. There are many efficient and yes beautiful alternatives to provide for warmth and yet this debate goes on. We are certainly a broken society. It is disgraceful that there is any debate at all.