In a speech this week, President of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Wayne Pacelle said that there is little difference between animals and humans.



Press Release



Questions for debate:

What rights should animals have?

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

What rights should animals have?

Protection from abuse in the large amount of forms it comes in, protection and right to have a healthy habitat in which the animal requires either as a pet or in the wild.

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

This is one of my major reasons for supporting stem cell research. Stem cell would be far more accurate overall and would not require the need to destroy an entire organism the likes of a large mammal for example when the technology itself was able to culture and keep alive various variations of cells needed, and at that point which i guess we would never reach now it would not require much destruction of life period.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

I treat my dogs like part of the family and would with no doubt take offense to someone trying to treat it as less then such

Oh goodness here comes the conservative in me (or my only bit of sanity).

Dogs are not people, and they sure are not “Canine Americans”. For starters a good friend of mine is an animal control officer and let me tell you if we make animal cruelty laws any more stringent we will have more animal cruelty cases in the courts than drug related, and who is going to pay for it Not to mention what in the world are we going to do with the hundreds of “Canine Americans” that are euthanized every day in just the city I live in?

This guy is a madman and is hardly worthy of debate.

Here are some more choice quotes from this quack.


No luck so far on this front that I know of.

I guess he was not so hot on “Canine Americans”. In the past


His intent is not to elevate the status of dogs for the sake of domesticated animals it is to make ownership so difficult that he can achieve is goal of ending it. I seriously doubt that he would be happy until every animal was out of every home.

I'm going to guess he is a vegetarian and is suffering from protein deficiency.

This is not a rational man I am guessing that he is just shy of PETA.

I could go on and on about how insane he is but this is like shooting fish in a barrel…..hehe

TDH

Let's start with the last question first, since it's an easy one. There is no justification for the term "Canine-Americans." That's just silly.

As to the question of animal rights in general, I can only offer my own personal basis for ethics. It is not meant as a general guideline for anyone else, but it works for me.

Axiom: Suffering is an evil.

Corollary: The degree to which an entity has rights is directly proportional to the degree to which that entity is capable of suffering.

Thus, only animals (including human beings) have any degree of rights. There is no evidence that plants can experience suffering, for example. If artificial intelligence is ever developed, and if it is capable of experiencing suffering, it will have rights.

Using this rule, I have come to the conclusion that a newly fertilized egg (of any species), before the development of any kind of nervous system, cannot have rights; that persons in a permanent vegetative state who have no consciousness at all, and no hope of recovery, cannot have rights; and so on.

More relevant to this debate is my conclusion that human beings have more rights than other primates; that primates (and possibly cetaceans) have more rights than other mammals; that mammals have more rights than other vertebrates; that vertebrates have more rights than invertebrates; and so on. The key factor is the complexity of the nervous system, which determines the degree of consciousness, which in turn determines the ability to suffer.

Even if we accept this premise, however, it is difficult to decide where to draw the line when it comes to specific rights for specific animals. Is it OK to kill animals for fun? For fur? For food? There are many possible answers to these questions. I make no attempt to dictate my own conclusions to anybody else. For the record, after many years of doubt, I have decided to do what little I can to avoid directly benefiting from the death and suffering of animals. No doubt I am in violation of my own principles in many ways.

As to the specific issue of medical experimentation on animals, I think we can agree with these basic guidelines, issued by an organization which defends the use of animals in scientific research.


Link



With this in mind, I believe that the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has issued a reasonable statement regarding the goal of reducing animal experimentation to the absolute minimum.

Link



Here is a much more detailed position paper from the PCRM.

Link

What rights should animals have?

Protections for animals are sufficient as it stands in my opinion, although I do believe the punishment should be extended. The level of punishment that i've seen for animal cruelty is ridiculous.

I remember reading in the paper a month or so ago about a man that shot his dog in the head with a .22 caliber rifle in which ended up causing the death of the dog.

He received an $850 fine - nothing else.

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

It depends on the circumstances. For the most part I don't oppose medical research on animals (including humans) so long as they are not subjected to cruel forms of unsubstantiated suffering. If a researcher has good reason to believe that this type of research should produce promising results without substantial suffering then I don't oppose it.

However I do oppose testing of animals (including humans) based on wild theories without a high degree of certainty what the result will produce as well as it's potential benefits. Of course there is absolutely no way to be sure what the outcome will be, but there are ways of knowing to a certian degree what type of results as well as what type of suffering it may produce.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

This is such a silly statement. The USA is a form of human organization in which those of us that live within the certian borders that our ancestors have ordained classify our system as.

