2007-10-16 00:10:28 · 18 answers · asked by getuplate_haha 1 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
You've been listening to PETA.
In a utopian world it would be wonderful for animals and people to live harmoniously in their own environments. However; its not a logical, humane or amicable approach to today society.
Animals need us to help them. They don't just have the natural predators they were given instincts to avoid. Cars, poisons and people are a threat that their maker didn't intend for them to have.
2007-10-16 01:12:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, not if they are given the best of care. I have a domestic cat and she is treated very well. I watch a program on TV once in awhile and the guy has all kinds of domestic animals. They are all around and on him. He tells how to take care of your pets. He shows you what you need and everything. I would bet that he takes very good care of his pets because they all get along with each other. I don't think it violates any ones rights unless you are trying to keep a wild tiger or something. But even wild animals can be trained sometimes. It is a matter of trust between the animal and trainer. If the animal doesn't want to be trained then they won't be. Look at all the wild horses that people adopt all of the time. They take them in and it is a matter of a human proving to the animal that it won't get hurt. No, I don't think it is a violation at all. I Can treat my cat much better than if she was wild. I can provide a safe environment, food, water, love, etc.
2007-10-16 07:12:54 · answer #2 · answered by Just Bein' Me 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only if you also believe that using only 1-2 squares of toilet paper each time you use the toilet is a reasonable and realistic strategy to be more green and waste less paper.
Can you show me the Animal Constitution that spells out the animal rights to not be a pet?
and Rhetorically, Does a pride of lions violate a Zebra's rights when they each a zebra ?
Lastly, is it not rather an act of kindness to feed, house and protect an animal by making them your pet?
2007-10-16 07:19:51 · answer #3 · answered by rorzzz09192007 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
My opinion - if it is an animal that is supposed to be a pet, then NO.
For all the fanatical animal freedom lovers out there - Do you think it is a violation of your human responsibility to let loose an animal to fend for themselves when they have no skill to do so and will only die because they can not survive on their own?
2007-10-16 07:19:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Depending on how well you look after it. If you are unable to care for it as it should be treated then perhaps it is a violation for the pets. But otherwise, loving it and giving it a good home is not a violation.
2007-10-16 07:14:26 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here we reach a difficult point.
Some animals have had the instincts bred out of them, and therefore can't survive on their own.
Was this a violation of their rights?
Probably. But it's too late to think of that.
What do we do about it now?
2007-10-16 08:47:07 · answer #6 · answered by GestaltZe 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the species of the animal who is the "pet".
2007-10-16 07:49:29 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No because mine would have been roaming the streets all on his own, and that thought for any animal is unbearable. I take it you did`nt mean lions and tigers and the like. In which case they should only live in freedom.
2007-10-16 07:19:42 · answer #8 · answered by supergran 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Animals don't have rights. We eat them, use them for clothing and they are ours to do with as we please.
I'm sure if a pet felt it's rights were being violated it would contact the ACLU..................
2007-10-16 09:43:15 · answer #9 · answered by thefinalresult 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberals are all alike. Silly, animals have no rights!
2007-10-16 07:24:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