Do you think animals should have rights?
.....................................Do Animals Have Rights?................................
For many years, the controversial question ‘Do animals have rights?’ has been circulating and in turn has received many mixed responses. In the Blah Blah section I asked the simple question ‘Do you believe in Animal Testing?’. I received a very definite response of ‘NO!’. It also seems that many people are 100% against animal testing and are 100% rooted to the suggestion that animals should have rights.
However I speak differently.
Now, I do not support animal cruelty, which to me is intentionally harming an animal with no reason to abuse. I do however believe in animal testing if the animal is not being harmed or inconveniently being tested on.
In the 1970’s, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer was the first to put forward the claim that animals have rights. Since then people have been asking: Should we eat animals? Should we use animals for entertainment? Should animals have rights?
This is not a debate of entertainment. It is a debate about the ethical principals at issue.
Firstly, I propose to examine the argument of animals having rights. I believe animals should have some rights, but limited rights. For example, I believe there should be no dog fighting, no bull fighting and no fox fighting. By allowing harm come to these animals, it shows not just cruelty and intentional harm, but it also encourages violence amongst humans and represents an uncivilised society. As human beings, and hopefully as civilised ones, we should respect the life of others.
It is wise to remember that as humans we are related to animals. The only difference being that we are developed with a great amount of complexity. As humans we feel emotion and pain. We get frightened and we can feel the prick of broken glass. Animals too feel what we feel. When a monkey gets frightened it shows it’s fear by smiling and recoiling behind an object. When we get frightened we show expressions and we try and conceal ourselves too. Like dogs, when we feel happy we get excited and hyper. There is no justice when harm comes to life that can feel and hear and see and touch. These animals should have a right to live a life of comfort and security and peace.
However, even though the debate for allowing animals to have rights is strong, the debate to keep them from having extreme rights is just as strong.
It’s known that some animal activists are hypocrites, extremists and terrorists. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death- threats. The PETA organisation are also extremists. These people refuse modern medicine which, could not have come about without animal testing.
Animals are living things, right? And you believe living things should be free, correct? Well what about bacteria. That’s living. It’s alive and just like humans it reproduces. Why can’t bacteria have freedom? They are, after all, living too. The right to life of all living things includes bacteria. So off goes the AIDS virus, enjoying these freedom rights… killing and destroying. Animals kill and destroy too. You allow a lion to wonder off down the street, enjoying it’s freedom. What does the lion see? Lunch.
Now onto animal experimentation.
I’m not prattling on about testing cosmetics on animals because I think that’s just plain wrong. But I am going to debate testing medical and science procedures on them.
For many years scientists have been testing medical and science procedures on animals. I agree with this testing if it doesn’t harm the animal and if it’s tested on the correct animals.
What is sometimes over looked in this debate is veterinary practice. I think it’s ok to practice veterinary techniques on animals if it’s in their own interest. Without such practice how do we know how to help the animals? Testing a bloody plant won’t help.
Secondly, as humans we share around 98% of our genes with chimpanzees and slightly fewer with other monkeys. So when these animals are tested on, they will react similarly to a human. This is a great guide in the development of drugs and surgical techniques that will help humans in the future. Ask yourself this: would you allow your mother, father, brother, sister or other family member to partake in these testings? No, you wouldn’t, because it would be considered immoral to risk the life of a human being….
However, most animal experiments are done on animals that compare very little, if at all, nothing to humans. Tests are being carried out everyday on mice, rats and rabbits. How a rabbit would react to a drug shows nothing on how a human would react as each animal has it’s own unique physiology.
And finally, it is not acceptable to test animals that are perfectly healthy. Not acceptable at all!
I’m not here to change your mind, I’m just showing both sides of this argument. I personally think animal testing is helpful to humans. Everyday people are cured and helped of painful illness. Drugs that cured these people were tested on animals. They worked. They helped a human life. Of course, not all the drugs have worked and some have had to be withdrawn, but can you offer an alternate to testing? Testing plants will not help. Just won’t work. Testing the weather won’t help. Testing a converse won’t help. It would be incredible if a machine was developed with such brain power that it could determine these things for us, but unfortunately it hasn’t.
Scientists are not all bad. They do try and minimize stress to animals. But some people are never grateful for what they have. Without animal testing we wouldn’t have the miracle operations we have today. Open heart surgery. Brain transplants. Other complex operations.
Ever heard of the first Head Transplant? I suggest you look it up. On May 21, 1908, Charles Guthrie successfully grafted a dogs head onto the body of another dog. This became the worlds first man-made two headed dog… that lived! This success showed major progress and hope for science and surgery.
At the end of the day, what you choose is your own business. Whether you refuse to accept animal testing or whether you see it as I see it, I won’t condone anyone for their choice. At the end of the day, we’re only human.
PS: I don't want whiney moany comments. Don't call me inhuman. You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. End Of.