That would be like saying I could be a part of a Canadian wolf pack alliance.

Just as an update, here's a sentence I can agree with more than an $850 fine.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/20/kitten.b...d.ap/index.html

What rights should animals have?

We're talking about non-human animals, right?

Okay, here they are:

1. You have the right to follow your instincts.

2. You have the right to empty your bowels in public.

3. You have the right to express sexuality without restraint. Hey, stop that!

4. You have the right to run like hell away from whatever.

5. You have the right to eat really any damn thing you please. Sometimes humans find this very disgusting.

6. Same goes for drinking.

7. You have the right to be ignorant of any human rule, for or against you.

8. You have the right to mark your territory. I guess this, and all the others, are connected to 1.

All these rights are subject to the human master's will. I guess we're like the top dogs on the planet, and so what we say goes. Hey, stop that!

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

No. It can be though. Anything can be wrong or immoral, and that comes under the study of ethics.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

Not if they can't recite the Pledge and get all hot and bothered whether God's in there or not. Not if they don't pay taxes or at least could register to vote. Not if they don't give a hoot that over there is Canada and over here is the United States.

Dogs are dogs, cats are cats, and people are people. It's really pretty simple. You can see the differences right away when someone comes up with this idea. Aha! No dog would ever say that, or anything else for that matter. I've also seen educational machines that identify the differences. They're very colorful.

A dog goes bow-wow. A human goes hey stop that!

What rights should animals have? They should have very very basic rights that are alredy given to them. I mean America is pretty lienant and relaxed on what dogs can and cant do.

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral? Not if it is going to benfit some higher cause. I wouldnt expect humans to put acid in their coat to see if it will burn. I would expect medical research on cancer or other uncurable dieases to be allowed on animals that have that diease.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"? This is a silly statement. Why would I classify my dog as a Canine American?

As far as I know canines have no rights. How can they do anything if their rights are taken. Bark???
For medical research It would depend. But I really don't know of any research done on canines. They are usually done on rats or mice.
Are they Canine Americans? Yeah as soon as they have a birth certificate, social security number and get a job...

Allow me to clear up this point. The use of dogs in medical research is not at all uncommon.

Link



Because Americans tend to be fond of dogs, we are probably more uncomfortable with this kind of research than with research on other species. Personally, I am scared of most dogs, and I do not particularly like them. However, I recognize their ability to experience suffering, and I would wish to reduce that suffering to the absolute minimum.

Americans don't tend to be as fond of primates as they are of cats and dogs, but they should recognize the fact that the ability of primates to suffer is close to that of humans.

Animals should not have rights. Domestic animals legal status fits better as being property. Humans have rights. I can not think of any other species which deserves to be considered legal equals to humans. For me, it is a sentience is the determination.

I like Victoria Silverwolf's idea on laws which punish those those purposely cause animals to suffer. This is not the same as granting rights to animals. The biggest problem I have seen is defining what suffering is.

Vampiel brought up a man shooting his own dog in the head. A gunshot to the head is one method of euthanasia which has a low likelihood of causing suffering. Brain activity drops very fast. I would not think this to be cruel and inhumane. If on the other hand, someone were to shoot his dog somewhere in its body and leave it as so, suffering from a gunshot would, that would be inhumane to me.

The other case Vampiel mentioned was from Edwardsville, which happens to be where I am. Two years, to me, is excessive, for decapitating the kitten. I think it was easy to get the long sentence as it was concurrent. In my area, the humane groups are out of hand and getting too much publicity. These groups represent the extreme of standards and they are not representative of the overall opinion of the community.

I had a client who raised animals for resale. He had pocket pets, dogs, and miniature pigs. He had the best bloodline for producing small pigs I have seen. He also was a terrible housekeeper. His pens were slapped together and he was prone to having trash abouts. However, his animals were treated very well, with good food and water, vaccination programs. He called me for treating various problems. Anyhow, a humane grouped raided the place, claiming his animals were being treated inhumanely. He had two bulldogs, which I knew pretty well as one of them was prone to skin allergies. During the raid, both of these dogs died due to heat exhaustion. Of course, it was reported that "they got there too late to save the two bulldogs". It is an outright falsehood. These dogs were always in good condition and happy. They were frequently loose and running in the yard. This humane group should have been charged with causing suffering for the two dogs and subjecting to heat problems due to handling any putting them in vehicles which were too hot.

