Animal Rights?

[Aadenn]

I agree with you almost completely. But what about property rights? Would you agree that property rights have been critical to our social progress? And if so, what happens when a person's property rights conflict with society's overwhelming emotional response to an animal's pain? (ie, the Vicks dogfighting scandal) Which do you prefer when in conflict, the owner or the animal?

Saucie, what exactly do you mean by property rights? This raises an interesting question of territorial domain and animal preservation. Do you think mankind has the "right" to dominate the ecosystem and push endangered animal species into extinction through habitat destruction?

Is there such a thing as a 'right to more land?' or a 'right to develop land?' I come back to your definition of a right as being a contract. If this is indeed a 'right' of corporations or individuals, then what is their responsibility that goes along with that right? What is the contract? And who decides? and when does that decision come under the global flag of "animal rights" or is it semantically more appropriate to refer to it as environmental policy?

I dont think "animal rights" should include that kind of restriction, but I also think an individual's property rights (in my mind the right to own land) should come with the responsibility of not doing excessive damage to the ecosystem.

[Warbaby1943]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

I do believe they should be protected but not have more rights then human beings have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away.

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Do we need to define what is a "natural right"?

The human definition is that it is something I'm entitled to and cannot (meaning should not) be taken from me. If you apply that to animals (as you imply...)

...then it should be illegal to stop a wolf from roaming the city streets, hunting your pets, and that if a person tries to kill said wolf and gets killed by the wolf instead, the wolf should go free... after all, it was self defense.

Or are you saying these things are just the nature of animals and we can't change them... and does that mean we should allow animals to exercise these rights unfettered?

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

I don't think we can prevent animals exercising their natural rights, unless we put them in unnatural situations, like zoos or experimental laboratories. We can affect how wild animals behave, for example, many wild animals will avoid urban areas, so their "right to roam" is affected, but they will still roam freely elsewhere. Isn't this reflected in nature where wilderbeast will avoid a watering hole if lions are already drinking there?

In unnatural situations, animals are completely at our mercy, and we have a moral duty to treat them with all due consideration. It is true that there is no "natural right" not to be tortured or to be experimented upon, but we are under legal obligations (in most jurisidicitions) not to cause unnecessary suffering. Our legal duties give rise to quasi-legal rights for animals, although any poor creature whose rights are abused cannot enforce them in the Courts, and it is up to other people to prevent such mistreatment happening, if they are so inclined.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

I use "natural rights" in the sense of your second definition (but I would comment that, in your "wolf" illustration, the wolf should not be condemned for killing a man in self-defence, although it would be wise to destroy it, as it is clearly a dangerous animal, to prevent it killing anyone else - our right of self-defence).

If it's a natural right as you suggest and the animal cannot be condemned... then isn't it hypocritical to say it would be wise to destroy it?

Rights are a human construct. And we only have to agree to what the rules are to be. Animals have no natural rights... only those rights we humans wish to confer on them.

If you disagree, then in accordance to your example, a man who kills an animal in self-defence should not be condemned but should likewise be destroyed none the less.

Therefore, the rest of your post regarding natural rights and unnatural situations fails (in my eyes) because I believe it's based on an incorrect premise.

(I notice that there has been comment on abortion in this context, but I have not read any of those posts properly, and it's probably unwise for me to comment. As always in these situations, I bowl straight in, regardless. It seems to me that the rights of fertilised human ova/foetuses is an entirely different thing from the rights of animals. Up to a given point the ovum or foetus is not a viable entity and its destruction can be legally sanctioned. Beyond that point abortion is not permissable because it amounts to killing an unborn human being. Animals are not and never will be human. So far as I am aware, the abortion of animals is not much of an issue for anybody.)

Off topic... the comment you didn't read is whether or not abortion is a luxury... which is also off topic in an animal rights conversation. (But that's up to Saucie... it's her thread.)

Tom notes that, on a philosophical level, it can be argued that there is not much difference between humans and other animals and so it will become harder to formulate laws that distinguish between them adequately. That strikes me as nonsense: of course we can formulate all the laws we like. Only humans will obey or disobey them, because only humans will be aware of them. In the good old days, we would hang dogs for supposed crimes. If it made our forefathers feel better, that's one thing, but the poor animals just thought they were being killed - nothing else.

I'm not sure if that's the point Tom was trying to make... but I'm not sure it wasn't either. Tom?

