animal rights Options

[cashmere deer]

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"
-- Jeremy Bentham

Yesss. I think it sort of depends on how you classify rights. I don't agree with this total liberation thing because even we as human beings don't have that. But I do not think it is ethical to hurt them. HURT them. That is all I am saying. And that seems to be something that we all agree on. We all recognize the fact that they do feel pain. So, I ask you this. Are you willing to hurt a living thing? Because in the end that is the only question that can be asked.

[sadolakced acid]

the question is not "can they feel" or "can they suffer", but rather "is is worth it?"

[cashmere deer]

And that is where you and I disagree. We cannot battle this out in a sheer factual nature, as there are facts that support both arguments. But, as is in a lot of the debate section, this is based upon opinion. In MY opinion I think it is cruel and wrong and NOT WORTH IT. But hey, that's just me.

[sadolakced acid]

well, have you given up everything that's... how do you up it... cruel and wrong?

do you still use toothpaste? soap? shampoo? do you still go to the doctor? take tylenol for a headache?

do you live in a house with modern materials? with wood?

i don't think you understand just how many things in your life are "cruel to animals"

are you ready to give them all up?

[cashmere deer]

I never once said it was not necessary at one point in time. But we are past that now. We have other methods. And since you've asked yes I do try and play my part. I don't eat meat, I try my hardest to only by organic non-harmful supplies, if I know for a fact that a company takes part in animal cruelty I will refuse to purchase from them, I don't wear fur or leather, I only eat my own chickens eggs, no milk for me, my toothpaste is organic, as is my shampoo, going to the doctor has nothing to do with it, and of course my house is made of wood but I think that displacing animals and experimenting on them is completely different.

[sadolakced acid]

then you, my dear, are a hippocrit.

if animal testing would result in a cure of alzheimers, would you be against it?

[*baby_in_blue*]

^yes i would. until i got alzheimers then i`d be for it.

HAHA. nooo. i really don`t know..

[broken inside]

NO. I love animals, I'm vegitarian and I want to become vegan. Hurting animals is just like hurting humans. We are all animals, really.

[cashmere deer]

then you, my dear, are a hippocrit.

if animal testing would result in a cure of alzheimers, would you be against it?

Okay, I don't think you exactly understand where I am at. Today we continue to use animals to test things such as makeup, shampoos, cleaning agents, when we already have plently of that stuff that we know is safe. WHY continue to harm more animals that don't need to be harmed. I am certainly up for testing on an animal, or even maybe a human, if it were to help cure some massive disease like that but when it comes to blinding bunnies just to make our eyelashes long and prettyfull I think that is wrong.

[sadolakced acid]

Okay, I don't think you exactly understand where I am at. Today we continue to use animals to test things such as makeup, shampoos, cleaning agents, when we already have plently of that stuff that we know is safe. WHY continue to harm more animals that don't need to be harmed. I am certainly up for testing on an animal, or even maybe a human, if it were to help cure some massive disease like that but when it comes to blinding bunnies just to make our eyelashes long and prettyfull I think that is wrong.

we don't know that stuff is safe. in vitro testing just doesn't cut it.

remember that drug that provided relief from morning sickness? the one that caused a lot of miscarraiges?

well, it was tested in animals, yes. but due to stupid regulations, it was not allowed to be tested on pregnant animals, when all the humans taking it would be pregnant ones.

we don't continue to test things we KNOW are safe. we test because we don't know. makeups, shampoos, etc, are not harmless.

why force feed cleaning agents to lab rats? well, it would help to know what happens for when a 3 year old kid chugs the bottle.

chemicals often combine in ways unforseen. biological systems can alter harmless chemicals into toxic ones. things we know are safe aren't continuously tested.

only things about which we don't know. things with new combinations of chemicals-- which entails almost all new cosmetics and cleaners, etc. would you buy it if it weren't new?

EVERY single consumer product relies on animal research. products that say "not tested on animals" use ingredients tested on animals. they use chemical combinations tested on animals.

if you don't believe me, give me any cosmetic product and a list of its ingredients and i'll find the studies for you. i've done it before in this very thread. and yes, for a product labeled "not tested on animals"

we need to know what happens. it's essential. we need to know what we're putting on our skin an in our hair. we need to know what kind of vapors are wafting over to where our kids sleep. we need to know what kind of toxic chemicals we're keeping under the sink- and what will happen to a kid who decides to drink some.

we simply need to know. If you want to use something not tested on animals- old things are the way to go. use lye soap. use cast iron cooking utensils.

we could stop making new shampoos, etc. but i don't see that happening. and as long as they make them- they need to test them. who knows? maybe the next cure for cancer will come out of a cosmetic lab.

unlikely, but you must realize that the treatment for harliquen icthyiosis babies is an acne cream developed for cosmetic use.

other disease may be cured this way.

less polluting cleaning agents can be developed. safer cleaning agents.

we must always test. else we be like elizabethian women, continuously painting thier faces white with lead based paint.

[cashmere deer]

I don't agree. But that is just me. I think this topic has been discussed thoroughly and we can leave it up to others to decide for themselves. But seeing as this is titled 'animal rights' how does everyone feel about their other rights other than being experimented on? Do we have the right to take homes from animals, do we have the right to use animals in circuses, do we have the right to own animals? Hunt them? Do animals even have a right to live?

[sadolakced acid]

We have the right to do anything to any animals. Sure, it may not be nice, but it is the law of the jungle.

