Thoughts on animal rights

People who prefer animals to humans are scary.
No offence intended, I dont have any pets and dont intend to but I like animals and wouldnt want to see one hurt or come to harm, but if I was in a situation where an animal and i were both in trouble and a person saved the animal before/instead of me, that person would scare me senseless!!!

I wonder if these people have ever been in a situation were they had to make the choice.
Could you imagine the linch mob theer would be if somebody saved an animal and not the little girl, or the father etc

My hierarchy/morality is always humans first(unless they were a murderer etc), I couldnt live with myself if a human died but Id saved the animal.Suppose in contradiction if the animal was closer to me, Id pick it up on the way to the human.

There have been reports of dogs biting humans and i think having them put down is wrong, they bite, they are dogs, thats what they do.
If people are violent once, do we put them down?


Basically Im a human, therefore I look after humans first, If I were a dog, I may think differently.

I get equally annoyed by people who take either extreme stance: the animal-rights extremists and the 'animals aren't as worthy of life as humans' folk.

I eat meat, but I was a vegetarian for 10 yrs of my short life. I am healthier eating some flesh and bits of other animals. So; I do my share of killing. Yet, I have never killed a human being. I struggled with this issue a lot. I don't enjoy killing. I don't enjoy knowing that I am a part of killing. But; we humans are animals too. We gotta kill to eat (even if it's a potato plant).

What I've concluded from all my thoughts on this (I'll sum it up short and sweet) is that the issue is not about animal rights at all. Animals can defend and live fine by themselves. The real battle is human morality vs. human morality.
And what it comes down to is Respect. There has got to be respect for Life in general.....because all Life depends on each other. Respect comes in many different flavours.

This sounds like a variation of the "if both your mother and I were drowning and we were the same distance from you, who would you save" question.

We can let these unlikely hypothetical situations toy with our minds, or accept that it would depend entirely upon the situation. For instance, how would we know that we would only be able or have time to save one? Unless you were able to see even a few seconds into the future, it would be impossible to tell if you had time.

Also, in reality, if it was a true emergency situation, those thoughts would not be going through our heads. It would be a matter of grabbing whatever was closest, releasing, and moving on down the line. I've been there, your brain is on auto-pilot making survival decesions.

Various people, various cultures feel differently about animals. I was speaking with much affection of one of my pets once, and a person from another culture told me he would not love an animal ever because he had children that he loved. My response was that love was not something that came in a container, that once you used up those eight ounces, it was gone. Because you love an animal does not diminish the love you have for your child.

As far as hypothetical questions, how about this one.....

You have the choice to save the life of someone who you just watched brutally rape and murder your blind mother, or the life of Mitzy, her service dog, that has been with your mother for 7 years, devoting her life to your mom.

Who would you choose.

BTW - dogs do not bite because "that is what dogs do" anymore than people rape and murder because that is what people do.

As flushd said, taking it to the extreme either way is not

Thanks so much for your responses. MG-- no offense taken . I too take the position that because I am human, in a case where someone has to choose the life of another animal and a human, being of the same species is justification enough to choose the human.

I agree with you flush'd that it's all about respect. I do love animals and have substituted tofu for meat for the last year and a half without adverse effects on my health. I guess after going to the talk, I was surprised to learn that there are people who can go to such extremes as to send death threats to people (!) and vandalize people's property for this cause (which includes stopping experimentation on animals for cures).
I guess I don't want to dismiss animal rights extremists as not thoughtful before I attempt to understand where they're coming from, even though I can't help disagreeing with their methods and extreme ideas. But I find it interesting to learn the rationale behind these kinds of position. While there should be respect for all animals, I find it a little bizarre when people say we shouldn't sacrifice some chickens in order to potentially save the lives of many humans and other animals because the chickens didn't consent to the experimentation.

What if we come across a specie of animals that is rational. Let's say it's from another planet. What do we do then?

I have to take the stance here that humans are valuable in itself because we have the rational capacity. I know it might sound "empty" at first glance, but by rationality I mean the capacity to understand. Animals, I believe, are purely instinctual. However, because they do perceive, and because they can feel, we must not be cruel to them. It is always unethical to be cruel.

When we do come across a specie of animal that is rational, we have to treat it with respect as we do with other humans. A rational being is a "person" whether they are of different species. Well that's my theory.

No, they just have more experience with human nature. :wink:

If the animal is a stranger and the human is a stranger, I would save the human because the bond of kinship is greater. If the animal is family, I would save the animal based on the same rationale.

This is short - will reply with more substance when I have time.

I love animals, don't get me wrong. I love their nature and their intelligence.

What I do NOT love are the left-wing-extreme animal rights groups who go to all sorts to get their message across. From what I have seen them do, their victims could take legal action against them and rightly so.

I have been in situations where animal AND human were in danger. Car accidents, house fires....

Quite frankly.. I dont think about the animals until the humans are safe. And only one time was I able to save an animal.


There was no rational to this. There was no TIME to rationalize it. My job was to save people.. the animals were a "bonus" .. to use the term loosely.

Does this mean i would NOT save an animal vs Human?

I would think that my answer would be no. But so many situations come to mind where I would BELIEVE that I would be ready to help BOTH.. but in my experience, that is not always the case.

As for animal rights-veganisim- etc..



life feeds on life. Alwyas has, always will

We as a race/species have been feeding on animal protien for thousands of years. Our bodies rely on it.

Yes, this means animals have to die so we can eat.

Just like plants have to die so animals can eat.

With out one life there is no second life....with out the second life there is no third life.. and so on..

I think the WAY that animals are raised and killed could use a serious overhaul.. but.. I dont believe that was the original question.

bm

Animal rights are important for not only keeping earth a little bit like it was when it was made, but for research. A lot of cures for diseases that we have found were taken from animals. I have a dog, so I love animals as much as the next guy (or more depending on who it is), but what I think is dumb is how people would prefer animals over humans. It is almost like the situation in Rainbow Six when animal extremist tried to wipe humans off the face of the earth.

I agree with the majority consensus that man must take precendent over animal in any life or death situation.

Having said that. . . .
There are definately situations where animal's rights should be considered before those of humans. Such instances:

1) When zoning for a new suburb, or town, any forested area known to inhabit abudant wildlife rare or not.

2) When securing consumables such as trees, coal, oil, whatever where abundant wildlife is present and at risk.

3) Considerations of population control measures such as hunting and fishing in an already unstable ecosystem.

Oh my gosh.

There are people like that?



I second your comment Enray.

I think when people keep pets, they play with the rights of the animals too because the animals are not having the life they should. We are also animals, they are also animals, it's just that we are more intelligent, civil, educated, etc., and they are not. But they have the same right to live the life of freedom that we do.

And this is OPINION only please, otherwise you tell me I do not have the right of speech and I'll stop writing - In India a milkman will keep cows inside his house in a about six foot by six foot space per cow, in which the cow can just about sit and feed and be milked there. This person is the most likely person to become claustrophobic in his next life because then he will see all the space around him but will feel trapped! So, since God's justice is always there, animal rights issues will always be taken care of. I will not argue with anyone about this because you have the right to voice your opinion my dear.