Animal Rights

There is a stark difference in behavior that occurs naturally in the animal kingdom and the intential mistreatment or exploitation of animals for no legitimate reason and done especially for financial gain.

Exactly.

If we insist on being in charge of the material world,we must accept that our rights come with an equally formidable set of responsibilities.

The more we stray from an animal's natural state,the more we must do as its conservator.

We can try to minimise the status of our charges but,when we try to limit our respect to those beasts that are sentient and have souls,we call into question where that protection starts and stops.

George Orwell's Animal Farm is one of many novels that examines the distinction between property and person.

If we give ourselves the "right" to exploit non-persons,then all we need to do to disregard the welfare of another creature is to declare that they lack a certain essential quality necessary to deserve our concern.

We can take our right to eliminate vermin and expand that classification to include humans unlike ourselves and our enemies.

If a certain level of intelligence or self-mastery is required for personhood,then the young and the disabled may be exempted from our consideration.

If the criterion involves genetics,then "one drop" rules can deny individuals recognition as persons due to their "race".

Gender can be used to include and exclude and it becomes feasible that a hybridization of human and non-human DNA could create a class of legally exploitable beings.

(How many carrot or mouse genes could one have and still retain the privileges of the ruling class?)

When our horror stories describe aliens,vampires and such treating us as prey and livestock,suddenly "might makes right" becomes less acceptable.

We can be appalled at the thought of a pet animal being slaughtered for food because we have made them one of our own.

The actions of a Sawney Bean,a tribe of "heathen" cannibals or even a Donner party become frightening because the deceased are not only dead but "dehumanized" by being removed from the top of the food chain.

It becomes clearer that the issue of dominance and rights is not so much determined by the status of the entity being controlled but by whether or not the person making the rules can impose and enforce his edicts.

Our humanity and our superiority may lie less with the rules that apply to us and more to those we place on others.

The fate we choose for someone else today may be chosen for us tomorrow.

If so,perhaps we need to treat our pets,our food animals,the test subjects in our laboratories,the creatures we use for recreation and entertainment and those we use for leather,etc. with more kindness and dignity.

That way,when the time comes that we are in their place,the scientists doing studies on twins or tuberculosis,the folks making soap and lampshades,the promoters of sports,pageants and ballet companies,etc. will have acquired the habit of being humane.

They will have decided that the choice of whether or not to treat others with the maximum levels of consideration is not determined by the status of the other being but by who and what they are themselves.

That doesn't make the decisions any easier to make but it demands that choices be made and consequences accepted rather than acting according to whatever's convenient.

Animals were placed here by God who then gave man dominion over them. They are to be taken care of by us and are available for our use. Food, clothing, companionship, labor, etc. are all acceptable uses. Abuses on the other hand are not. Torturing or senseless killing I believe to be inconsistent with Gods will.

The other uses from above are not. If you do not believe there is a God, then this is pointless to you anyway. If you do, then I would point out that the first animal skin clothing was made by God for Adam and Eve. Jesus ate fish and road a donkey. They all had clothing and wine skins made from animal skins.

We humans in a vain attempt to set ourselves above, or out of, the food chain, have gotten this notion that were are God, or at least like God. (This is what Satan told Eve).

Go set yourself down in the woods somewhere for a day or two and you will find yourself being eaten by the same animals some of these nut cases would kill you to protect.

I love animals and God's creation, but I love the creator more. It seems to me that the people who would stop the percieved persecution of animals have no problem with a very real persecution of their fellow humans, or at least their money.

There are those religous zealots that think the handling of snakes is proof of their faith. I read the part where God says that the sons of Eve will bruise the serpents head. That doesn't mean he has to be killed. Nor does it mean to pick it up and kiss it.

However, If a rattlesnake, bed of ticks, or predatory animal comes into my yard, I will end their life to protect my own and those of my children.

I will continue to eat chicken, fish, beef, and use other animal products. I will feed those same things to my family and pets. Does that make me a bad human? If so, in the eyes of whom?