He has also discussed whether animals feel pain, and should we care? If we are devoid of empathy, it doesn't matter. But we aren't, and so we should - and most of us do - care if an animal suffers at our hands. It may be true that we do not understand how animals recognise feelings of pain (or love, or hunger). But we know that certain things cause us pain, and that animals react to pain in much the same way that we do: ergo, animals feel pain and don't like it.

On this I agree. Animals react to pain as we do, we don't like pain, and therefore it is reasonable for us to empathize and wish to avoid causing animals unnecessary pain... which is why (here I go) we, humans, get to decide on what rights we wish to confer on animals.

TYWD

[Saucie]

I've thought about it a bit more. It seems to me an animal has a right of self-defence, a right to hunt and the right to roam wherever it may. Those are its natural rights which cannot be taken away. Other "rights" are, as Ozme says, granted by man for his own conscience's sake.

TYWD

What is a "natural right"? Where would it come from? Whose responsibility would it be to enforce those rights? Can they be taken away for any reason, and if so, how? People use that phrase all the time, and to be honest, I have no idea what it means in concrete terms. Would you clarify?

[Aadenn]

What about animal testing? Do animals have the "right" not to be experimented on?

I say no. "Rights" is something that gets thrown around an awful lot without full consideration of what it means.

While I think testing on animals for cosmetic purposes is incredibly vain and immoral, I dont believe animals have any rights in that dept nor do I feel testing on animals for medicinal purposes is immoral or vain.

[Thorne]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.

[mkemse]

I don't believe in animals having "rights." However, there should be some consideration given to those animals which you have turned into pets. If you need to kill an animal for food, fine. If you must kill to protect yourself or other people, do it! If you kill just to watch the animal die, or torture for thrills, then you should be tossed into the zoo with the other animals. Preferably into the lions' den.

As for testing, using animals for testing cosmetics is just plain bad. They should use something really worthless, like Britney or Paris. But for medical research animal testing is sometimes essential. Sure, much can be done with computer simulations, but in order to get the data to design the simulations you have to have live testing.

altho I do beleive in animal right myslef, i agree with you 100% when you say that anoyne who kills an animal justtowathc it die, for the "Thrill Of The Kill" should be placed as you suggested, just do not know if i would want to subjectthe animals to them

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

[Thorne]

1 question I do have,,if you are oppsed to using rats ,mice ect for lab tests, what do you seriously suggest science use to test possible medsication, you have to use something that lives and breathes and to me logical mice, or similar woud be ideal
I would not want to suse either Britnet or Paris for this, as i would view that as a complete waste of tsting material let's sue smething of scientific value, fot testing ,the question is what??

I have no opposition to using animals, of any kind, for MEDICAL tests. I don't consider testing of cosmetics, except in very rare circumstances, to be medically related. I do think that a lot of animal testing can be eliminated by proper use of computer simulations, but eventually you MUST perform animal, or human testing before finalizing your research.

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards mentioned in an interview I heard that if we accept the theory of evolution, there's nothing specific that sets all of humanity apart from animals. As research, (and time) progresses the known differences will be less and less.

This makes making different laws governing humans and animals impossible. Making special laws for humans gets stuck on purely superficial properties.

Animal Rights people seem to be more into which animals are the fluffiest and have the cutest eyes. Where is the organisation fighting for the rights of endangered insects? Bats? Sharks? Who cares about respecting the privacy of earth worms when they mate? And then where the difference between animals and microbes? Do we have to care about the "feelings" of bacteria.

We cannot empathise with a cat or a dolphin. We live in completely different perceptive realities. Their universe is different from ours. They love differently. When they come and rub up against us, we have no idea what it means to them. We have no idea how they suffer and why. We have no idea how they perceive pain. If they remember it and if it is traumatic for them.

Assuming humans alone have consciousness and saying our actions are guided by free will which makes us different, is making things way too easy for oneself. This is an extremely difficult subject right now.

Is the computer program:

If stimuli > 10
then computer = pain

...experiencing real pain? Is pain simply a information feedback system? Why should we care?

That said, I'm playing the hypocrite card. I just don't care enough about them... and lamb is so very tasty. As far as animal rights are concerned humanity has always been on the level of might makes right, and most people, (including me) seems to be cool about that. Maybe it'll change, maybe not? But I'm adamant about not giving up my fillet because some tree-huggers hypothetical theory on the feelings of animals. Maybe I'm just a negative Nancy? Maybe I'm just greedy and want to keep my tasty fishes? Maybe might gives right? Maybe?