For many years, the controversial question ‘Do animals have rights?’ has been circulating and in turn has received many mixed responses. In the Blah Blah section I asked the simple question ‘Do you believe in Animal Testing?’. I received a very definite response of ‘NO!’. It also seems that many people are 100% against animal testing and are 100% rooted to the suggestion that animals should have rights.
However I speak differently.
Now, I do not support animal cruelty, which to me is intentionally harming an animal with no reason to abuse. I do however believe in animal testing if the animal is not being harmed or inconveniently being tested on.
In the 1970’s, the Australian philosopher Peter Singer was the first to put forward the claim that animals have rights. Since then people have been asking: Should we eat animals? Should we use animals for entertainment? Should animals have rights?
This is not a debate of entertainment. It is a debate about the ethical principals at issue.
Firstly, I propose to examine the argument of animals having rights. I believe animals should have some rights, but limited rights. For example, I believe there should be no dog fighting, no bull fighting and no fox fighting. By allowing harm come to these animals, it shows not just cruelty and intentional harm, but it also encourages violence amongst humans and represents an uncivilised society. As human beings, and hopefully as civilised ones, we should respect the life of others.
It is wise to remember that as humans we are related to animals. The only difference being that we are developed with a great amount of complexity. As humans we feel emotion and pain. We get frightened and we can feel the prick of broken glass. Animals too feel what we feel. When a monkey gets frightened it shows it’s fear by smiling and recoiling behind an object. When we get frightened we show expressions and we try and conceal ourselves too. Like dogs, when we feel happy we get excited and hyper. There is no justice when harm comes to life that can feel and hear and see and touch. These animals should have a right to live a life of comfort and security and peace.
However, even though the debate for allowing animals to have rights is strong, the debate to keep them from having extreme rights is just as strong.
It’s known that some animal activists are hypocrites, extremists and terrorists. The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use terrorist tactics and death- threats. The PETA organisation are also extremists. These people refuse modern medicine which, could not have come about without animal testing.
Animals are living things, right? And you believe living things should be free, correct? Well what about bacteria. That’s living. It’s alive and just like humans it reproduces. Why can’t bacteria have freedom? They are, after all, living too. The right to life of all living things includes bacteria. So off goes the AIDS virus, enjoying these freedom rights… killing and destroying. Animals kill and destroy too. You allow a lion to wonder off down the street, enjoying it’s freedom. What does the lion see? Lunch.
Now onto animal experimentation.
I’m not prattling on about testing cosmetics on animals because I think that’s just plain wrong. But I am going to debate testing medical and science procedures on them.
For many years scientists have been testing medical and science procedures on animals. I agree with this testing if it doesn’t harm the animal and if it’s tested on the correct animals.
What is sometimes over looked in this debate is veterinary practice. I think it’s ok to practice veterinary techniques on animals if it’s in their own interest. Without such practice how do we know how to help the animals? Testing a bloody plant won’t help.
Secondly, as humans we share around 98% of our genes with chimpanzees and slightly fewer with other monkeys. So when these animals are tested on, they will react similarly to a human. This is a great guide in the development of drugs and surgical techniques that will help humans in the future. Ask yourself this: would you allow your mother, father, brother, sister or other family member to partake in these testings? No, you wouldn’t, because it would be considered immoral to risk the life of a human being….
However, most animal experiments are done on animals that compare very little, if at all, nothing to humans. Tests are being carried out everyday on mice, rats and rabbits. How a rabbit would react to a drug shows nothing on how a human would react as each animal has it’s own unique physiology.
And finally, it is not acceptable to test animals that are perfectly healthy. Not acceptable at all!
I’m not here to change your mind, I’m just showing both sides of this argument. I personally think animal testing is helpful to humans. Everyday people are cured and helped of painful illness. Drugs that cured these people were tested on animals. They worked. They helped a human life. Of course, not all the drugs have worked and some have had to be withdrawn, but can you offer an alternate to testing? Testing plants will not help. Just won’t work. Testing the weather won’t help. Testing a converse won’t help. It would be incredible if a machine was developed with such brain power that it could determine these things for us, but unfortunately it hasn’t.
Scientists are not all bad. They do try and minimize stress to animals. But some people are never grateful for what they have. Without animal testing we wouldn’t have the miracle operations we have today. Open heart surgery. Brain transplants. Other complex operations.
Ever heard of the first Head Transplant? I suggest you look it up. On May 21, 1908, Charles Guthrie successfully grafted a dogs head onto the body of another dog. This became the worlds first man-made two headed dog… that lived! This success showed major progress and hope for science and surgery.
At the end of the day, what you choose is your own business. Whether you refuse to accept animal testing or whether you see it as I see it, I won’t condone anyone for their choice. At the end of the day, we’re only human.
PS: I don't want whiney moany comments. Don't call me inhuman. You believe what you believe. I believe what I believe. End Of.
Comments
Page 1/2 | Next
I think animal testing is wrong, especially on an endangered species. You mentioned that chimps were experimented on; I think that is very wrong, because chimps are endangered, for one. And I also think that, instead of experimenting on live animals, which is sick, scientists should experiment on human cells, which would be both productive and painless. Just take some dead skin cells (we shed them by the millions every day) and test those. Or draw blood, whatever. Don't test an innocent animal.
