Animal rights?

no problem

Its good that there is an active list of companies to avoid. I like the idea of buying eggs from good sources - its my opinion that a 'free range' egg tastes better than a 'caged' egg does. (similar to wild salmon vs farmed salmon)

 

Eggs are in interesting topic. In the year 2002, the United States produced 86,698,000,000 eggs.

That's 315 eggs for every man, woman, and child in the country and the production rate averages out to around 9,900,000 eggs per hour or about 2,800 eggs per second.

That's way more than the average number of chickens slaughtered per second (276+)! Of course, the slaughtering is all taken care of humanely. *wink*

If anyone wants to look at the source of this data, you can view extensive USDA reports here.

 

*stands in awe at the facts in this thread*

I like all the logical, fact-based arguments!

Personally, I believe that animal testing is a sort of necessary evil. I do think all precautions and regulations should be taken to ensure that it is done as humanely as possible, but in the end, human studies should only be done after the drug's effects are somewhat known.

That having been said, I'm all for prison inmate testing. I saw a chain gang outside the courthouse today and cheered.

 

"Personally, I believe that animal testing is a sort of necessary evil."

Unfortunately, if we continue to place the brunt of our focus on animal testing we will never know if it is truly neccessary or not.

"I abhor vivisection. It should at least be curbed. Better, it should be abolished. I know of no achievement through vivisection, no scientific discovery, that could not have been obtained without such barbarism and cruelty. The whole thing is evil." -Dr Charles Mayo, Co-Founder, Mayo Clinic, New York Daily News, March 13, 1961.

It's also worthy of note to mention that the "War on Cancer" was declared by Nixon in 1971. Billions, if not trillions of dollars have been pumped into animal testing in the search for the cure. Who knows what breakthroughs we could've generated if that funding would've been spent on more scientific studies as opposed to inflicting rats and mice with cancer time and time again.

 

I totally agree about vivisection, and its barely practised these days. I know when I was at school that entire aspect was covered using video tapes (from like the 60s or something). There's no need for vivisection these days at all.

 

What's vivisection? Sorry if I missed this from an earlier post, but I don't remember seeing the word...


Unfortunately, if we continue to place the brunt of our focus on animal testing we will never know if it is truly neccessary or not.

I agree. And modern advances like computer simulations (for one) may be able to replace some animal testing. But we didn't have such advances previously, so we had to make do with animal testing. I hereby alter my statement to say it *was* a necessary evil, and now we are developing other methods.

Who knows what breakthroughs we could've generated if that funding would've been spent on more scientific studies as opposed to inflicting rats and mice with cancer time and time again.

"More scientific"...like what?

 

vivisection is cutting up live animals purely to see how the organs function in a living animal.

Like I say, no-one does it any more.

In history it has been performed on humans too

 

A while ago, obhavekenobi78 observed: Rights are that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. I would stretch this one step further to include the concept of a just claim. But then, in contemplating what is meant by "just" (my desk dictionary defines it as: "Consistent with standards of what is moral and proper"), I start to see that we humans have to decide if we are going to be inclusive of animals within our "standards" of determining what is just, or -- conversely -- if we will excludethem...which seems to indicate that we therefore release ourselves of much responsibility towards them.... Just an observation....

 

vivisection is cutting up live animals purely to see how the organs function in a living animal.

Hey! Let's try that on a human and see how many people get upset!

Sorry, I don't mean to be unconstructive here but that to me is just wrong. shudders

 

Animals don't need rights, they are animals, wild animals.

 

: Rights are that which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. I would stretch this one step further to include the concept of a just claim. But then, in contemplating what is meant by "just" (my desk dictionary defines it as: "Consistent with standards of what is moral and proper"), I start to see that we humans have to decide if we are going to be inclusive of animals within our "standards" of determining what is just, or -- conversely -- if we will excludethem...which seems to indicate that we therefore release ourselves of much responsibility towards them.... Just an observation....

And yet this is still a philosophical can of worms because it treats rights as something contractual. The original argument was that anyone who is capable of understanding a contract of rights and responsibilities (ie. a human) was bound and protected by one, and your extension allows other living things to be entered into the contract if those who are already bound by it wish them to be included. But I believe that rights are not contractual at all; rather, they are something earned by the virtue of existence. Animals have emotions like humans do, and they are also capable of feeling pain and fear. It could be argued that the mere existence of these aspects of the animal mind, even though they aren't set in as developed a psyche as that of a human and respond to a very different set of stimuli, permit animals to have rights protecting them from pain.

 

Dark Lady Mara:
And yet this is still a philosophical can of worms because it treats rights as something contractual.

Sorry.... In bringing in this concept of a "just claim" I realize I probably shouldn't have only provided a definition of "just," but of "claim" as well. I use "claim" to mean simply: a right. And when I spoke of a "standard," I merely meant: a basis; a criterion. I didn't necessarily mean to imply anything "contractual."

