Animal rights?

Apologies in advance if this is just a rehash of an older thread.

Question: Do you think animals should have rights? Why or why not?

My two cents: Groups like PETA frustrate me to no end. I'm an avid hunter and fisherman, and I'm enfuriated by their attempts to ban my outdoor hobbies from American society. I believe that animals were put on Earth to serve humans, not the other way around, and we should have no qualms about killing animals for food or if medicinal research requires it.

 

Big differance between 'medical reserch' and some of the living torture that is practiced in the name of 'sceince'.

Any company that works with chemicals must have a MSDS (material safty data sheet) on any producted used the LD-50 test, which includes animals such as horses and dogs (how this has ANY bearing on human reaction has yet ot be satisfactorly explained to me).


Most 'animal testing' is a excersise in babrberism.

I'm admitedly a vegitarian, but I don't wish to abolish hunting or meat eating (although I am a strong proponant of 'humane harvesting').

We SHARE the earth with animals, they were not put here to be our exclusive 'playthings' and although they do not have 'rights' persay, we equaly do not have the 'right' to treat them as tools to be disposed of....

 

I would agree with Breezy.


Kill them if you're gonna eat them, but don't torture them.


Animals do have rights.

 

I agree with Breezy as well.

Animals do have feelings as well. The next time you shame your dog or cat for something they did wrong you will notice they will display guilt. If you dont' call that a feeling, then you are emotionless yourself.

 

I see nothing wrong with hunting or fishing so long as you eat what you kill(or donate it to someone else to eat), and it's a quick death.

There are only two valid reasons to take a life: food and defense.

But animals are not here to serve humans, anymore than humans are here to serve sharks, or the bacteria and earthworms that eat us when we die(when they manage to get through the steel coffins and avoid the chemicals we pump our dead full of, anyway )

 

Animal rights? No, I really don't feel there are too many rights entitled to animals.

I am an avid hunter and fisherman.

I consider hunting my favorite activity. From September 1st to the New Year, I hunt almost everyday. It is a way of life for me.

Do I hunt for food? No. I hunt because it is fun to hunt.

Do I eat what I kill? Yes, for the most part. (Except Magansers or squirrels or coyotes, or other pest animals that I kill from time to time.)

***** This paragraph maybe found graphic by some*******

Yes, it would be nice if animals didn't have to suffer. But the reality of the matter is that often the animals do suffer. For instance, goose hunting, which I am currently doing, often requires you to kill a wounded animal. Many times the geese have only a broken wing. So then you are presented with a problem. How do you easily kill them. With geese there usually isn't an easy way. Often I am forced to cut thier treachea which causes them to sufficate, or slit their throat, which of course kills them, or striking them in the head with an object. Now, all of these methods do kill the animal relatively quickly, but it is still not a fun experience. But I always make sure that I kill them as quickly as I can so that the suffering is as short as possible. But there's just no perfect way to always do that.


Yes, most animals that are hunted, are used and are put out of any pain as quickly as possible, but there are times where that can be difficult.

As a whole, I'd say I am very respectful of nature and the animals I harvest. I woudln't say animals need rights, but they do need respect.

 

If you respect something, you will acknowledge its rights.

 

My view on animal rights is pretty simple: A mink is a rat with a high R rating.

I will lay my position out up front: I like veal, I have no problem if people hunt (I choose not to), feel that certain medical research (particularly in the area of pediatric cancer and a LOT of diseases) must continue, and that I see no problem with leather/fur jackets and such. If people don't like that, they may choose NOT to wear them, but I will NOT tolerate anyone trying to impose their social agenda/views on me.

That said, I do NOT support animal cruelty, but there are a number of issues I have had with animal rights activists and their agendas.

 

Animals have no rights except those WE give them.

Also, we have no right to be so arrogant as to think that animals are put on Earth for the sole purpose of serving mankind in whatever capacity we see fit.

 

Animals should be treated with respect and only killed quickly.
I believe in Game Hunting.
I believe in Fishing
I believe in Varmit Hunting -to protect crops

"Animal Testing" tends to be rather disgusting and inhumane and should be stopped

but i still like Varmit Hunting, this is your brain..this is your brain on hollow points. (they never know what hits them, its FAR MORE HUMANE THAN POISON)

 

By definition animals do not have rights.
To have rights you have to have responsibilites, animals do not have responsibilites hence do not have rights.

Big differance between 'medical reserch' and some of the living torture that is practiced in the name of 'sceince'.

Can you perhaps elaborate on that point and provide some reasonable evidence of the 'torture' that occurs ? Please refrain from linking to animal-activist sites that use incorrect, grossly outdated information.

Any company that works with chemicals must have a MSDS (material safty data sheet) on any producted used the LD-50 test

A experimental proceedure that only needs to be carried out once (ever) to prevent accidental exposure of said chemicals to humans and/or animals. Almost sounds sensible to me.

which includes animals such as horses and dogs

erm, no. Thats actually laughable, as no-one would ever use horses for LD50 experiments.

(how this has ANY bearing on human reaction has yet ot be satisfactorly explained to me).

