Should animals have rights?

Question

If so, what should their rights be.

Answer 1

That's silly, human beings are animals too.

Answer 2

Here is what i have to say. My family first, then Humans, then the world, then the little creatures that we like.

Answer 3

Any creatures have the rights to live.

Answer 4

No. And I will wait until the first cases come to trial.

Who will be the first person charged with the murder of a mammal?

Who will be the first person executed for the murder of an animal?

Who will spend 25 years in jail for the attempted murder of a spider or a rodent?

Who will be the first people charged with the forcible confinement of their pets, negligence and failure to provide necessities of the local squirrel population on their yard?

Rights are a powerful tool in human society and people throw the term around without consideration to what it means.

Will sharks and bears have the right to legal representation, representation in the senage and congress and to vote in the upcoming presidential elections.

It then becomes like slavery to claim that animals have rights and then to be selective in what rights you will bestow. Separate rights for different species is precisely the issue of slavery where some had more rights than others.

Answer 5

Yes they should. They are living creatures. Basically they should have rights that protect their species...and they should not have to suffer terribly, in order for human beings to live.  

Answer 6

The decline of public education is apparent in these answers.

I believe everyone answering yes should be set weaponless on the African veldt and tasked to explain to Lions why Gazelles have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

They will soon discover that Lions do not get the right to pursue from human governments.

There's no need for undue cruelty, but seriously folks, shall we let your cat lawyer up & sue you for cutting off his balls?

Gimme a break.  The Am Indians killed animals just like the rest of humanity.  I can't begin to tell you how unimperessed I am that some felt the need to appoligize afterwards.  If your sorry, don't kill me.  And if you kill me, f*ck your appology.

You'd thinks schools so bent against teaching Religion would take the time to teach Darwin, or History, or Logic.

Seriously, how can you not know your 'right' to a peacful life comes from large gangs of bad @ss men with guns trained to kill.

Answer 7

They should be protected from any cruel or inhumane treatment and be excluded from all testing besides medical. If it lives in the forest or water and is tasty, it is fair game, unless it is endangered species or extremely important to the ecology to the point where even limited hunting will s***w with the whole thing.

Answer 8

Sure, I have rights.

: )

Answer 9

Why shouldn't they? Just because they're not human? Oh yeah, and women shouldn't have rights because they're not male and blacks shouldn't have rights because they're not white and g*y people shouldn't have rights because they're not heterosexual. Yeah right. Is this really even a valid question? Of course they should. What rights? Of course animals don't need the same rights as humans, just like a man doesn't need the right to an abortion. But animals definately have the right to not suffer at the hands of an exploitive capitalist market. The rights everyone else wants - to be able to pursue their interests, even if that only means living a life without suffering, boredom, or control. In other words, a chicken has the right to keep its beak, eat food it's mean to eat, have room to walk around, and do what chickens do.

As far as the medical thing - that's c**p. We wouldn't condone using other live humans for testing, but it's ok to torture an animal for medical testing because in that case the end justifies the means? Oh hooray - the end justifies the means, Machiavelli - type society is really one I want to live in. not.

Answer 10

What do you mean by rights? The right to freedom of speech? Well, The only Animal that really conveys intricate ideas is a human being. The right to have guns? I think the entire issue is whether animals ought to have the right to life. But, doesn't this mean we would only end up prosecuting those animals that violated another animals right by feeding on it? Why should human beings have to suffer the consequences only? Doesn't it seem strange that animals have "rights" to live but the only animal that can violate those rights is a human being. Any other animal, like a lion, that takes the life of another animal isn't prosecuted or condemned but when a human being shoots a deer and eats why freak out and go nuts pressing charges against this person. Yet, the same animals we give rights to who also violates those rights cannot be wrong or immoral by violating those rights. Ugh.  

Answer 11

In my opinion, the native American indians had a spiritual/supernatural  and human relationship with the animals and nature in general.

This knowledge, I believe was passed on from medicanman to medicanman, down throught the ages.

As I am not an expert, perhaps some more informed person can help out here?

Many thanks.

Answer 12

ALL animals should have a right to be treated humanely.  They should not be starved or beaten.  This applies whether they are pets, work animals, or food animals.  

When it is time for them to die, it should be QUICK and as painless as possible.  

In an ideal world, a food animal would go from the field to its death in a couple of minutes instead of being shipped from place to place and held in feed lots.  

To be thorough, humans should also be guaranteed a quick and painless death when it is our time to die.  

Answer 13

I don't really think that the concept of "rights" is useful. I think "rights" are just social fictions. They are tools designed to make the world better. If and when they fail at that task, they should be jettisoned.

I do not think the language of "rights" is beneficial for humans, and I do not think it is beneficial for animals. If you know anything about the animal rights debate, you will know that a very large part of inflicting sufering on animals is justified by appealing to "rights," like the right to property (the animal). Rights talk is a kind of language which make further discussion difficult. Animal rights people will claim that an animal has a right, and anti-animal rights people will claim it doesn't, and it is very hard to see how to move past simple assertions like these, particularly at the popular level.

Instead, I think the animal rights debate should focus on suffering. While there may be disagreement over animal "rights," there is little disagreement over the claim that it is wrong to cause suffering unnecessarily or for trivial reasons. So really, I would prefer to avoid talk of rights and listing specific rights. If I had to list some rights, I would say the right to not suffer for human pleasure would be a key right.