[TomOfSweden]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

[Moonraker]

One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize.

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

[TomOfSweden]

There are many who have no qualms about looking people straight in the eye as their bombs kill hundreds of thousands and they send people of to possible death. Perhaps an activist will come up with a come up with a slick term like collateral damage or friendly fire. The key difference being the cot death is nature at work and the other case is man at work.

Yes death is sad and it's hard to look any grieving parent in the eye but the world is full of tough choices. My problem with your example is it justifies cruelty if for a good cause. Parallel arguments are used for torture of prisoners. Perhaps "No" should mean No and not "No unless".

It's not justifying cruelty. It's acknowledging that it is a cruel activity, but chose to look away when it suits us. As I do. There is no way to justify torture, but we can accept it. We can accept that we just don't care enough about the animals. That we don't empathize enough with them.

People who try to justify animal experimentation on some moral grounds are the worst hypocrites of all in this issue. Those to who try to devalue animals worth, at the same time elevating ours. It's like a bully on a playground. Nobody can stop the bully from taking the sweets from the smaller kid. From that reaching the conclusion that it is right for the bully to take the sweets is just offensive.

Even so, I'm still all for animal experimentation. I'm a greedy crud who'd rather not suffer later in my life from debilitating diseases I'm genetically inclined for. Better them than me.

[Ozme52]

Another things is that capitalism will sort all this out anyway. When we reach 60 billion people on earth, (should be around 2050 or so) eating meat will be so expensive that nobody can afford it. Meat takes 10 times the resources than a vegetarian diet. An other alternative is growing muscle in in vitro, without any connection to any conscious brain. I'm certain this will not only be doable, will happen soon, but also be so much more cheaper and tastier, living animals won't be able to "compete". They'll all be zoo and wildlife park attractions.

That's at least my vision of the future.

BTW I have several relatives who are not only scientists but have worked with animal experimentation. It's cruel, it's horrible for them. But they go to extreme lengths to minimize the suffering. And rather them than me having to suffer through some horrible medicine experimentation. One of the research projects was researching a type of muscle in the mouth of the mouse lung, which corresponding muscle is responsible for infant cot death. I'd like a animal rights activist look a parent in the eye who's lost their children to this, and say that research should seize. The same research on humans would of course be illegal, and without animal experimentation, it wouldn't be possible.

60 billion by 2050? Is that a typo or... where did you see that statistic?

Regardless, I'll only quibble a bit about the part I highlighted. That's correct, but it's not like every bit of land where we grow grass, hay, alfalfa, and other pasture products is suited for growing human consumable crops.

And even those that are so suited, are far more productive if you rotate the types of crops you grow. So pasture products will be grown regardless and we'll graze and/of feed animals regardless.

Lastly, we're born of omnivores and are at our healthiest with a mixed diet. So I think meat will always be with us... or at least for a very long time... maybe until, as you suggest, we can vat-grow it.

The rest, I'm on board with you and have no issues with medical experimentation... and as you say, most experimenters are as humane as possible in the execution of their tasks.

[Ozme52]

LOL it is so funny. on a forum for people into bdsm you have everybody agree that laws and rights and ethics is just something you can agree on or not. when we discussed this in school almost everyone, even the teacher, and _ALL_ of the girls were certain that stuff like human rights and so are something that is beyond human decisions. (which i thought sounded pretty stupid, but i didn't say anything, sadly). but it makes sense that this idea isnt so popular here...

That's theology in disguise. The belief that humans are somehow endowed with something special that innately separates us from animals. Well, we don't even have a monopoly on intelligence nor emotions. We just have enough intellegence to delude ourselves that we are innately special and enough emotions to be happily content with our delusion. LOL

But don't kid yourself. There's not all that much unanimity here. Just a particularly vocal bunch of us who are willing to discuss human foibles.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ozme

To deal with the wolf question (which is entirley contrived, by the way): no it's not hypocritical to kill the wolf, it's an act of self-defence on the part of man: man has the same natural rights as animals, and the right of self-defence is one of them. If another wolf perceived that this man was a threat to its existence, it would be justified in attacking him and killing him ... and so on ad infinitum. However, in the real world, this would be a ridiculous scenario; a consequence of pursuing logic to the nth degree. If you are trying to make me say that the legal system is bound to condemn a human being to death being for killing an animal, you have a long wait. Natural rights as I use the term (your 2nd definition, remember) fall outside any legal system.