A lion would not hesitate to eat you, save that you may not be a good meal. Sure, excercising morality would make us above animals- but they do not gain rights from morality.

just becuase we should treat animals well doesn't nessicarily convey them rights.

[cashmere deer]

i respect that, but say like...okay for example a few years back there was a group of boys who were messing around with this dog and her litter of puppies. they put a bunch of fireworks in the still too young to move puppies bed and ended up killing them all and hurting the mother severely. do you think that the boys should have been punished? or that it was a valuable lesson to them to show how truely helpless animals are and that it was okay because we are humans and we are dominant?

[sadolakced acid]

it's not morally okay. it's not morally right to do it. but as far as rights go- it's allowed.

In nature there are laws against murder and cannibalism of your own species, and your own species only.

ergo, the only natural laws that govern humans are basic ones governing inter-species relationships and such.

there are no natural laws that say humans should treat animals well, and thus animals have no inherent rights.

morality is a different story.

anyways, i think this sums up my views well:

animals do not have the right to live or be treated well. Humans have the responsibility to be humane.

[ichigofan]

No unless their being used to help our society. Like lab rats

[*Teenage Mutant Ninja Meg*]

NO.
these animals are not here to be used by humans.
being a fashion fanatic, i can honestly say that i can live without more hairsprays and lip glosses.
however, if the animals are used in order to progress an experiment for health issues like finding cures for different things, then yes i think it should be allowed as long as the animals are not severely hurt by it.

if you believe that hurting the living things is wrong, then stop using soap and disinfectant to kill germs (they are living), and stop picking flowers, swatting and stepping on bugs.

[NoSex]

these animals are not here to be used by humans.

Sure, but what are they here for?
Do their lives actually have purpose or meaning?
I would option for no.
So, why not use them to better human experience and ensure human safety?
This may entail animals being "severely hurt."
This may entail animals being tested on for cosmetics and cleaning products.
I understand, to a degree, the rediculous feeling associated with an animal life being terminated for clean floors and beautiful hair. Sometimes I sympathize.
But, I also understand the capital interest and the safety issues.
It can be a throw up.
But, when it comes to human lives: I would rather see a million dogs dead before even the lowest of human beings destoryed.

[sadolakced acid]

animals do not have rights. humans have responsibilities.

[Spirited Away]

the question is not "can they feel" or "can they suffer", but rather "is is worth it?"

The quote, per se, is meant to incite sympathy for a humane/compassionate treatement/death. It is not to say that because animals suffer, we must not kill them or use them, but rather, because they suffer, we mustn't be cruel. And that is the extent of support I lend to animal rights.

Human responsibilities do not include cruelty, or at least, the sensible, civilized, and compassionate human is not ruled by cruelty. If it is not in our favor to make them suffer, then there is no need for them to suffer.

For example, there's a mass killing of dogs in parts of China due to rabies. I completely understand the need to kill them and I hope for swift executions, but instead, I read that these dogs are being beaten to death... Sheds a whole new light on the phrase "beaten like a dog", doesn't it?

Sure, but what are they here for?
Do their lives actually have purpose or meaning?
I would option for no.
So, why not use them to better human experience and ensure human safety?
This may entail animals being "severely hurt."
This may entail animals being tested on for cosmetics and cleaning products.
I understand, to a degree, the rediculous feeling associated with an animal life being terminated for clean floors and beautiful hair. Sometimes I sympathize.
But, I also understand the capital interest and the safety issues.
It can be a throw up.
But, when it comes to human lives: I would rather see a million dogs dead before even the lowest of human beings destoryed.

In my opinion, animals have purpose, but then again, I also think that rocks have purpose. If I doubt their purposes, then I might as well doubt my own. The question of what their purpose may be can be countered by the question of what is our purpose, or what is the purpose of grass or rocks (again). This is not to say that their purpose is as meaningful, consequential, or honorable as our own, but it is to say that they are NOT without purpose.

[Dreamers]

I don't think they should do it so often and not to such extremes but imagine if someone close to you volunteered to test a product or something like that and dies cause of it. I'd rather lose a mouse rather than my best friend. I'm sorta a neutral about it.

[BonneVache]

PETA ads make me sad.

Animal testing should just stop.

[NoSex]

PETA ads make me sad.

Animal testing should just stop.

Should they stop because PETA advertisements make you sad?
Is that why they should stop?
Heck, PETA advertisements make me sad too, but that doesn't mean I want animal testing to stop.
In fact, I love animal testing. It's a fantastic tool which makes up a large percentage of our biomedical knowledge. Without it, we would not be as healthy, long-living, comfortable, and happy as we are today. Without it, hundreds of millions of people would be dead, who didn't have to be. So, when I see a PETA add down playing that reality. When I see a PETA add raising an animal's moral character to the equivalence of a human moral character. When I see PETA equating holocaust victims with cows, I can feel "sad." But, mostly, I just find it disgusting, money grabbing, shortsighted, and detestable.

[*Uronacid*]

I have to say I agree with Nate on this one. There are so many things that we use animals for in replace of humans, and there are so many cases where human lives have been saved due to animal testing.

I don't care if a 1000 rats, cats, or dogs die... If it's to save the life of one human being it's worth it. Humans have a far greater purpose on this earth. I also like wearing my nice leather shoes.

[Kontroll]

Yeah, an suede is nice too. Don't forget that. Hahahaha. I like my leather assless chaps. That's what I like.

[*Uronacid*]

Yeah, an suede is nice too. Don't forget that. Hahahaha. I like my leather assless chaps. That's what I like.

ahahahahahhaa, I wonder what kind of animal they killed for you to wear those XD