Animal Welfare, God's creatures, "man's" custodianship Options

[madchenallein]

Ok, Vapor posted something LIKE this a while back but I see the topic was closed at his request, so, I pose this to all you out there.

Which is more valid: Animal rights in that we have no right to test on them, be it essential research like basic anatomy or testing mascara and no prerogative to be eating them, keeping them as pets, encroaching their territory, ad nauseum OR

Animal welfare in that we ought to be able to eat animal meat and use them but within limits, eg. provide clean, reasonable living conditions, medical care, and not use them for frivolous things like testing makeup or hunting only for pleasure, ad nauseum.

Personally, I'd say I'm an animal welfare fan myself. I have a cat, she's declawed and spayed and never goes outside and is current on her shots, and always on heartworm and flea preventative, always well fed and well watered and well loved. I believe animals are here for our enjoyment and use, but not for abuse and they need to be treated with respect because God saw them as important enough to create and also because they are capable of showing affection and feeling pain. However, I don't believe they have souls and are certainly not on the same sentient level as humans, not just from a scientific standpoint, but from a psychological and spiritual standpoint. What does everyone else think?

[sadolakced acid]

testing makeup is nor frivolous.

[Spirited Away]

I do not believe humans and animals are equal simply because I believe in survival of the fittest. But you know, we are here to survive foremost but we live beyond that. We know and understand love (most of us anyway), experience morality first hand... etc. Animals may not know love and morality as we do, but they have their own laws and ethics, which is called nature. They kill because it is in their nature to do so in order to survive and it would make sense that we kill them to survive as well. However, killing them in countless painful, bloody ways such as injecting chemicals in them are not always necessary for our survival.

Because I, too, care for human life more than the life of lower species (with rare exceptions), I think that animals should be used, if need be, for our security. But can using them to test makeup and the likes be called a "need"?

I should hope not, else I would be lead to believe we all have truly lost our morals and our common sense.

It's cruel alright, to use animals for experiments. However, to see humans suffer because we cannot find test subjects for treatments is a bit crueler.

If a death of an animal can go towards betterment for science of health, then I suppose it's worth the sacrifice.

BUT, there are disturbing people who would very much like to see animals suffer. I've read articles about people who eat monkey brains while they are alive! Now that's cruelty.

In replying to someone who said animals are not people and that it shouldn't matter if they are tortured.

IMHO, that kind of view on animals is too extreme in the sense that you do not consider that animals can feel pain and suffer as humans do.

In fact, many animals have maternal love that most human mothers pale in comparision. They can cry, they can certainly feel.

Okay folks, have you cuddled a puppy or feed a hungry cat lately? How about looking in the eyes of a newborn who had to be abandon by its mother? And have you seen a monkey shed tears for its dying young? Or maybe a mouse who tries desperately to move its children away from the path of a predator.

Go through these experiences and tell me that animals have no soul.

Of course, it also depends on how you define "soul". I do not believe in Heaven/Hell so soul tends to mean moral nature to me rather than the supernatural definition.

"All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering, the animals are our equals."-- Peter Singer



^sums up how I feel.

[Paradox of Life]

Wow, there are too many boards like this. Anyway, I personally don't think testing on animals should be continued, but without medicine people will die. Testing on animals gives the it a 50% chance of survival, but a completed medicine will save hundreds of humans' lives. And you never know, the hundreds of humans may make an organization to save animals and then the animal population would increase again!
I think that people should test the medicines on humans who are already sick with the disease it's supposed to cure and may die from it anyway. Then there's a 50% chance that the human will live or die from the illness he/she had anyway. And with all this technology we have now, can't we use some sort of program to just trial and error with the products?
Oh well, if any of this made sense, then yayse.

[sadolakced acid]

well, animal right's has the least contradictions, and thus their argument is slightly more valid.

animal welfare, in condemning some kinds of treatments, etc. and not others kill thier argument, because if animals should be treated well because they can feel, then she should always be treated well, not just when it suits humans to do so.

as i say, animal right's activist, till faced with the lion while holding a shotgun.