Lets see, rodents (common animals used for LD50) have hearts, lungs, livers and brains - almost like your (average) human being. Thats probably as I need to go on that point.

For all those against animal drug testing - what do you suggest we use instead ???

 

Human Volunteers!

I've always wanted to play Dr. Frankenstein!

 

I've often thought about being allowed to use prison inmates. They effectively give up their rights by committing crimes, so why not test new drugs on them ?

 

When "animal rights" comes to my mind, I dont think of legitimate hunting or fishing. To me, those are not the animals I think of.

What I think of is the horror stories on the news of people having 60 dogs, cats, pigs, etc. that are existing in unliveable conditions with waste matter uncleaned and no food or water and other dead animals around.

I think of people who take animals to use them to train pit fighting dogs or drug dogs (I don't lump pit bulls into this because I do think if brought up correctly they can be good dogs).

These animals have the right to have society punish the humans who have wronged them. They can not speak out for themselves so it is our job to protect them.

I also believe it is a animal owner's responsiblity to spay and neuter. If you are going to raise a dog for breeding that is one thing but I've seen what can happen to an unspayed cat who is impregnated 4 times in one year. Not to mention what happens to unwanted animals.

People should be required to go through their own training session and be licensed to have an animal. To many ignorant idiots get animals without realizing they are a committment . . . some take up as much time and money as a child would (don't get me started on thinking people should have to be licensed to raise children!!!)

I'll get off my soap box, touchy subject for me.

 

We SHARE the earth with animals, they were not put here to be our exclusive 'playthings' and although they do not have 'rights' persay, we equaly do not have the 'right' to treat them as tools to be disposed of....

See, this is what makes a woman SEXAY! DB, if you ever find your way southwards, you know, say, oh I dunno, Arizona...

Bring the bondage rope

I agree fully with DB, minus the fact I'm not a veggie and I love my dead cow

But, moderation and I don't like 'sport hunting' or killing for fun or medical testing that doesn't have real value.

-GAT

 

Animals do not have rights at all, as Malkie said, rights means responsibilities, to what responsibilities to animals have?

None, they act according to their nature and their role in it, nothing more.

Man is both a part and seperate from nature since we can alter our environment in expansive ways, but still require said environment in certain respects.

Be that as it may, it is alright to hunt an animal...life and death is a fact of nature, it always happens so don't tell me it's bad to kill an animal. It will be killed regardless. Hunting for sport is alright, but it should be for the food too, but most hunters are like that anyways, plus we need population control. Lastly, death by bullet is on the whole a cleaner, nicer death than how prey animals usually die anyways.

Animal testing is required for human survival, we are out for our survival too, hm? Though an animal should not needlessly suffer, it should be for a reason. I mean, would you rather all those dogs and cats not die so as to find a cure for raibies and thus saving millions of lives to this point?

Killing varmints like rats, badgers, even foxes and coyotes is necessary. Again, for human needs.

We should be careful with our management of animals, but also remember that 'we' are at the top, not them, we come first and should remain so.

I don't think anyone here would want to be considered the equal of an animal, that goes against entirely species survival. We are here because we fought for the top, why would you want to decend?

You wouldn't, face it.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

People should be required to go through their own training session and be licensed to have an animal.

That doesn't make much sense...a five-year-old kid would need a license to go to the pet store and buy a goldfish?

I agree that animals don't deserve to be tortured/beaten/etc. but that is an implied right at best.

 

I'm surprised no crazed PETA members have popped up on this board yet.

And yet I'm glad not to have to hear their inane propoganda.

 

Links to the barbersim of the LD-50 test and it's relative uselessness:

LD 50 failure

And another interesting page that focuses on 'animal rights' persay link

Physicians Commity for responsible Medicine

The Manitobian

Not a single 'peta' or other animal rights group among the lot (excluding the essay so noted)

I got into a disscusion with a freind once who chastised me for only purchasing 'cage free eggs'. He asked 'what good does that do?'

I told him 'Well, when I started buying them there was one company that put them out and they ran about 4$ a dozen... 3 years later I can walk into lmost any store and find at LEAST 4 different companies and the price is nearly comprable to 'regular battery eggs'.. and I think they taste better too.

Just a thought.

 

Rights have nothing to do with responsibility. You can't just make up any old definition to suit your argument.

Rights are that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

I find it appaulling the way we treat animals. It says something very pointed about our species that we must keep fulfilling this strange desire to supress and kill, even when it's our own species.

Malkie,

I came across and interesting JAMA article in which the author studied the reported hospital deaths and injuries that were caused explicitly by legally prescribed prescription medications. Not only was it the fourth leading cause of death in the United States at over 100,000 deaths annually, but it also accounted for over 2,000,000 serious injuries as well. So, the question is, given the exorbitant amount of testing that is completed on non-human animals, why are there so many complications with medications that passed these rigorous tests?

It's also interesting to note that we have been curing cancer in mice for decades. In fact, there are over ten-thousand substances and methods that cure the disease in mice. Not a single one works in a human.

