Debate of the Day 5: Do animals have rights?

So this morning on my way to work, I switched on NPR and there was an interesting piece about animal rights activists who have been "aggressively targeting science faculty members [throughout the University of California system] who experiment on animals."  The UCs are no asking for a court order to stop the protests and threats (one professor received a threat on his voicemail that a bomb had been placed in his car, another had her home flooded, etc).

So today's debate of the day...do animals have rights?  To what extent?  What about the researchers?

Heh now that's a tough one.

I think there are certainly some basic rights that animals should have.  For example, not to be traumatized and harmed as little as possible as a result of human experimentation.  Researchers who experiment on animals do have quite a bit of oversight as well.  My dad was recently doing experiments with mice, and had to pass stringent requirements on how the mice were going to be housed and treated, etc.

Sometimes doing experiments on animals is critical in order to advance our scientific understanding - for example, finding new ways to treat diseases.  So animals don't have all the same rights as humans, but they don't need all the same rights either, because they don't have the same mental capacity as humans.

It's a pretty fine line in determining what rights animals do and don't have.  I think for the most part, scientific researchers do a good job of making this determination.  They pretty much have to because of the oversight they're subject to when working with animals.

Ok, this is one I don't have 'the answer' for either, but, as Dana said, '...in order to advance our scientific understanding...'. It really comes down to this.

My opinion, which is required in this discussion, is that we have canine incisors for a reason and I value human life more than an animals. I don't think it's ok for some knucklehead to train his dog to fight, mostly because then it is a danger to humans,  or to have a dog chained up in the yard and not cared for to the point that it has a collar buried in it's neck. However, on the contrary, I am appalled at the insane use of dollars to cater to frickin cats. They breed like rabbits, and are often left to multiply with the support of some knucklehead who feeds the feral population or, worse, has 20 or so in their nasty house.

I used to volunteer at the Virginia Beach SPCA. I saw countless dogs come in from some dumb-a** who bought the dog because it was 'cool' to have a pit bull and put a Harley bandana on it and look tough when walking around with it, but it turned out to be 'responsibility' and that's not fun. The dogs I saw, like most dogs, actually serve a purpose and are harder to replace than the average cat that allows you to pet it and feed it while offering nothing in return but a nasty litterbox to smell up some area of your house.

Dogs, I can see spending dollars and volunteer hours to save and rehabilitate for another owner or to be used, as I've seen work so well,  to visit rehab hospitals and retirement homes and brighten the lives of people. The dollars wasted, in my opinion, on cats is absurd. Especially when replacing a cat is one the easiest tasks. Furthermore, the homeless cat population far exceeds the abilities of organizations such as the SPCA. They can rehabilitate one cat and one hundred more are being bred by some irresponsible little old lady down the street for the neighbors to, once again, corral and take to the SPCA, repeating the cycle of wasting the contributions of time and money.

It's all about the value we put on an animal. Again, assuming you isn't a vegetarian, your value of an animal makes all the difference. Cows and pigs and chickens are ok, but to think of a chinese restaurant, as the rumor goes, using cats and dogs is horrible. Why? Because they is our friends, or they is domesticated. I mean really, if a rat scurries across your baby's bedroom floor, would it incite a riot if you killed it with prejudice? Yet, if someone poked one with a needle to further Cancer research, then we have to question it's feelings.

Another opinion I have: I, to be honest, don't know how true it is but it sounds believable. A joke I have heard is, 'why do they use sterilized needles for lethal injections?' As I said, I don't know how true this is, but, regardless, I disagree with the whole lethal injection thing anyway. On the subject of this humane question, I think it' silly to worry about someone's feelings when you are about to kill them. Furthermore, if they are being killed, it is for some serious reason, like they killed and raped someone's loved one(s). Furthermore, again, I think it's insane to waste so many dollars when a box of .22 caliber rifle rounds can be had for $25/20. A simple stand-up shower stall shooting gallery with little down-angled stots around the walls for rifles and a drain to rinse it out after each use. It would still be quick an painless.

So, instead of an answer I just pose more questions, as I so often do because I'm not arrogant enough to presume to 'know' anything.

John

Oh yes John you are quite arrogant.

Your post is absurd.  The problems you raise about cats are only problems because of humans.  There are way too many irresponsible people out there causing all kinds of havoc upon this planet. It's a shame really.

How is it that humans always tend to feel that they deserve better than animals?  I just can't even imagine having that attitude toward any living species.  How are we better?  What makes us think that we are more important?  Are we smarter?  Not really.  Obviously we are not.  That fact is becoming clearer every day.

Animals were here before us.  We have invaded their territory, we have been neglectful, irresponsible, hurful, inhumane...and we should be ashamed.

It depends on what you define as rights, if you mean animals have the right not to be killed for fur are be eaten or tested ect...then yes i am with that it's horrable to do.  But if you mean for example a cat has a right to go out were ever she/he wants were theres danger then no they need protection.

