Do animals have rights?

[vociferous]

(07-18-2010 07:57 AM)biomystic Wrote:  I agree. Scientists are in such a hurry to find medicines that seem to work that they are willing to be extremely cruel to animals. Corporations testing their products are even worse because they're doing strictly for money. Sure, it's a faster way to see if some new drug or product will kill or maim a human being but why be cruel to animals to do this when there are human beings willing to make a conscious choice to be guinea pigs. It's a form of redemption for criminals for example. Torturing live animals for drug and product testing sends the wrong message to the animal world which we are part of.

We have found other solutions to animal testing, including the growth of skin cells in a laboratory. But, I really don't think testing it on humans is any better. Humans are sapient, which actually makes it a lot worse.

And sometimes they test on animals not even for medications. Sometimes they do some stupid, useless experiment which has no use but to pass the time (and spend money).

[Kathie Bondar]

(01-21-2009 12:38 PM)smellycat Wrote:  deepends if there on our food chain or not.

Technically, if somebody wanted to eat you, you would also be on the food chain, thus he would have a right to eat you.

---

(07-18-2010 01:01 PM)vociferous Wrote:  

(07-18-2010 07:57 AM)biomystic Wrote:  I agree. Scientists are in such a hurry to find medicines that seem to work that they are willing to be extremely cruel to animals. Corporations testing their products are even worse because they're doing strictly for money. Sure, it's a faster way to see if some new drug or product will kill or maim a human being but why be cruel to animals to do this when there are human beings willing to make a conscious choice to be guinea pigs. It's a form of redemption for criminals for example. Torturing live animals for drug and product testing sends the wrong message to the animal world which we are part of.

We have found other solutions to animal testing, including the growth of skin cells in a laboratory. But, I really don't think testing it on humans is any better. Humans are sapient, which actually makes it a lot worse.

And sometimes they test on animals not even for medications. Sometimes they do some stupid, useless experiment which has no use but to pass the time (and spend money).

I am hundred percent against using animals for laboratory testing. I am also against other forms of animal cruelty, including cattle ranching where they keep their animals out on the range in extre cold or heat even whenb calfing, against the appauling conditions in the name of profit in poultry barns, against cruel treatment of all animals in slaughter houses, and the list goes on and on...

[ximike1009]

Animals have played a role in human society since civilization began. At first, animals were hunted for food, and their skins and bones were used for clothing, shelter and tools. Later, animals were domesticated and used as beasts of burden, for food and clothing, and eventually for many other purposes. Today most of us accept the idea that people — farmers, pet owners, animal breeders, zoo keepers and research scientists — may use animals but are obliged to treat them decently. The US even has anti-cruelty laws to ensure the humane treatment of animals.

[Christian2081]

In 1975, Australian philosopher Peter Singer wrote a book called Animal Liberation in which he argued that humans should not use animals. Singer’s ideas are based on utilitarianism, one of many philosophies developed in the 17th and 18th centuries to help people decide what is right and wrong without invoking the Bible or other moral authorities. Utilitarians say we should judge actions strictly upon their consequences.

[Vesuvius]

Philosophically speaking, what are "rights?" Animals exist in the natural world...that is all they know, and "rights" don't exist in the natural world, so to speak. "Rights" are something humans have coined and given themselves and probably are rooted in concepts somehow spiritual or moralistic that don't exist in the realm of nature.