The original argument was that anyone who is capable of understanding a contract of rights and responsibilities (ie. a human) was bound and protected by one...

But then, what about human infants or children? Certainly, we cannot argue that they -- just like animals -- would not be "protected," simply because they are incapable of understanding the concept of "rights".....

But I believe that rights are not contractual at all; rather, they are something earned by the virtue of existence.

I don't want it to sound like I'm arguing against you, however, because I agree with this philosophy, 100%.

 

The suggestion that animals have rights is really nothing more than human's uncontrollable personification. That is, putting human charactaristics onto animals. Animals can't think, and have no emotions. All they do is act and react.


And keep in mind, humans are animals also. With the same wants and needs as the rest of the animal kingdom. Pretty much, we are just beasts with big brains.

 

Animals can't think

Um...someone a bit more knowledgeable in this area will need to speak-up, but: QuanarReg, it sounds like you are unfamiliar with the reasoning/thinking tests that have been done with several different types of primates, dolphins, and even crows (to recount just the ones that I'm aware of), which seem to indicate that there are quite a few animals who possess the ability to "think" and problem-solve....

 

I'm for animal rights, but I'm not for extremist attitudes towards animal rights.

In the past year I've been more respectable to life, thus I find having problems killing even flies or spiders. But oddly enough, hunters don't really bother me. But actually, there are two types of hunters in my eyes. Type 1 is the type of hunter that truly feels hunting is a sport and hunts respectively. They don't bother me. Type 2 is that group that kills anything it can find because they think "it's fun". I've run into these type of people in the past, and I think they are odd.

I have never hunted and I never will. I just cannot see what's so "fun" or "sporty" about killing another animal that has no chance in hell of defending itself.

But I, myself, feel bad. I have a German Shepard that lives in the back of my house, in a fairly good sized kennel (it has a "roof" over the top to keep the snow and rain out, and has two doghouses). I try to keep things as clean as possible out there and try to spend as much time with the dog as possible. But I feel terrible somedays when I think that the dog has spent his entire life trapped in a metal cage.

I'm pathetic, aren't I?

 

Those "Type 2" hunters aren't hunters. They're just idiots who give true hunters a bad name. I've run into them too, and I have no respect for them at all...people like them are the main reason anti-hunters exist.

 

Hey! Let's try that on a human and see how many people get upset!

That's it in a nutshell. That's what I can say about most issues regarding animal rights.

If it is wrong to do it to a human, it is wrong to do it to an animal. Period. All life is sacred. We are all creations of the Great Creator. (Before someone brings up neutering--to a point I would apply the same principle to humans--don't have children you can't take care of, and when there is a birth control pill for animals, I'll be opposed to neutering.)

That being said--I also eat free-range eggs and I'm vegetarian (although I haven't always been, and I do love steak--but all I have to do is think about what happened to the cow before the steak got on my plate). I also drink milk and eat cheese coming from cows that have not been fed hormones. Fifty percent of all dairy cows get udder infections from the hormones they receive--fifty percent!

I'm also horrified by the folks who claim to be religious but do not recognize animals as God's creatures worthy of our love, care, and respect. I think the viewpoint of humans as "superior" creatures is species-centric and wrong.

 

I say utilization of nature for the benefit of humanity without rendering extinct the animals/plants we use is the best possible solution.

I favor animal testing, if it benefits humanity.

Human beings are omnivorous, and I favor animal farming and slaughter. It should be done as humanely as possible, of course.

Animals have the right not to be tortured or treated cruelly, but we are the top of the food chain and responsible for the caretaking of this planet.

I don't subscribe any spirituality to animals nor plants outside of humanity.

 

We are on top of the food chain because we have bullied our way there, not because we are "supposed" to be there by some divine right.

 

Um, 'bullied' our way there?

Aren't you forgetting the laws of nature?

 

He's got you there. "Bullying" is the way of nature. Nah, we're not here by divine right, but "bullying" when it concerns evolution and such really doesn't mean anything. That's how things advance. We're smart. We don't have claws, but we can make claws. We don't have shells, but we can make shells. We don't have wings or fins, but we can make those too. It's nothing to do with bullying. Every animal is guilty of bullying.

 

For once, I agree with S_o_K.

 

Wanna have gay sex?

 

Laws of nature or no laws of nature, that doesn't mean that we are at the top of the food chain because of some divine right. We are there because we forced our way there, not because some higher power put us there.

As such, other animals, also souls born of our Great Creator, are just as important as we are. Cranial capacity and importance to a Higher Power are not intertwined. If they were, then smart people would be more valuable than dumb people.

And if you think non-human creatures aren't smart, you've never observed my cat when he wants something.

 

Oh, some other animals are definately smart. I just don't they're quite as smart as us(smart is relative, of course. animals don't engage in genocide, for example). Dolphins may be as smart as us though.