A long story but I have seen other reports in the area where animals were confiscated and statements are made about "getting there too late to save all of them". It should be a red flag to all of us that the humane groups are not so humane. It is a common problem where housekeeping can be called inhumane and causing suffering but those those confiscate these animals can mishandle the animals, cause suffering but they are given a pass as their intentions are good.

Animals for use in research should be permissible as long as the animals are treated well, and the research does not cause suffering. Medical research in itself should not be the deciding factor. How the animals are treated should be the deciding factor.

It is not inhumane to kill animals. This should never be part of the definition of suffering.

I don't agree that killing animals for the "pleasure" of killing is not inhumane. I don't have any objection to hunting or killing animals with the intention of using them for food.

I would however say, herding a bunch of dogs from the dogpound and using a machinegun to mow them over. That would be inhumane.

There was a situation in the past ten years where large numbers of animals were put in fields then slaughtered via machine gun. It was indeed gruesome. In fact, several of the people in the military group ordered to do so committed suicide. It was a dire situation when this decision was made. It was a disease with a huge mortality rate and affected / exposed animals needed to be killed in the thousands. The lesson was learned as the use of machine guns did cause a high degree of suffering.

There are many situations where domestic animals need to be killed other than for consumption. It will always be difficult to determine the emotions of someone. Having a law which prohibits someone from killing an animal because they enjoy doing so will be impossible to enforce. You can not prohibit killing due to enjoyment. Killing inhumanely must be defined by how they are killed, not why.

What rights should animals have?

Decent treatment by their owners. Decent means sufficient food, water and shelter.

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

No, because humans come first. Lions don't stop killing prey because they feel sorry for their families.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

No, just as we are not Human Americans.

People barely give respect to the lives of other people, even under the threat of violence from police forces you don’t have any guarantee that some human for some reason is not going to bring harm to another human, heck nations solve problems and make people like them via violence at times. As far as animal rights go, well its in my opinion that they should have it. I know if i tell my dog in the way i have come to do on a regular basis that he has done something wrong, i can see a easy sign of it impacting in the dogs cns as it tucks its tail and leaves the kitchen, it likes to try to get leftovers, though I don’t know why being its abiotic, similar to a rock. Its also easy to see the difference in behavior from severely abused dog to one that had a nice home. Now I know that I will move away from stepping on an ant if I notice I am about too, and I don’t expect or ever will expect people to concern themselves with such thought, but its a pretty empty stance to think that humans are the only conscious entity on the earth, its simply not true, and really I am not that firm on the belief about human conscious either sometimes things seem pretty robotic to me in all actuality, but I guess such is the suffering ignorance can produce. I do wonder at times about the people that kill animals as part as a day time job, if they ever stop to think about it, heck I know a chicken will fight you

As for hunting, most of it is done for sport out of boredom, as such I think its sick and personally I would make such a serious felony if I had such an ability, but that’s just bias.

What do you think about animals that kill other animals as part of their daytime job? Should they stop doing it? I guess they have no conscience, huh? I think the majority of people have respect for animals, they just don't put themselves below them as PETA does.

I actually don’t know anything about peta, sorry to disappoint you on that one lol. If you mean about like how say a pack of hyenas will go about killing something to eat and survive, well currently we have to do that too, we just live detached, but a lot of our current means of survival is primitive, I mean we still use wood for Christ’s sake: I mean I am in the camp that views a human as an animal, so i mean we probably have giant gaps in perception that you cant easily bridge in some quick discussion anyways.

I don’t put myself under an animal, I actually don’t know what orientation you should hold case to case depending on the animal actually, so I did not put anything there. If you don’t like other living things that is fine, I support laws that will respect them. I think the biggest environmental impact we could make is to control our breeding, allow for permanent habitats to exist for other living things, not just ourselves and of course change massively our technology to be green, will it happen, no, but hey I can still desire it, and voice my opinion too. If you want some giant city, that spans the earth, and the chemistry of the planet so morphed as to not be able to support life, that is fine, I mean at some point the nearest star to us is going to explode anyways. Then all of the carbon and h2o in animals can be punished equally

The problem I see here -- the problem that always comes up when this issue is discussed -- is the refusal to see that there is a middle ground between "animals are property, without rights" and "animals have the exact same rights as human beings." My position is that the rights of an animal are directly proportional to its ability to experience suffering. I am well aware of the fact that human beings have a much more profound ability to experience suffering than most other animals. (Let me make it clear here that I have a very broad definition of "suffering," which includes emotional distress, the loss of life and freedom, and so on.) For this reason, human beings have more rights than other animals. This does not mean that other animals have no rights at all.

