[size=200]Warning:
Political-question:[/size]
[size=67](Via Captian-Pony)[/size]
(the website)
equine-reproduction.com/cour … eted.shtml
Hey doesn’t that qualify is like, sex-abuse or rape or molestation or something? Or do animal-rights not cover any of this? Or do “animal-rights” even exist?
(What I’m talkin’ 'bout, look-away kids!)
equine-reproduction.com/cour … on/2-4.jpg
equine-reproduction.com/cour … n/2-24.jpg
Realistically in todays society no, but then we dont afford the same rights that we have in the western world to others either. One rule for us and bollacks to the rest of them. In an ideal world all people could do what they want, animals included.
I bet “animal rights” only apply to a minority of domesticated pets, namely, cats and dogs. The rest of the animals don’t have rights. Culturally, not via law-books, but it then effects and createse the law-books, which are self-contradictory in the whole of the culture compared to that which it either denies or ignores.
The fact that relatively intelligent people can argue for the existence of a concept like “animal rights” is disturbing. Animals exist by virtue of their adherence to their instincts, which are predicated on a genetic zeal for survival and propagation. They lack reason; the ability to understand and utilize the objective facts of reality for their own betterment. To take a simple example, consider eating. An animal might ‘know’, in the simplest sense of the term, that it has to eat to survive. It doesn’t know why that is true, or why it eats certain things and not others, or why…anything. It simply does what it needs to survive because of its genetic disposition. So do plants; why no talk of plant rights?
Imo the argument for animal rights is for the benefit of the animals but also ourselves. We need to analyse why we feel that certain people/ animals have rights and others dont. Is it in our best interest that we draw the line so indescriminatly, shouldnt we take the idea of living rights as a whole, shouldnt all living things have the right to exist with out ourselves killing/hurting it and if not why not? I think this issue can tell us much more about ourselves and the way in which we view the world than the animals we are trying to protect.
I agree insofar as the argument about animal rights can be illuminating as to people’s level of intelligence. Someone who argues that animals have ‘rights’ is an idiot. I assume I’ll get posted on the Wall of Shame for saying that, but I really don’t care. Anyone with a cogent argument in favor of animal rights (admittedly according to my own criteria) will earn from me $20.
Well lets here why you think that animals shouldnt have any rights for a start, then we can see if there is a valid reason for them to have rights.
I’d rather hear your rationale for why humans should have rights. I assume you think they should, because if you don’t believe in rights at all, of course animals don’t have rights. But knowing why you find one set of rights acceptable would help determine if/why another set is/isn’t.
Why humans should have rights? Well im not sure if i would call it rights i find that for me it falls more into the catergory of common courtesy, i try to always live by a certain standard that i would like to have extended to myself by others. Such things are the freedom to think/express my thoughts and ideas without retaliation (as long as they do not harm another) , to live free from the fear of physical harm, to experience life in the way i see fit etc i presume these are the things that most people wish for themselves
All animals [including humans] are “created” equal.
But not to one another. And define “equal.”
How could thinking a thought that you think that you thunk hurt somebody? It’s just a thought that you think that you thunk.
Sorry, lynda-anne, I meant that comment to JM. I figured knowing how s/he justified human rights might help me win $20. I should have been more clear.
Obviously only human animals can have the right to bear arms or vote. But all animals have “equal consideration of interests.” That is, it means as much when an animal feels pain as it does when a human feels pain. The severity of pain and suffering doesn’t depend on the species of the animal that experiences it, whether human or not. We are not necessarily more valuable than other animals.
So let’s say a lion kills and eats a gazelle. Do we punish the lion for causing another animal pain?
We should look at what we are doing to other animals ourselves. That’s a good place to start.
You call that an answer?
Hi carleas no problem.
Shaneytiger the thoughts that i think are the pre-cursor to my behaviour so if i think badly of someone then i might act in a negative way to them and therefore that may cause them to be hurt.
Jagermister I suppose it goes to what is necessary pain and what is unnecessary pain. To eat to survive then thats necessary and an animal has little control over that.