I agree that moral and legal rights are invented by men, but these are not the "rights" I called natural rights earlier. Those rights are, to use your words, ones that are in "the nature of animals"; they are instinctive - inate. These are the rights that all living creatures take to themselves and which no-one can take away, save, perhaps, by imprisoning them. Rights may not have been the best word to use, "freedoms" might have been better. "Abilities" might be even better. Check a thesaurus for other possibiliities.

Better minds than mine have used rights in the sense I have used it, so I don't intend to apologise.

I maintain, therefore, that animals have the natural rights of self-defence, to hunt (or graze), and to roam freely. (This is not a definitive list, but indicative only.) These rights are not given by anyone. Animals can be given legal rights if the law makers wish to do so, but animals will never know they have them, and cannot enforce them.

The legislature can also impose duties and obligations on humans which benefit animals, and gives them quasi-legal rights. People would be expected to know what those laws are (ignorantia legis non excusat), and to break them would be a criminal act. The appropriate law-enforcement agencies would then take action.

I believe my earlier posts stand.

TYWD

[Ozme52]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.

[ThisYouWillDo]

TW. I offered two definitions so you could clarify what you meant. Just because I can help with the clarification doesn't mean I was offering it up as my position.

OK: but I was merely repeating the words you offered.

That said... the contrived wolf v. man scenario works from the perspective that it led you to agreeing that ultimately the cycle stops with the man having the last word. Because men confer rights for themselves and animals only have rights to the point where they don't conflict with our rights. In other word, only those rights we choose to confer.

Yes, I agree man will ultimatley have the last word (or, in this example, make the last killing), because he is cleverer. But as for your comments about rights, see below

If animals have natural rights as you say... then they must have been conferred on them by someone "higher" on the rightious-continuum than man... but then that entity should have made it clear to us when he/she/it conferred our rights upon us as well.

I do say they have rights, which I concede might be better called something else. When I use the term natural rights, I do not mean artificial rights dreamt up by man which are decided upon by courts of law and are enforced by police forces, I just mean the ability to do something. In fact, it's so obvious that animals have these abilities, it was stupid of me to mention them, and it has led to false arguments being raised about whether animals defend themselves, hunt and roam with our permission or consent, which plainly they do not.

Natural rights are not conferred by anyone, they just exist wherever any form of life exists (maybe not at the microbial level, I don't know: can microbes protect themselves?). And they don't have to be written down - for two reasons: in nature, one does not care about the natural rights of others, one merely exercises one's own; and there are many instances of even human laws being unwritten -

England & Wales have no written constitution, nor does anywhere else in the United Kingdom.

In common-law jurisdicitions such as the USA, one has to test the law to find out what it is. It's probably the same under codified legal systems too, but I don't know.

There are very few "moral codes" that have been written down (and those that have been all differ!).

Obviously we shall continue to disagree as to whether there are any innate rights that animals have.

Maybe, but we're not so far apart when it comes to legal rights: animals' legal rights are man-made and depend upon whether man decides to uphold them. The animal has no say in the matter.

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

[TomOfSweden]

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

[Ozme52]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.

I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately

All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

[ThisYouWillDo]

Okay, you want to use natural rights to mean animal behaviour. That's a totally different conversation.

If you mean there are certain animal behaviours that man should acknowledge as a right that should be protected... well... I'm willing to go down a list if you want to discuss which ones I think should and shouldn't be conferred.


All animals?

Are you including mosquitos, ticks, chiggers, fleas and bedbugs? Do you yourself treat them with compassion>

Are you including tunicates, sponges, and barnicles? Why must I have compassion for a sessile sea creature?

That's right, animal behaviour: their (and our) natural right.

I don't believe animals should have any legal rights because it would be pointless. I do believe mankind should be forced by law to observe certain standards of behaviour towards them, however, which gives animals "reflected" legal rights, if you like. I expect we would be in broad agreement what those should be.

Yes: ALL animals. If a mosquito is squashed for biting you, or because it is a malaria risk, that's one thing, and we can kill it for our own self-protection; but if its proboscis, wings and legs are torn off while it lives, for idle amusement, that's quite another.

One should have compassion for any living thing one is able to empathise with.


