“Are you saying that if something might be good for you and me, then anything goes? That it makes no difference how much injury, sickness or suffering we cause to someone else as long as it's in our own interest? Where do you draw the line? (No need to reply here ... you just need to answer it for yourself ... our individual answers to this tell us what we include in what Albert Einstien called our "circle of compassion", or how much of life we consider, in our own way, to be sacred.)”
Trisha57 on Jan 16, 2012 at 19:52:45
“I'm going to answer you Pudgepops, you are 100% correct. And not to mention the unnecessary experiments they do over and over. I personally wouldn't want any of these animals to suffer even if it gave me a better quality of life or I'll go a step further, A LONGER LIFE. At what expense? Inhuman cruelty to these beautiful creatures? You're right, 'WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE"? Somehow there has to be a stop put to this.”
angelcakesinc on Jan 11, 2012 at 10:35:36
“Easy answer. I'm against unnecessary cruelty, of course, but medical experiments that could lead to amazing cures for humanity are not unnecessary. I do consider human lives to be worth more than animals and I'm not ashamed of that. I'd rather kill a thousand cute little monkeys by my own hand and cure cancer, or AIDS, or something equally horrible, than let them all go free and let these horrible diseases exist for another second. And I won't apologize for that. If, by their deaths, these monkeys can save lives, then that's all right.”
“Insanely cute? I'd say heartbreaking. These babies will never know their mother, have multiple genetic parents, and are destined to a life of being used in endless experiments ... if they even survive that long. The so-called scientists decline to even discuss how many other babies were born not so cute, but rather deformed or dead or were "euthanized" because of how they emerged. They decline to discuss how many surrogate mothers died in trying to cope with these unnatural pregnancies. (In both cases, the answer is many.) We do not make ourselves healthier and happier by inflicting such suffering on unconsenting animals.”
angelcakesinc on Jan 10, 2012 at 22:49:49
“Aaaand if these experiments lead to cures for things that were once thought incurable?”
Ken-Nard Wright on Jan 10, 2012 at 13:14:00
“sheesh... thanks for bringing us down!
just kidding. You make a very good point.”
“So, where do you draw the line, Cara? You're OK experimenting on mice and birds? Just not chimps? But among birds, parrots have remarkable cognitive abilities, and I'm sure you're familiar with what's been learned about the intelligence of magpies, crows, etc. How about dogs? Beagles are one of the favorite animals for use in laboratory experiments. OK to experiment on them? And if, as you say, "Animals DO feel pain. They experience psychological distress," then you seem to be saying that the extent of pain and distress should be the determining factors. In which case there's no difference if you're a rat, a chimp, or indeed a human. Would appreciate your clarification on this. I'm just not quite clear on the logic. Thanks much..”
OneVoiceOfReason on Jan 9, 2012 at 13:17:12
“I saw a documentary on crows recently, and they exhibited more intelligence than chimps, dogs, and some children.”
“I'm not in favor of vandalism, either, because, yes, it harms the cause. But to put all of this in perspective: you have, on the one hand, a single case of a few idiots despoiling a non-living exhibit at a fair; and, on the other,
* the daily horror of the dairy industry milking mother cows to the point of total exhaustion,
* tearing their calves away from them so they can sell the calf's milk,
* putting the calves in veal crates so they can't move and will grow up with white flesh that will be nice and tasty in fancy restaurants,
* impregnating the cows so they can endlessly repeat the whole dreadful cycle,
* and, when the cows can no longer even stand up, factory farm workers often just bulldozing them to their deaths (yes, on video).
Sure, the vandals harm the cause - but frankly it's a drop in the bucket compared to what happens all day, every day in the dairy industry.”
FaunaAndFlora on Aug 13, 2013 at 23:29:44
“How about dropping the inflammatory language and sticking to the facts? I keep a small herd of dairy goats for my own kitchen. I've also been around a few commercial dairy barns. Cows are not milked to "the point of total exhaustion". No one is "tearing their calves away" either. They are simply removed and bottle-fed until they're old enough to survive on grass and hay. Yes, some calves are raised for veal. Some are raised in crates too (a practice that I'm not fond of), but other farms raise their veal calves in group pens or on pasture. (There are different types of veal.) As for impregnating cows so they "can endlessly repeat the whole dreadful cycle", what do you think these animals would do if they were wild?