It also has to be considered that, mentally, lions and humans aren’t on par. Consider if a child killed another child. We don’t treat the act nearly as harshly. We still grant the child rights, and child abuse is condemned, but children are not held to the same standards of culpability.
To help get you started, here’s a NYT editorial that illustrates the suffering we inflict on animals that we eat and what can be done to improve their quality of life:
March 14, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Pig Out
By NICOLETTE HAHN NIMAN
BOLINAS, Calif.
WITH some fanfare, the world’s largest pork producer, Smithfield Foods, recently announced that it intended to phase out certain cages for its breeding females. Called gestation crates, the cages virtually immobilize pigs during their pregnancies in metal stalls so narrow they are unable to turn around.
Numerous studies have documented crated sows exhibiting behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness. Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America’s hog farms.
Of the 60 million pigs in the United States, over 95 percent are continuously confined in metal buildings, including the almost five million sows in crates. In such setups, feed is automatically delivered to animals who are forced to urinate and defecate where they eat and sleep. Their waste festers in large pits a few feet below their hooves. Intense ammonia and hydrogen sulfide fumes from these pits fill pigs’ lungs and sensitive nostrils. No straw is provided to the animals because that would gum up the works (as it would if you tossed straw into your toilet).
In my work as an environmental lawyer, I’ve toured a dozen hog confinement operations and seen hundreds from the outside. My task was to evaluate their polluting potential, which was considerable. But what haunted me was the miserable creatures inside.
They were crowded into pens and cages, never allowed outdoors, and never even provided a soft place to lie down. Their tails had been cut off without anesthetic. Regardless of how well the operations are managed, the pigs subsist in inherently hostile settings. (Disclosure: my husband founded a network of farms that raise pigs using traditional, non-confinement methods.)
The stress, crowding and contamination inside confinement buildings foster disease, especially respiratory illnesses. In addition to toxic fumes, bacteria, yeast and molds have been recorded in swine buildings at a level more than 1,000 times higher than in normal air. To prevent disease outbreaks (and to stimulate faster growth), the hog industry adds more than 10 million pounds of antibiotics to its feed, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates. This mountain of drugs — a staggering three times more than all antibiotics used to treat human illnesses — is a grim yardstick of the wretchedness of these facilities.
There are other reasons that merely phasing out gestation crates does not go nearly far enough. Keeping animals in such barren environments is a serious deprivation. Pigs in nature are active, curious creatures that typically spend 10 hours a day foraging, rooting and roaming.
Veterinarians consider pigs as smart as dogs. Imagine keeping a dog in a tight cage or crowded pen day after day with absolutely nothing to chew on, play with or otherwise occupy its mind. Americans would universally denounce that as inhumane. Extreme boredom is considered the main reason pigs in confinement are prone to biting one another’s tails and engaging in other aggressive behavior.
Finally, even if the gestation crate is abandoned, pork producers will still keep a sow in a narrow metal cage once she gives birth to her piglets. This slightly larger cage, called a farrowing crate, severely restricts a sow’s movements and makes normal interactions between mother and piglets impossible.
Because confinement buildings are far from cities and lack windows, all of this is shielded from public view. But such treatment of pigs contrasts sharply with what people say they want for farm animals. Surveys consistently find that Americans believe all animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment. A 2004 survey by Ohio State University found that 81 percent of respondents felt that the well-being of livestock is as important as that of pets.
Such sentiment was behind the widely supported Humane Slaughter Act of 1958, which sought to improve treatment of cattle and hogs at slaughterhouses. But it’s clear that Americans expect more — they want animals to be humanely treated throughout their lives, not just at slaughter. To ensure this, Congress should ban gestation crates altogether and mandate that animal anti-cruelty laws be applied to farm animals.
As a cattle rancher, I am comfortable raising animals for human consumption, but they should not be made to suffer. Because we ask the ultimate sacrifice of these creatures, it is incumbent on us to ensure that they have decent lives. Let us view the elimination of gestation crates as just a small first step in the right direction.
Nicolette Hahn Niman, a lawyer and cattle rancher, is writing a book about the meat industry.