Similarly, human beings have much more ability to make ethical choices. This means that they have much more responsibility for their moral choices. Most animals, including lions, have very little moral responsibility. However, I must point out that there is evidence that animals which are very similar to human beings are capable of behavior which, it seems to me, can be ethical or unethical.

Link



Yes, a human being has more rights than a lion. It is also true that a chimpanzee has more rights than an oyster. I don't think this is such a radical position.

What rights should animals have?

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

In my ideal world, animals would be left alone to do whatever it is they think they should do. They wouldn't be treated cruelly or killed by people.
(Similarly people would be left alone to do whatever it is they think they should do. They wouldn't be treated cruelly or killed by people either).

But sadly I am a hypocrite in a non-ideal world. I like leather jackets, shoes and belts. I try to avoid eating meat, but I still do. I also like having good health. So I accept that animals are killed or treated cruelly (in as humane a way as possible) in order for me to have those things. I wouldn't ever hunt, but I wouldn't stop anyone else from hunting (not least because they might have a gun).

So medical research might be wrong, it might be immoral, but we need it to have good health and live a long time. And we only really give rights to animals when giving those rights doesn't deprive us of anything. As I don't really want to wear or eat my cat, I am quite happy to give cats the right not to be worn or eaten. I am far less happy to give the same rights to a cow.

So you can call dogs 'canine Americans' if you want. It doesn't matter, because the reality of the world is that we use animals because we can and we improve our lifestyles by doing so. If it makes YOU happy to call your dog a 'canine American' and treat is as though it had rights, then by all means do so.

The question to ask anyone who treats their dog as a 'canine American' is "would you similarly consider a cow as a 'bovine American' and so give it rights? - especially as 'canine American' food may well be made from cows?"

Alright this is an easy one.

What rights should animals have?

Domestic animals such as dogs and cats have the right not to be abused and murdered just like humans, however a cow or chicken or creatures used for food, have the right to eat until we chop 'em up. I think that people take animal rights way to far; they are not human and can not be treated like them.



Well your wrong there Gordo. BIG TIME. Most people do hunt for sport yes, I hunt for sport, but every hunt I've been on we have taken the meat and used all of it. I know very few people that will hunt and just leave a carcass lying in the woods, its stupid and theres no proof of your kill(To show your buddy).


Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

No. I come before some little lab rat or baboon. I think that the world will better off from a few dead monkeys and mice if we found a cure for AIDS through it. Those that preach immorality are the ignorant ones, because the world is not going to stop working for a better human life to save an inferior creature.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

Umm, what is that? They are ANIMALS. They submit to us, they are not our equals. In the old days it was very apparent. My friends father had an uncle who had a german shepherd. That dog was the nicest best behaved dog in the world. My friends father was bit by the dog when he was about 11, his uncle took a rifle took the dog out and shot him. It was not the dogs place to lash out at another human. They are like I said animals. That doesn't mean you can deprive them of food, water and shelter; but it doesn't mean that you should hold them on an equal level with you.

The thing about machine-gunning a field of animals made me think of a situation that happened outside the college in Gunnison. Stray dogs were rounded up and shot. Ranchers did this dirty deed.

Why? Because the stray dogs had packed and were killing calves. That was stealing money straight out of the ranchers' pockets.

Okay, here's the ethical dilemma in this and other examples given. Just where do we draw the line between animal rights and human?

Going on with this story, the usually liberal college students didn't protest the killing field that they witnessed first-hand. Why? Because most of the students understood the economy of the region. Many of them grew up on cattle ranches. They knew the relationship between animals and humans quite well. When it comes to human rights versus animal rights, the humans win every time.

This is not to say that the ranchers don't have responsibility. They have to take care of their cows and horses by law.

What about the dogs?

Well, we don't eat dogs in this society, although we could. Dog is a delicacy in some societies. However, we don't think using dog meat for food is ethical, so we don't ranch dogs that way.

The ranchers wouldn't be expected to take in the dogs and feed/protect them, as this is increasing ranch overhead without any return on investment. It's simple economics.

