Questions about your thoughts on animal rights?

Question

What is the theory behind animal rights?
What do you think the goals of animal rights are?
What about animal welfare?
Do you know what new-welfarism is in the context of the animal rights movement ?
Which people or groups would you call "new-welfarists"?
Do you agree with the theory of Abolition?

The questions are all about your opinion. Give me YOUR thoughts. Thanks.

Also please state if you are a meat eater or Veg*n.

Ok guys, the questions are structured a certain way for a reason. If you don’t want to answer them all, properly, I would ask you not to bother at all. Thanks.

Answer 1

My opinions are very influenced by the theory of Animal Rights and Abolition put forward by Gary Francione.

Animals are sentient beings. This characteristic and no other cognitive characteristic entitles them to live without being treated as a resource.

What other goal can the Animal Rights movement have than the total Abolition of abuse and use of non-human animals? I see none.

Animal welfarism is distinct from Animal Rights in that it does not see animals as beings with a right to continue to exist. They only have the right not to suffer. They seek only to minimize the cruelty and pain that animals experience on the way to their deaths.

New-Welfarism is the idea that we can somehow work towards the aboliton of animal slavery by pursuing welfarist reform goals. The names that immediately springs to mind are PETA, The Humane Society, and Peter Singer.

I absolutely agree with the theory of Abolition. Humans have no right to use and abuse non-human animals. There is no way that Animal Rights can ever be acheived if we keep pursuing welfare reforms which merely make people more comfortable with consuming animals and their byproducts.

I am a vegan. If you aren't vegan, you don't believe in animal rights!

Answer 2

Ok, at first I wasn’t going to answer because I am not excessively knowledgeable on the topic of animal rights, but I feel bad about your selection of answers, so I’ll give it a whirl.
:)

1. Animals are not property. They have a desire to live, be free of torture and slavery and live their own lives.

2. To protect animals and create a state of awareness that we do not need to do such horrible things to animals. To get people to grow up and be the *good people* we would all like to believe we are.

3/4. Is it this: Nonhuman animals are ‘persons' with family life, emotional range and community? I dig that.

5. I don’t know who would be called that… perhaps your animal law group.

6. In theory, yes; however, I believe it will be (and needs to be) a bit slower of a process in order to be successful.


However, I must say that if you truly want to get people's thoughts and views on such a broad and deep topic, you should have more open-ended questions and the understanding that there is a lot of great knowledge that can be gained from personal experience outside of your particular group. People will be more likely to answer if they can speak about something that has touched them personally and made them think along these lines of animal welfare on their own.

You can get great answers when there is room to speak from the heart.
:)

~L

Answer 3

no, because of the fact i've got faith that, alongside with the different residing ingredient on the planet, we are able to make good use of the flaws they supply us. in spite of the indisputable fact that, i'm a sturdy recommend for animal welfare. i've got faith we've the legal duty to strengthen animals in a soft, humane way if we in basic terms do in an attempt to apply them. i'm undecided what you're touching on once you assert "does it nonetheless influence human beings?" i might savor it if the battling vegans and meat-eaters might close up until they have information from someplace different than a internet site... this replaced into an opinion question became grotesque

Answer 4

I am an animal rights advocate and my opinion (which counts for absolutely nothing here) is that---I will strive to see that all animals are cared for to the best of my ability, if I cannot care for them I will find someone who can (so far I'm doing good). My husband is a meat-eater and we raise our own food--our animals are free-range and are (here's where I'm having a problem with terminology) "processed" humanely. I understand people eat meat, my only goal is to see that the animals have happy life until their time comes. I don't know--this is very near and dear to me--there are 12 chickens walking outside the door that will die of old age cause I named them!!!! Ahh well---I've been this way for 50 years and will continue for another 50 -- I think the attachment to animals is something you're born with.

Answer 5

I have just one thing to say: They're NOT HUMANS!!! They're ANIMALS. Stop putting them on the same level as humans. All animals are alike: horses, dogs, cats, cow, pigs, etc. I personally wouldn't eat a dog because I think the meat would taste bad, not because I would think it cruel. As a matter of fact, I've probably eaten dog before at a Chinese restaurant. It doesn't matter: they're animals! They don't have a reasoning mind, they don't have rational thoughts, they don't have human emotions or characteristics. Stop putting them on our level.

That was a long time coming.

Answer 6

1.) The basic theory of animal rights is not a bad one. Animals should not be exposed to being abused.
2.) The goals should be to protect animals from unwarranted cruel treatment.
3.) Animal welfare is the Liberal viewpoint that animals, especially those under human care, should not suffer unnecessarily, including where the animals are used for food, work, companionship, or research.
4.) Its an extreme form of Animal Welfare where even more protections are being asked for. Its gotten to the point where the animals are being placed in a higher level than humans and that is unacceptable.
5.) In regards to animals.... NO, they are here for the use of mankind, as a lower life form, to make our lives better.

Answer 7

it's nothing wrong in eating meat..
we shouldn't kill it unnecessarily but can use them as food..
if we have to say nonveg is inhumanity then what would the people living in artic and antartic would do?? there they can't have vegetarian food..
if we say that killimg animals life for food is wrong then we shouldn't cut trees or plants for food.. science proved that they have life and also respond to external stimulus(even music!!).. then we shouldn't take any food of veg and non-veg..
and also if we don't kill animals for food then ecological balance will be disturbed and animals will become more in number than human beings and will certainly lead to our extinction or even both of us...!!
and moreover we have lots of vitamins and nourishment in thier food...

so nothing harm in eating non-veg and we should eat it to maintain ecological balance in earth...

have a nice day.. take care!!

Answer 8

I am a meat eater and as I have just now said in another question, animals treat each other worse than we would dream of treating them. if a kitten comes out deformed in any way the mother kills it. Would you do that to a baby? We give animals many more rights than they even give each other.

Answer 9

my thoughts are all blank, i don't know what to think until
someone tells me what to think it, and i take it as my own thought, so if you tell me to abuse animals, i do it and i get paid.

i'm a veg*n

Answer 10

the animals wouldnt have a life if we didnt eat them