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
Previous | Page 2/2
fdjghfipohgsäfågipf'ghdfjogps
i'm not talking to you, lady.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 01:35:33pm
are you seriously comparing animals to bacteria? i advice you to drop that claim before you make yourself look completely ridiculous.
can bakteria feel pain?
Bacteria are living aren't they? You want freedom for all living things, then let the bacteria have their freedom. Not my arguement, it's the debates arguement.
and yes, animals do kill, but it's not even remotely comparable to people systematically killing and abusing for their own intrests. i mean, come on!!
Come on what? If i was being attacked by a lion the last thing on my mind would be debating with myself whether i should hit it back. I'd batter the f*cking thing.
so... people like you... smart people. people who have facts behind their claims and think you're so right..
.
well, i have no facts. i'm not smart. what i have is a strong sense of right and wrong. i feel what i feel and those things to me are as obvious and crucial as the air that i breath. that's why i can't explain it. if i just could make you realize how i feel without using words. words are difficult.
Never said I was smart. Never said I was right. I'm presenting a debate. Your the one sounding ridiculous now. To say you can't accept a debate without going loco bean....
HUMAN RACE IS IN NO WAY SPECIAL OR SUPERIOR.
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY. WE'RE NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER SPECIES.
ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS TO ABUSE OR USE IN ANY WAY.
I never said we were superior. I never said we had the right.
JESUS CHRIST!!! A HEAD TRANSPLANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! THAT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING THING I'VE EVER HEARD. IT'S NOT OUR DUTY TO PLAY GOD. DEATH IS NOT THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME, PEOPLE ARE f*ckING DISGUSTING.
PEOPLE ARE SO SICK.HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK ANYTHING GOOD COULD COME FROM HEAD TRANSPLANTS????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER PERSONS HEAD IN YOUR BODY???? WOULD YOU??? ARE YOU f*ckED IN THE HEAD.
THAT'S IT. I'M NO LONGER FRIENDS
I suppose you don't realise how stupid you sound there. And there's no need for all the caps. I can read lower case very well, thank you. The ehad transplant was a boost in medical surgery. It made progress in the medicine of surgery. Without animal testing we wouldn't have the information on the things we have now.....
i do not like you right now.
Join the other half of the world that doesn't like me either kid. Liek I said in the blog ....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.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 01:25:01pm
ok, i'll try to stay calm, i'll try not to lose my nerve, but i'm telling you it's hard cause i feel strongly about this.
are you seriously comparing animals to bacteria? i advice you to drop that claim before you make yourself look completely ridiculous.
can bakteria feel pain?
and yes, animals do kill, but it's not even remotely comparable to people systematically killing and abusing for their own intrests. i mean, come on!!
so... people like you... smart people. people who have facts behind their claims and think you're so right..
.
well, i have no facts. i'm not smart. what i have is a strong sense of right and wrong. i feel what i feel and those things to me are as obvious and crucial as the air that i breath. that's why i can't explain it. if i just could make you realize how i feel without using words. words are difficult.
all i can say is this:
HUMAN RACE IS IN NO WAY SPECIAL OR SUPERIOR.
I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU SAY. WE'RE NO MORE IMPORTANT THAN OTHER SPECIES.
ANIMALS ARE NOT OURS TO ABUSE OR USE IN ANY WAY.
sure we don't want bad things to happen to people close to us, so don't bother asking me anything like "so your family is no more important to you than rats?"
questions like that are riduculous, but people who support animal testing usually ask those.
btw, animal testing ALWAYS harms animals. if you believe otherwise you're a damn fool or just plain selfish and ignoant.
JESUS CHRIST!!! A HEAD TRANSPLANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!! THAT IS THE MOST DISGUSTING THING I'VE EVER HEARD. IT'S NOT OUR DUTY TO PLAY GOD. DEATH IS NOT THE WORST POSSIBLE OUTCOME, PEOPLE ARE f*ckING DISGUSTING.
PEOPLE ARE SO SICK.HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY THINK ANYTHING GOOD COULD COME FROM HEAD TRANSPLANTS????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????????? WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE ANOTHER PERSONS HEAD IN YOUR BODY???? WOULD YOU??? ARE YOU f*ckED IN THE HEAD.
THAT'S IT. I'M NO LONGER FRIENDS WITH YOU.
I'VE HEARD ENOUGH.
BECAUSE OF sh*t LIKE THIS I DO NOT LIKE HUMAN RACE. END OF THE STORY.
i do not like you right now.
princess consuela, July 5th, 2008 at 01:06:17pm
Why? You say that, then you said how helpful animal testing was an how it helped humans. They have to use healthy animals to obtain accurate results.
Why use a healthy animal to test a drug if your not going to cure the animal from anything....
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 12:16:19pm
I believe that animals have rights, but human rights simply have to come first. You can't kick and beat a dog, they have the right to not be subjected to cruel punishment. But, I don't consider animal testing animal abuse. I agree with the majority of this blog except...
"And finally, it is not acceptable to test animals that are perfectly healthy. Not acceptable at all!"
Why? You say that, then you said how helpful animal testing was an how it helped humans. They have to use healthy animals to obtain accurate results.
I think it's rather hypocritical for anyone to say they're against animal testing when they benefit from it every day in their lives. Because of animal testing, you and the people around you have received vaccinations that prevent you from getting ill. You take medicine when you're sick and you probably have loved ones who have benefited from a major medical operation made possible by animal testing.
I do completely agree with you about PETA and ALF =] Horrid, awful organizations.
Kurtni, July 5th, 2008 at 12:06:40pm
I completley agree with you on humans. This isn't our planet. Animals were here first is the way I see it. And like you said, we're not taking care of this planet. We have destroyed this planet. Even if you recycle, we still destroy it. Ever single time you sit in a car, ride the bus, you partake in destroying the planet.
It should be the animals planet. At least they make use of what they have. What do we do ? We make a glutton of ourselves. As humans, our eyes are too big for our bellies.
Mike N Tre Erections, July 5th, 2008 at 10:53:56am
I like this blog. I agree with basically, all of it.
But I can't stand how humans think that we're absolutly above everything because we're "stronger" or we may be "smarter" than some animals or living things. I don't think we should have the right to decide the lives of other living things. Who knows, if we actually let animals progress, they could achieve the same stuff we have.
The thing about animals being tested on, at all, I still think shouldn't be as much allowed. I mean, if it doesn't harm them, it isn't as bad, and sure...whatever. But I still think animals are just as important as humans. I don't think it's fair for people to decide what's fair for an animal. Hell, we can't even speak their 'language'. We can't even take care of our own planet; we're destroying it for them too. They were here first, I believe, and I think that it's animals' planet just as much as it is a humans. If they're going to test it on animals, I think it's just as big of a deal as testing it on a human. Sure I wouldn't want my family member to be tested on, but in the same token, I would NOT want my cat to be tested on, even if it was for medical research. It's wrong. I really hope they find something else to test on that's just as efficient, or more efficient, because testing on animals is just cruel. No matter what it is. I don't think there's one test out there that doesn't harm an animal though. There has to be many trial runs before they get it right. I guess I'm just rambling now, but I guess that's sort of my opinion.
I like your blog. I never looked at rights this way before.
Bubble Wrap., July 5th, 2008 at 10:47:58am