This is a front for a more extreme movement. Pete Singer is saying by killing ever dog, cat and horse in America it will usher in the killing of humans over the age of 68, killing babies who have birth defects etc. According to the journalists at the LA Times the animal rights movement is classified as Liberal Fascism. RUN

cfrich.......Thanks for your comments. I made the statement, "the radical group, by many folks standards, PETA claims a membership of more than two million and have a heavy voice in state capitals and Washington." I stand by this statement as there is 2 million people who are members of PETA and 300+ million people who are not. Also I believe the extreme distance the vegan views of animal life and animal products is from the mainstream qualifies as radical which I find defined as: (1) relating to or affecting the basic nature or most important features of something. (2) favoring or making economic, political, or social changes of a sweeping or extreme nature.

I personally know no vegans but do know some vegetarians, but if I did it would be of no import. My piece in no way is intended to reflect my views but to raise the philosophical proposition, do animals have rights and if so when do they trump individual human rights?

I agree most religious sacrifices culminate in the animals being eaten, so does the government have a legimate interest in preventing animal sacrifice?

I get a little of the flavor in your comment you think I may support the ill treatment of animals. Nothing is further from the truth. I take second to no one in being a lover of all living things and will countenance no ill treatment of any animal.

Sorry if I sound a little bitter, for lack of a better word, but you can readily see from comments to my blogs, many, if not most, commenters aim their subjective and often invective barbs at me personally and refuse to address the issues I raise in any cogent way.

Again, thanks for your comment and you have a pleasant day.

PETA would impose its values and its dogma on the majority. This is radicalism in practice. Is it true that one ultimate objective is to end the practice of keeping animals as pets, as I have heard?

Is it less humane to feed, care for, and pamper an animal during a lifetime that is extended by not being exposed to the diseases and hardships of the wild, or to let it "run free" to starvation, the elements, and death by microbe?

I want to be reborn as a dog in my sister's house. As for my dog, a pound rescue, her brief time as a stray, in the first couple of months of puppy hood, traumatized her for life. Her fear of the dark might make freedom a real trauma.

PETA wants everyone to adopt their "pseudo-religious" position regarding their unprovable beliefs. It as as radical as asking for laws to enforce a national religion.

Dear Mr. McClanahan:

Another fine and thought provoking article which you end with the question, "I wonder if animal is a race?"

Without attempting to answer your question genetically, I can tell you that animals are racists. Take, for instance, the many fowl species feeding in a lake: geese, mallard ducks, teal ducks, heron, swans, etc. It is not unusual to find these differing species intermingling as they forage for food. Occasional squabbles occur and are quickly settled by the fittest of the fit.

When darkness aproaches, the geese go to their roosts, the mallard ducks to theirs, the heron sleep only with their kind, and so on. Such is the case in nature not only with fowl but, so with canine, feline, bovine, etc.

So now, Mr. McClanahan, I put to you: if such is born a racist and, practices racism, is he (it) anything other than a member of a race?

Oh, before I should forget, even though a carrot has no vocal chords for expression, do you believe it feels any less pain when snatched from the ground by its roots?

Master Garhawk.....Thanks for your comment tho I fear I must take exception to your bird population at some lake argument as proving animals are racists. Since they are of different species, I think your analogy fails. More properly might be dogs which will associate and inter-breed without regard to color or physical differences, ergo not racist. Of course my inquire on the blog was to announce my hope that those who have called me racist, in their ignorant splendor, might be silenced by a feeble attempt at levity. Re your insistance we willfully inflect pain on a carrot when we harvest and comsume it, I'll have to get back to you on that one. Still looking for nervous system of a carrot.

Amalphia.....Indeed I countenance no application of pain and suffering on any animal but I think a legitimate imquiry as to the legal status of "rights" as they relate to the interaction of man and (other) animals is a proper area to explore and question.

I think this is a good topic. With no disrespect to cfrich's noble stance, I have to agree with you that an animal cannot, by its very nature, have any natural rights, save those projected onto them by those of us who do.

To me, the question does not lie in the legality of civil code, but accepted morality. As long as we are given a voice for our beliefs and an opportunity to effect change within the framework around us, legal rights may be effectively and legitimately bestowed upon eagles, cows or earthworms indiscriminately, in much the same way that rights were achieved equally for every citizen of this nation, only at the will of the people (in some cases, even those people guided by radicals).

If your question is whether animals have inherent rights, I say no. If however you question our collective ability to assign them rights, I say yes we do. If your question is whether or not we should, I reluctantly say no, with few exceptions, while at the same time, fully acknowledging the responsibilities that necessarily accompany our own rights (including the moral ones).