Quote: by Tom:

Originally Posted by ThisYouWillDo

This bring me back to the beginning of this thread: do, or should animals have rights: I believe man has a duty to treat all animals compassionately, and where laws have been passed to protect animals from abuse, this is a good thing and the laws should be enforced.

This brings up the constant question where this duty comes from? A duty is something we're bound moraly or legaly to do. Who's law are we talking about? who's morals? If it's up to humans to decide it isn't a duty, but your opinion.

I stated a belief: I believe that ...

But where a formal jurisdicition imposes laws, or where convention applies a moral code to protect animals, then it is to those laws and conventions I allude. I am not questioning their validity.

TYWD

[TomOfSweden]

Couldn't resist

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/def...0-33632480a66d

[ThisYouWillDo]

Lol

[Flaming_Redhead]

Do you believe that animals have or should have rights? If so, what would those rights include?

No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.

"God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." Genesis 1:28

"Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything." Genesis 9:1-3

However, along with the dominion, we were given responsibility. I have no problem with eating meat, wearing leather (or even fur if I could afford it), medical testing, hunting, fishing, entertainment, etc. I have a problem with people who can torture an animal to death by putting it in a microwave, pouring gasoline on it and setting it on fire, starving it, etc. Most serial killers begin with cruelty to animals before moving on to bigger and better prey, so I'm all for those people being kept away from the rest of us. *nods a lot*

"If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it." Exodus 23:5

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel." Proverbs 12:10

[TomOfSweden]

[COLOR="DarkGreen"]No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.

But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?

It sounds a lot like you're greedy, (like me) but don't like to reconcile that fact, and therefore hide behind an arbitrary religious text. Isn't that so?

[Thorne]

Originally Posted by Voodoo_Child View Post
No, I don't believe animals have any rights whatsoever nor do I believe they should. I believe that when God created us, He gave us dominion over all animals.
But what reason do you have to believe that the animals are Christian? You can't just force your religion on them based on...yeah...exactly what do you base this on? How is this not just what you want?

I'm not sure I understand how you make the connection between the quoting of a religious text with the concept of animals being Christian. All I see is the use of the bible to justify our use of animals, whether for food or clothing or even medical testing. It has nothing to do with the possible religious leanings of your cat!

Like Redhead, I don't have a problem with the use of animals for these things. Nothing better than a nice thick slice of cow, or a juicy pig thigh. Want to shoot a Bambi for its meat? Go right ahead! I don't particularly care for venison, but if you enjoy it, have a ball. I don't even have a problem with those people who enjoy eating dog or cat, though I would be hesitant to try them. We each have our own tastes.

But, also like Redhead, I draw the line at wanton cruelty for its own sake, the sadistic and malicious torture of animals for no other reason than torture.

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals. Most researchers are aware of the pain they cause, and will minimize it when they can. But if you can save even one human life with animal testing, how can you protest it? Are the lives of laboratory animals, most of which have been specifically bred and raised for that purpose, more valuable than the lives of people? I don't think so!

Sure, many of the tests which at one time were performed on live animals are now able to be done virtually, mainly because of all of the data derived from live animal testing in the past. But eventually you have to test your products on living animals. It's the only way to be sure. Unless, of course, there are some volunteers out there?

[Kevin100]

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals

I am not sure I understand this.
Torture is not torturous?

Kevin

[Thorne]

Medical testing, done properly, is not torture, though you could argue that it is certainly torturous for the animals

I am not sure I understand this.
Torture is not torturous?

Kevin

I suppose it depends on your definition of torture. Going to the dentist is painful, or torturous, for us, but it is not torture. The pain is inflicted for a specific, ultimately beneficial reason, and, of course, it's pretty much voluntary.

By the same token, though the animals don't volunteer for it, the ultimate aim of medical research is for the benefit of humanity, ideally. Therefore, scientists can offset the infliction of pain to their test animals because of the potential gains for people. And even then the reputable ones will, if at all possible without screwing up the test results, sedate the animals. And any pain inflicted is not done for sadistic or gratuitous reasons, which is what I would consider torture.

Now, using animals for cosmetic testing, to my mind, is much less justifiable. I couldn't justify in my mind that those animals have to undergo such pain just to make me look better or smell better or feel better about myself. (And believe me, in my case that would require a LOT of pain!)

The other thing you have to remember, though I don't know how much bearing it has, is that the vast majority of these test animals are living only because they are test animals. Is this right? I don't know. Again, I think you have to balance the needs of humanity with the means for meeting those needs.