Of course animals have rights, and they should have as many as humans.  We as humans have become dictators of what species deserve to live, which die, which are tested on or kept as pets.  We cross breed, exterminate and have rapidly lead to the demise of millions of species.  We have an unfounded superiority complex to nature, the reason it is unfounded is that we ARE a part of nature.  We place ourselves in a whole new category when scientifically the only thing that seperates us from the rest of the animal kingdom is our big brains.....look how far that's gotten us!

 A friend of mine did a report a while back that most of the experimentation on animals could be accomplished in other ways, through computer modeling and statistical analysis, especially in educational settings.

I'm comfortable with reducing experimentation on animals, and seriously regulating its use. 

 Animals don't have rights. The notion that animals are equal in any fashion to the human race is something that, as nice as many feel by thinking so, simply doesn't have any logical basis.

A "right" not to be eaten? Funny, that doesn't seem to be the way Nature works. Another contributor who noted that we have canine teeth has a good point, if inelegantly stated. All animals (including humans) with canines and incisors have those teeth for a simple reason: To eat meat. Would Nature equip us with something we aren't supposed to use because it would violate our food's "rights"? That just doesn't make sense.

A "right" not to be used in experimentation? That presupposes that animals are co-equal members of our society, that they contribute and participate in our society, our government, our system of laws, our methods of progress. That just isn't true.

I think a far more logical and useful question instead of "Do animals have rights?" is, "What responsibilities do we have toward animals?" With the privilege of occupying the top of the evolutionary pyramid should come concomitant responsibilities. I believe we have a responsibility to treat animals humanely. This doesn't mean we should never eat them; it does mean we should provide even our food animals with proper shelter, veterinary care, nutrition, and so forth, and that we shouldn't inflict needless pain or suffering on them even in the slaughtering process. The responsibility of humane treatment extends to the use of animals in experiments. I have far fewer problems with using animals in medical research (though personally convicted murderers and sex offenders are just as plentiful and the data we'd get might be a lot more accurate), but I strongly oppose the use of animals in the cosmetic industry's research because mostly it occurs simply to keep the database current and it involves the wanton infliction of pain.

It isn't a question of "rights" because they don't exist. It's a question of responsibilities because those do, and even more importantly because when we ignore our responsibilities, we do so at our peril.

I know what you are getting at dana, but I don't think that it's mental capacity that determines the level of rights, because there are plenty of humans with limited mental capacity due to disabilities, TBI, comas, etc.

The law does grant animals some rights, otherwise people wouldn't get in trouble for cruel treatment toward animals.  I think those laws are super important, because nothing deserves inhumane treatment.

I have been a vegetarian for over 10 years because I believe that animals should be treated humanely, something which is often not the case in industrial meat production.  I tend to take the stance that humans are lucky to (generally) be at the top of the food chain.  If something else was higher than humans, I certainly would not want to be eaten, so I choose not to eat other things.

I do not oppose animals being used for medical research, but I do not think they should be used for testing cosmetics.  I think lab animals should be treated as respectfully as possible, such as taking steps to minimize pain they might feel.

I did find the pet recovery efforts taken during/after Katrina to be rather strange though.  Natural disasters take their toll on animals as well as humans.  People only cared because they were their beloved pets.  I don't know that cats and dogs should be given preferential treatment over any other animal. 

I totally agree that mental capacity is not a determining factor for basic rights. In fact, it is a rather ridiculous thing to say and opens up to a lot of obvious debate.

Further, an arguement often used is that we humans have incisors. Please note that they are still not sharp or strong enough to consume raw meat. We also do not have claws to attack and rip our preys. Our sense of sight and smell is also not as developed as other predators. To add to that our digestive system. Hence, I dont believe this is a fair logic to eat meat.

Also, we are on top of the food chain thanks to a lot of manipulation. The human numbers have increased so much that we more or less control all food chains because of our neverending need to consume and waste. We kill animals not only for food, but also for other things like entertainment (Hunting is one! Dog fighting is another form.), fur and other leather products, so called scientific progress etc.

While I am not totally against experimenting on animals, research for the love of research mustnt be allowed. Every research has a benefit and a cost attached to it. And it should be funded/ allowed only if there is a significant benefit. Even then, certain living conditions must be ensured. As written in a post earlier, we are morally responsible for ensuring this.

Fur is clearly a meaningless luxury product. The same warmth and style can be provided by other less harming alternatives! It is just an extravagance.

While I agree a leather products cant be entirely done away with, there are other plant based alternatives that are available in the market. As far as possible, one should use these and buy leather only if unavoidable.

To think of it, a cow is the biggest raw material for a lot of industries - Milk, meat, leather, now bio fuel. Can you begin to imagine the life of a cow? Its a living being for heavens sake!

To conclude, animals have rights but they exist in an unfair society where it is very difficult to ensure these rights. Having said this, lets reduce our reliance on animals and animal products because at the end of the day you are harming them.

NPR is a socialist station so no wonder this garbage is on.

NO, they don't. We kill and eat them as was intended. We should not abuse them but nor should we give them "rights". Threads like this make the average American sad.