Animal suffering has been mentioned as something we ought to be concerned about. A part of our society, those who follow the Jewish faith, is very sensitive about this. Kosher killing is designed to minimize the suffering of the animals used for food. I think that's a pretty cool religious idea, although the disdain of pork leaves me hungry for Memphis-styled ribs from the Rendezvous (smack-smack), light on the dry rub.

Non-Kosher killing can be a brutal, factory setting. I think working in this environment would make me crazy, literally. It would be like living in a horror flic. Some people want me to think about this every time I exercise my fundamental human right to eat meat. Eh, forget it. I won't do this, although having learned about veal has turned me off to this particular food. Goose liver is another one.

However, having had to share the sidewalk with wild geese has led me to want a pump shotgun. Fortunately, that's not the case around here.

Anyway, ethical dilemma is at the heart of this whole thing. Ethics change from culture to culture, time to time, and situation to situation. Animal suffering might be a consideration, but economic considerations are always in the picture.

The hunting thing for pleasure doesn't bother me. I don't care to do it, but I do have the right to make this choice. Meanwhile, hunting is in the instincts of all predators. They don't have a choice, nor would I if it meant eating or starving to death.

And BTW, I was a real good ruffed grouse hunter back in my prime. Yep, could do that again if I had to.

What rights should animals have?

I believe they should have the right to be treated humanely as pets, and killed as humanely as possible if they are to be food (see: Kosher). They should have enough room to move around, enough food to eat and water to drink, and freedom from temperature extremes and physical abuse. They should be protected from disease insofar as the person(s) caring for them are capable of affording it. Obviously, there are laws requiring rabies and distemper shots for pets in populated areas.

Is medical research on animals wrong or immoral?

As a cancer survivor, I have personally benefited from medical research on animals, so I am in no position to denounce it. But to have needless and repetitive experiments when the hypotheses have already been tested and proven is cruel. Case in point: Why can't frog dissections in science classes be substituted with something else, like virtual dissections? We have the technology, and we're running low on frogs planet-wide.

It is obvious that not all students, not even many students, will become surgeons or researchers and will need to kill and dissect animals. Let that be left to those students who are taking advanced courses with such careers in mind.

Are dogs really "Canine Americans"?

As if a dog had a concept of nationalistic pride--what drivel!

I am not aware of laws anywhere in the United States requiring distemper vaccinations. Do you have an example of such?

At my kids schools a few years ago, I examined the frogs being used for dissection. It was very interesting. I wanted to know where they came from and was able to determine they were harvested from irrigation ditches in Mexico. Opening up their digestive tracts revealed an assortment of insects which were consistent with being plant eaters (grasshoppers, moths). It was a good lesson as the kids learned some anatomy and they learned something of the frog habitat where they came from. Virtual will never capture the total sensory experience of hands on dissection. The frogs were not expensive (somewhat less than $5 each though I do not recall the exact price) and were easily obtained. That does not seem consistent with the idea that frogs are becoming rare.

It is not a good idea to subsect society into groups which only know specifics instead of having diverse knowledge. Everyone should know as much basic biology as possible. Such knowledge should be encouraged and not prohibited.

I like your comment about canine americans being drivel. Dogs do not have a sense of nationalistic pride. I would further offer a corollary that dogs do not have a sense of rights. I doubt were will ever see a dog file a case that their rights have been violated. Dogs do not have rights as they do not understand the concept.

I know that in the past my dogs received distemper shots. I might be wrong, though. When I was a (very) little girl my family had a dog that didn't, and he died, a cute little Cocker Spaniel puppy named Sandy.

As far as the frogs go, I have heard of studies saying that frogs are disappearing all around the world, whether it is from a thinning ozone layer which allows harmful radiation, rising pollution levels, or likely both.

I know that every child who is learning to use a computer doesn't have to have a laptop. I became a nursing student and later a nurse, and it wasn't at all necessary that every single student in my high school biology class pith a frog and then place the heart in lactated Ringer's solution to see that it would keep beating in order for me to go on to a career in nursing. If anything, I was put off by the experiment and felt sorry for the frogs. To this day I like frogs and have a soft spot in my heart (no pun intended) for them. They don't hurt anybody unless somebody tries to eat them, and then only if the skins of their species are poisonous. They also make a delightful sound on a summer night.

...But I have no such soft spot in my heart when it comes to crocodiles (with apologies to the late Steve Irwin)!