2007-01-11 05:50:01 · 31 answers · asked by JOHN Y 2 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
If so are far do we go. Do fish and ants have rights?
2007-01-11 06:02:28 · update #1
Yes, they deserve the right to not be abused and neglected
2007-01-11 05:54:39 · answer #1 · answered by allyalexmch 6 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Yes. All living creatures should have the right not to suffer cruel, unnecessary treatment, including neglect.But when these rights are put into law then it must be taken into consideration that animals have a different way of thinking - they (with the exception of a few great apes and maybe dolphins) do not have a sense of self, and so some things that we would feel to be humilitating, such as performing does not have the same conitations for the animal as it would for us - but any perfoming animals should be taught using positive reinforcement only - they do have the right not to be ill treated whatever work they may do.
2007-01-11 14:39:50 · answer #2 · answered by MyNutmeg 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, yes animals have rights. The fact is that most people don't give them any.
And, as you say, what about what are considered pests, shouldn't they have rights to live also? I think so, but then what about fleas, lice and roaches? Are they undeserving of life?
I think that for the time being it would be great to affirm any type of right for the endangered animals that still walk the earth, and in the meantime have philosophers think out a way to determined rights for fleas!
Pets should also be protected from people, best friend and worse enemy (5.000.000 pets killed every year in USA because not enough homes are available and people just dump them to be killed when they had enough)
2007-01-11 20:28:58 · answer #3 · answered by greybamby 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly animals have rights. Though that does not mean they cannot be eaten - animals eat animals, and people are animals too. Personally, I don't feel that humans have any right to superiority over other species - I keep my livestock behind fences to keep them safe, but because they are essentially "locked up", I have taken on the reponsibility to provide them with the things that I have removed their ability to provide for themselves. Because they can not roam wherever they need to find shelter, food, water, I must provide that for them without fail. If they were to roam free, they would be at risk of being shot by a disgruntled neighbor, or hit on the road and killed or seriously injured.
I think a Tiger or a bear or a wolf has just as much right to kill a person as a person has to kill them (or anything else, for that matter). If an aggressive animal comes into our territory and threatens us, we have a right to defend ourselves, and likewise, if we head into their territory and threaten them, they also have a right to defend. I was cheering for the timberwolf up in the north who attacked that miner - the miner had no right to be there raping that wilderness. Of course, it was the timberwolf's fault, the evil creature...
2007-01-11 18:34:18 · answer #4 · answered by JouLe 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is right that animals have rights. As for fish and ants, I think it depends on the intelligence of the animal, I try not to kill anything because I believe everything has a right to life but I'm not a vegetarian so it would be fair to call me a hypocrite. :-)
2007-01-11 14:08:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Animals have the right to be treated kindly and humanely. I think that people who abuse animals should have to face the same thing done to them.
That being said, I love eating meat and I do wear fur. I live in an extreme climate - it was forty-five below yesterday - and fur is not only warm, it's a renewable resource. (How much pollution does Gore-Tex put into the environment??)
Moose are delicious and wolves are warm. Cows are pretty tasty, too!
2007-01-11 15:39:03 · answer #6 · answered by Jadis 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, animals should have rights. The problem is, who decides on those rights and the level these rights extend to? Animal testing seems totally immoral on first consideration, but it really depends on the context, or at least the argument shifts based on the context of the situation - without animal testing, would it be neccessary to do the testing on humans? Are you more upset if an animal is injured or if a human stranger is injured? These are the questions to address.
2007-01-11 13:58:53 · answer #7 · answered by Michael B 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The cause for animal rights is all relative to you. Personally, I abhor caging animals, even the fish in the pet store. Until I was given a rabbit I never realized how affectionate/devoted that species is. I could never eat rabbit now.
Yes, animals deserve the right to life, safely, painlessly and free.
2007-01-11 14:04:10 · answer #8 · answered by Sciencemom 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Yes all animals have rights. You do don't you. At the end of the day we are all animals, we humans are just more intelligent than our other animal friends because we are supposed to have a brain and use it. (some don't)
2007-01-11 17:28:17 · answer #9 · answered by Tammy 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think animals should have rights but to an extent. they should have the right to not be neglected, tortured or tested on. Somebody mentioned about whats better an animal or human being tested on but we can speak for ourselves and most people get paid to do it.
2007-01-11 15:16:16 · answer #10 · answered by kim 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
sure dey do! i mean imagine u being a fish or an ant and being steped over! dey have rights because if we kill dem all the food chain will crash..
hope i helped good luk!
2007-01-11 14:31:38 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