Animal Rights?

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mirage, Jun 12, 2009.

  1. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    What rights do you believe animals have or should have?

    Do you believe different animals should have different rights?

    Do you think animals and humans should have the same rights?

    I am not for animal cruelty at all but I see nothing wrong with eating animals as a food source. It's natural and healthy. Personally I do not think animals should have any rights, but then again I do think laws that prevent animal cruelty are important. There is no reason to cause unnecessary suffering to a cow before you kill it to make burgers, but you should be allowed to kill it and make burgers, for example.

    Technically, I don't think any animals should have more rights than others, but I am biased towards protecting animals such as dogs, cats, etc, because I see them as pets. There are parts of the world where it's considered perfectly fine to eat such animals and I think that should be their decision to do so. It's not for me though.

    And no, I don't think animals and humans should have the same rights as defined by humans. Sure, animals have the right to defend themselves and even kill humans if they want. It's their natural instinct at times and no law we pass is going to stop them from exercising these natural instincts. However, I think that humans have the right to take out such animals in order to protect other humans. I think human wellbeing should be the #1 priority over an animals wellbeing. That doesn't mean I'm for destroying the environment and making cities everywhere, but when it comes down to it I view humans as better than animals and therefore our survival should be a priority if it comes down to it.
     
    Sim likes this.

  2. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    I agree with you.

    I believe there is a huge difference in cultivating animals for food, and torture. Slitting a cow's throat open and allowing it to bleed out to process for meat is cruel. I believe that stuff has been outlawed anyway. My boss raises cows and he says to kill a cow, they take a nail gun to the head. That kills the cow instantly.

    That is not cruel IMO.

    This brings up hunting. Just like above, a bullet to the heart or head drops the animal quickly, and as long as it's used for food I see no issue with it. Before somebody chimes in, don't confuse me hunting for food with somehow I beat my cat. I really don't see how people make that connection in their head.
    ------
    To live a pain free life, and if they are to be killed, it needs to be quick.

    No.

    Depends on the animal. If my house was burning down, i'd hope they'd treat my cat (or dog) and children as equals. Screw the fish or hamster.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  3. Mirage

    Mirage Administrator Staff Member V.I.P.

    To play devil's advocate here, in the wild, most animals are killed in ways that are far worse than the nail gun or even slitting their throat like you mentioned.

    Many animals are torn apart and eaten alive. The animal world is a messy one. I'm not saying we should go out of our way to be just like them when we kill them though. Just pointing this out.
    ------
    Surely you'd want your wife and kids out first though. What I meant by that question was more in a legal sense than a priority in a house fire sense. :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  4. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    From a legal standpoint I'm split. I mean if I beat my cat I get charged with animal cruelty. But if someone took my cat or killed it, my cat is treated as property and nothing happens. This issue I believe needs to be leveled out, at least for cats and dogs.

    Livestock on the other hand no.
     
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2009
  5. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    I agree with laws against animal cruelty. Suffering should be minimized. That includes treating animals bad when they are raised as food source -- a certain minimum of quality of life should be guaranteed even for animals who go to the butcher eventually. But of course it should be possible to kill and eat animals.
     
  6. Sakhalinskii

    Sakhalinskii Registered Member

    I think there's something incredibly sick about the way we factory produce animals by the millions purely for our food. That being said, I eat white meat (mostly chicken, and some fish) and chickens get treated worse than cows. But it's not going to make one iota of difference if I stop. If I truly wanted to do something about this, I'd write letters, protest, sabotage trucks, etc. But apathy prevails.

    There should be laws preventing the treatment of domestic animals as unfeeling, inanimate objects. Although I don't really think there's much of an alternative to the eventual killing of stray cats not claimed after being caught.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2009
  7. Pugz

    Pugz Ms. Malone V.I.P. Lifetime

    I'm against animal cruelty, but the food chain is the food chain; it's natural for animals to eat other animals and if some cultures want to eat dog or cat then fine-that's their choice as long as they were killed humanely and it's controlled enough that they don't wipe out an entire species of animal.

    Sometimes i think animals have more rights that humans when it comes to putting them to sleep; when you take an animal to the vet to be put to sleep it's considered a good thing, but when a human is suffering with a life changing/crippling illness it's wrong to aid them in euthanasia.

    But hell, i think that's a different topic all together :headscratch:
     
    Jeanie likes this.
  8. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Sometimes I think the whole animal rights thing goes to far. Some people consider leaving a dog outside all the time is cruelty. Meanwhile, the dog could care less. He's free to run around, hunt and do all the other dog stuff that dogs do. But somehow, the fact that he gets rained on sometimes, or has to pant because of the heat is considered cruelty.

    Animals have basic needs. Food, Water and Shelter. As long as you're not denying those things, then I don't think it's cruelty in the least.

    Animals shoudl be treated decently, but I don't think they should have more rights than humans.
     
  9. Jeanie

    Jeanie still nobody's bitch V.I.P. Lifetime

    actually dogs have an innate need to be part of a pack. that's how they exist in the wild as wolves (dogs and wolves are genetically identical) and that's how they came to be domesticated - by being accepted into humans' "packs". To leave a dog outside without allowing it to be a part of the family is in fact cruel, just as it would be cruel to keep another family member isolated from the rest of the family.

    would you want to be left outside to be rained on or have to "pant in the heat"? I'm not saying that dogs have the same rights as people per se, but if you bring a dog, or any other animal, into your household, you are accepting the responsibility of ensuring that the animals' basic needs are met.
     
  10. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    Well, I guess I'm going from my point of view sorry. Our dog would spend most of her time outside. But we had a shelter for her. And we actually went and played with her and spent time with her. And occassionally we'd bring her in if it was really cold out. But she was a big dog, so it wasn't practical to have her inside all the time. But one time we actually had someone try to report us, because our dog was outside all day while we were at school and work etc. Apparently, because it was warm out, we should have locked her in the house for the day. We gave her water, and she knew how to sit in the shade. I'd think locking her in the house would be more cruel. We provided shelter and water and food, so she'd be fine outside while we were gone. If she chose to sit in the sun panting, that's her own choice, it's not us being cruel. But some people are silly and misinterpret these little things.
     

Share This Page