animal rights vs. animal welfare?

Question

animal rights vs. animal welfare , which do u side with and why?

Answer 1

Animal Rights is a philosophical view that animals have rights similar or the same as humans. True animal rights proponents believe that humans do not have the right to use animals at all. Animal rights proponents wish to ban all use of animals by humans.
•Animal rights proponents support laws and regulations that would prohibit rodeos, horse racing, circuses, hunting, life-saving medical research using animals, raising of livestock for food, petting zoos, marine parks , breeding of purebred pets and any use of animals for industry, entertainment, sport or recreation.
•Animal rights proponents believe that violence, misinformation and publicity stunts are valid uses of funding donated to their tax-exempt organizations for the purpose of helping animals.
•Arson, vandalism and assault are common tactics used by underground animal rights groups to further the animal rights cause. Groups such as the Animal Liberation Front, which have been classified as terrorist by the FBI, routinely use criminal activities to further their cause.

Answer 2

I dont agree with people committing outrageous acts in the name of animal rights.

But do beleive animals HAVE rights and are not playthings for the caprice and cruelty of humans. I also beleive animal Welfare is a priority with every decent human being.

Anyone who inflicts deliberate cruelty or neglect on an animal isn't worthy of the name "human".

Answer 3

believe you a hundred%. there's a distinction between animal rights and animal welfare. regrettably although, i think of a lot of human beings nevertheless lump them collectively. i've got been spoke of as an 'animal rights activist' till now for thinking the situations specific animals have been saved in, or for thinking merely instruct/working high quality dogs could be bred. such as you, and maximum human beings here, i became into bowled over as for me...animal rights activists are loopy Peta nut-jobs who think of possessing a puppy is a criminal offense against nature. collectively as i don't sense this way, I DO sense that they have got a "suitable" to a loving worrying residing house the place they're dealt with good. i will reword that and say that each and every dogs merits a sturdy residing house and since the human beings domesticating them, that's our job to furnish that for them. you may think of a vet's workplace could be attentive to the version and use the wonderful words. actual: final concern i offered for my dogs became right into a bag of Orijen. No...wait...that became into my unfastened bag, so till now that i offered a bag of freeze dried liver treats and a bottle of anti-itchy shampoo (Edward seems to have some seasonal grass hypersensitive reactions)

Answer 4

i go for both. all animals deserve to live a happy life and not be mistreated by any human. i am a animal care student and i have learnt to side for both as to me thay should both include the 5 freedoms.

Answer 5

stop testing on animals. In which case a vast number of medical treatments wil not be developed - many hundreds of life saving drugs (including Chaemotherapy) were tested on animals. It may be unfortunate - and i am against animal testing for cosmetic use.. but for health uses: would you volunteer yourself to have drugs tested on you??

Answer 6

I say stop testing on all animals.They both do brilliant work.