By the way, I believe the video you refer to showed a downer cow being moved by a bulldozer in the yard of a meat packing plant. This led the USDA to ban the use of meat from downer cows and to require that such animals be euthanized before being moved.”
“Many of us may agree with your sentiment. But unfortunately it goes nowhere in a court of law. Which is why no nonhuman animal has ever been recognized by the law as having any legal rights.
Just for starters, no judge anywhere is going to rule that all animals everywhere have equal rights. Nor can you go to court on behalf of "all animals." You go to court with one plaintiff. And the first thing you have to demonstrate is that your plaintiff has legal standing. If you can't do that, the judge simply throws the case out.
So The Nonhuman Rights Project is going to court on behalf of one initial nonhuman plaintiff. And then the next one. And then the next one. And at some point you've established a set of precedents. And it all moves on from there. That's how the law works.”
Kosh 2012 on Apr 2, 2013 at 17:04:23
“Well I think focusing on the law might be premature. The law is usually lagging far behind cultural progress and is its last stage. Witness this with gay marriage, and how there's been a lot of cultural progress and only now there's some possibility of legal progress as well. I think vegan education is primary: as long as the vast majority of people treat animals as a resource, the hope of having legal rights recognized is slim. However, I guess some primates might get some rights sooner than later.”
“What you write is all true. But there's a more fundamental reason why the law is failing nonhuman animals. People talk about animal "rights", but the fact is no nonhuman animal has any rights at all. That's because they are viewed by the law as "things" - as property, rather than as "legal persons." And no "legal thing" has the legal capacity for any rights.
So, while a human fetus can be viewed as a legal person with rights, as can a human in a vegetative coma, and even (as Mitt Romney pointed out) a corporation, a sentient, intelligent, self-aware, 40-year-old chimpanzee mother, who can hold a sensible conversation with you or me, is still viewed as a "thing."
You can give certain protections to "things." But a "thing" - whether a car or a chimpanzee (or, 200 years ago, a human slave) - has no inherent rights.
One organization, the Nonhuman Rights Project, is setting out to have certain nonhuman animals like chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins, recognized as legal persons with the capacity for certain rights appropriate to their species. Specifically the right to bodily liberty (not to be held in captivity) and the right to bodily integrity (not to be used in laboratory experiments etc.).
Only when the law begins to recognize at least some animals as being "legal persons" will any real change being to take place. www.nonhumanrights.org”
Kosh 2012 on Mar 30, 2013 at 20:13:39
“I agree with what you say about property, but with regards to what you say about the Nonhuman Rights Project, there's absolutely nothing that makes chimpanzees, elephants and dolphins any more deserving of rights and the status as non-property than chickens, cows, fish, turkeys, pigs, etc.”
“Yes, indeed. Horses were being used in war in the Middle East 4,000 years ago. And in the American Civil War, there was really no doubt as to who won and who lost: 600,000 humans died ... and more than a million horses -- a clear victory for humans over horses.”
Oct 7, 2011 at 19:37:58
“It may be true that in the United States, dolphins are no longer captured from the wild for these swim programs. But that does not apply in other countries including right next door to us. Either way, breeding dolphins to live an entirely unnatural life for the very questionable benefit of some "magical" healing is seriously unethical. The fact that these highly social animals, deprived of the ability to live their lives in the ocean with their own families, try to make friends with humans only points to the obvious fact that they have no other choice of social bonding.
As for the healing effect, the fact that a child with autism or some other condition may be temporarily brought out of themselves by the experience of traveling to another location, getting in the water with a wild animal, and getting a massive amount of extra attention, should not be confused with "healing properties."
Many of these swim programs have already been exposed as either seriously flawed or outright scams. Parents looking for answers should not be given the false hope that they're going to find magic in dolphins. Rather, if they want their kids to interact with these remarkable animals, the best way is to go out on the ocean with a reputable company where you and your child will be exposed to dolphins in their natural habitat. And that can be a really magical experience.”
Deb Ewing on Oct 8, 2011 at 14:21:48
“You didn't read the article, did you? It was well-researched and covered the aspect you mention.”