In My Insanity, July 5th, 2008 at 07:55:48pm
and danke schon
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 04:19:20pm
I'm not supporting the two headed transplant. I'm simply saying that it was a massive step in surgery.
And no, I didn't mean that they had tested on other animals and it failed. I meant that this huge experiment actually worked. Like, who would have thought it were possible to graft another head to a another body.
Someday it will be possible to cure people who have been paralysed. As we all know, the spine is impossible to fix once snapped as the nerves just shrivel away. But hopefully someday we'll find a way around it. But we wont know without testing on an animal.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 04:18:21pm
oh and Nicely written blog Btw
Meerkat, July 5th, 2008 at 04:17:05pm
I fully respect your opinion and dont mean any offence to anyone, but i really do not think that the successfull head transplant from one dog to the next is a thing to be proud of. If something like that happend to a human there would be outrage, even cloning is considered by most inhuman and wrong but somehow it is ok to do that on an animal.Could you imagine being put to sleep and waking up with a completely different body and a huge painfull scar around your neck, to a human that would be traumatizing and considered a sick act of science. What could people possibly gain from this *Hey guess what, we can chop two animals heads off and make them switch bodies with only a 50% chance of them dying, it may cause them great pain and confusion and possibly mental health issues but hey it sure looks pretty cool whoooo* and when you say This became the worlds first man-made two headed dog… that lived! I'm assuming that you mean a number of attempts failed and caused yet another group of innocent animals to die/suffer for a completely pointless cause.
As for the animal testing i agree with you to an certain exstent, however there is no guarrente that the animal will be treated fairly and kindly, as for the enviroment it is kept in, do you ever see a mountins or countryside fields surrounding an animal testing research center for the animals to live in, this is there natural habitat, they are not build for a happy life style in labs? If the goverment/something told us that we couldnt leave our country and that we were trapped in 70 mile square radius to be exsperimented it would be considered unfair and there would be outrage across the world, but for some animals its a small metal cage on the shelf of a cold testing lab.
Like Camisado said, they were here first and it is not our right to play god, using them to benifit our own species and destroying there's. Still it's an interesting opinion but i dout you'd have the same if a large solor powerd bunny rabbit took you away to test a new type of choemotherapy on you. I just don't think it's right, even when they test something on humans that are pretty much always safe and pretty much never fatal they are given something in return and are allowed to return back to their origional enviroment within hours. And sometimes if something goes wrong, scientists wait to see the long term effects of the defect of a product/drug/cosmetic, and this pretty much tourture. In summary animals have the same rights as us, and a two headed dog is more then slightly odd.
Gosh i wrote alot :O
Meerkat, July 5th, 2008 at 04:11:53pm
I mentioned nothing of eating animals, sorry. =]
The blod was in short terms, presenting both sides of the arguement for 1] Allowing animals to have rights and 2]testing medical and surgical procedures on animals.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 03:41:27pm
it's not right to test animals.
and animal cruelty is horrible.
i don't know how to explain it, but like.
we need to eat animals to live,
cause you know, whatever.
hopefully you said soemthing about that,
cause i didnt read the WHOLE blog, but most of it.
but i see your side of the story. nice blog.
pseudo superhero, July 5th, 2008 at 03:37:16pm
I understand you have trouble respecting my opinion, but really, f*cked up in the head is the furthest thing from what I am. So could you please stop insulting me in such a manner.
This is a blog in which I expressed a controversial debate. I believe in animal testing to an extent, like I stated in my blog, and you believe it is wrong. This is very fair for you to believe it, and now I'd appriciate it if you refrained from continually commenting on the same thing over and over again. I have given you my opinion and my answers.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 03:28:53pm
i'm sorry but i just can't let go of the transplant...
i think it's sick. i mean, it's not okay to do that stuff, not even in the name of science.
do you think it'd be okay to do that to people?? you wouldnt think it's sick???
animals are our equals, that's how i see it. and if you don't think it's okay to do that to people then you shouldn't think it's okay to do that to dogs.
it's just sick. it really is.
and if you support sh*t like that you can't be right in the head. sorry... don't mean it to personal or anything. i just don't think there's any reason good enough to do sh*t like that. not one.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 02:44:26pm
see ya.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 01:53:03pm
Tell me where I said it was a problem .
See you later kid.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 01:51:16pm
yes, i am. that's just how i am. things i say don't make much sense, do they now? is that a problem to you?
i wasn't asking your opinion about my debating career.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 01:48:25pm
Are you like this in every debate? Because really, I wouldn't advise you to go professional.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 01:41:58pm
btw, i never argued about self defence. i'd kill an animal too if it attacked me. that's the only thing i accept when it comes to killing. but only if it absolutely inavoidable.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 01:37:54pm
I know, you've already told me.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 01:36:24pm