Back to the main subject. I think it is our intelligence and compassion that seperate and elevate us above the rest of the animal kingdom. Whether or not we choose to excersise these qualities and apply them to our daily lives is a choice we all make on our own.

Many of the responses in this thread openly state that animals deserve no rights, but then go on to assign them. Saying that an animal should not be subject to cruel killing is giving that animal a right. The right to die with dignity and/or without undue pain and suffering.

Are animals equal to humans? Of course not. Does that mean they are devoid of any and all rights whatsoever?

 

DarthBreezy thanks for taking the time to find those links. However, your entire arguement is a moot point as the LD50 test was abandoned in 2002. Three alternative animal tests, the Fixed Dose Procedure, the Acute Toxic Class Method and the Up and Down Procedure have been developed which give rise to significant improvements in animal welfare. They have recently undergone revision to improve their scientific performance but more importantly to increase their regulatory acceptance.

The links you provided referenced extremely old literature (the latest being 1982) and things have changed dramatically since then. There's always the risk that the old information is out of date. (as it clearly is in this situation).

I came across and interesting JAMA article in which the author studied the reported hospital deaths and injuries that were caused explicitly by legally prescribed prescription medications

Can you provide me with the volume, issue number (I searched the JAMA and got thousands of hits). I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of these deaths were a direct result of doctor and or nurse error.

Yes, many prescription medications have the ability to kill people when used incorrected, even something as every day as aspirin or ibuprofen. Research is currently ongoing to create the next generation of drugs that are no-where near as dangerous. Drugs with increased selectivity, and reduced side-effects are on the way due to recent developments in drug discovery.

It's also interesting to note that we have been curing cancer in mice for decades. In fact, there are over ten-thousand substances and methods that cure the disease in mice. Not a single one works in a human.

Articles please ?

I doubt anyone thinks that animal suffering is a good thing, but I repeat my question; what is the alternative ?

 

"Can you provide me with the volume, issue number (I searched the JAMA and got thousands of hits). I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of these deaths were a direct result of doctor and or nurse error."

Actually, It was quite a while ago, but here is a CNN article referring to the JAMA published study.

Study: Drug reactions kill an estimated 100,000 a year.

"I doubt anyone thinks that animal suffering is a good thing, but I repeat my question; what is the alternative ?"

In-Vitro research, Clinical study, Epidemiologic study, and Computer Modeling to name just a few.

I think we should also keep in mind that the vast majority of animals that die for research are not used for medicine, but for such trivial reasons as cosmetics and chemical cleaner testing. It's more of a question of money than science.

I think as humans we tend to think of other animals as harvestable goods (similar to plants) as opposed to living individual beings. Of course, opinions change depending upon the species of animal. Cats and Dogs being the two most glaring examples.

 

obhavekenobi

But how can you be sure that your in vitro research and computer models are accurate?

You've got to have something to double-check that, or we could have a lot more people killed because someone messed up an in vitro test or computer model.

 

Thanks for the information obhavekenobi78 it was enough to find the article in question - Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients
A Meta-analysis of Prospective Studies JAMA 1998; 279: 1200-1205.

I'm glad I found the article, as it states that they excluded therapeutic failures, intentional and accidental poisoning (ie, overdose), and drug abuse, which counters my earlier arguement.

The final figures showed that the incident rate of adverse drug reactions (ADR) was 6.7%, and fatal ADRs were 0.32%. That does seem extremely high to me. However, their results must be viewed with some circumspection because of the heterogeneity among the studies and small biases in the sample. It is clearly an important clinical issue though.

So, whats the solution ? Abandon drug research because we haven't got it right yet ? Certainly not ! With recent advantages in medicine we are extremely close to being able to produce drugs which have no side effects - drugs which cannot harm you no matter how much you take.

For example, I'm currently working on a novel drug for hypertension (high blood pressure), which so far as shown absolutely no side effects. It only appears to affect the cells lining the inside of your arteries, and no-where else. A large part of this work has been performed on cells harvested from humans.

In-Vitro research, Clinical study, Epidemiologic study, and Computer Modeling to name just a few.

These are excellent suggestions (although the majority of in-vitro research is performed on animal tissue ), however none of them can replace the activity of an entire organ.

Computer modelling has been amazing in aiding the production of more selective drugs and has vastly reduced the requirement for animal use in high-throughput screening.

Epidemiology has completely abolished the need for animal use in cosmetic testing, which is obviously a good thing. (for the record I'm totally against cosmetic testing).

However, as I mentioned, we cannot (as yet) faithfully reproduce any organ (other than the skin). Until such times we have to use animals. Its very costly, and trust me, I prefer working with cell cultures for a number of reasons.

 

malkieD2

Thanks for the heads up on the fact that the barbaric practice of LD-50 has passed into rightful obsoleteness!

It just goes to show (other great points made in this thread) that we are slowly moving away from the nessesity of using other living things.

Peta (for all it's over the top foot in mouth propaganda) does have some uses... they carry a list of companies that don't participate in unessisary animal testing and, as with the cage free hen anallogy, the more demand there is, the more comapnies that will follow suit.