Matt Prescott is director of corporate affairs for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA; www.peta.org).
DID YOU KNOWTHAT mother hens cluck softly to their chicks that are still in their shells, that cows not only solve problems but also enjoy the challenge and become excited when they find a solution and that sheep can recognize and remember as many as 50 faces for up to two years? It seems that every week we learn more about who, rather than what, animals are.
Of course, anyone who has ever lived with a dog or cat already knows that they are unique individuals who feel joy and pain and can be frightened or sad. So, how is it that animals are still often treated as nothing more than property or machines? Chickens are crammed into tiny, filthy cages, unable to stretch their wings. Minks, raccoons and other animals spend their lives pacing in a tight circle in a tiny wire box before finally being painfully electrocuted or sometimes skinned alive for their fur. Even man’s best friend is often chained up like an old bicycle in the back yard.
Not long ago, child labor, human slavery and the oppression of women were all legal, approved practices right here in our own “enlightened” country. Some people honestly thought that other people’s interests didn’t matter. Though there was resistance, we amended our way of thinking and changed how we related to those others. Today, we are horrified at what, just a few generations ago, was considered acceptable. The time has now come for us to examine our treatment of animals.
Fortunately, no real sacrifice is required to consider animals’ interests. Making kind choices can mean eating a tasty vegetarian dish instead of one containing part of an abused chicken, buying shampoo that hasn’t been tested on rabbits’ eyes and keeping warm with clothing made from natural non-animal fibers or synthetics instead of from fur, leather or wool. For every cruel choice, there is a compassionate alternative if we just look.
Change is sometimes difficult. But in a country that values justice, we owe it to ourselves to continue learning and expanding our sphere of respect for others who are not exactly like us but who still deserve to be protected from exploitation. It’s not about radical change—it’s about basic human decency.
C
http://www.costcoconnection.com/connecti…
Pole: Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People - Do you agree?
When you say %26quot;the same rights as people,%26quot; do you realize what that entails? Are you saying we should charge someone with murder if they kill an animal? On that same note, why not charge an animal with murder if it kills another animal? Do we have to give them homes and occupations? Should we outlaw the sale of meat, fur, milk, and eggs? How far to you plan on going with this? Can we not kill a spider in our home? Heck, why not include plants; make it illegal to mow your lawn! The point is, that humans have dominion over animals. Since animals can't progress technologically, can't communicate with humans, and can be a vital rescource to human life by eating them, testing medicine and products on them to make sure they're safe for humans, and using their fur, they are not entightled to all of humans' rights. I'm not saying we should torture animals for fun or kill them for sport, but if animals have a genuine use to humans, their discomfort of even death is worth it. I think we need to make people our main concern.
Pole: Should Animals Have the Same Rights as People - Do you agree?
no, animals should not be able to vote, or petition, or peacably assemble, it wouldn't make sense. I do think that animals should be killed more humanely though.
No. Animals do have rights and should be treated with kindness but I dont think a fully grown lion should be sitting at the table next to me in my favorite restaurant (smile)
No, they taste too good.
Besides, God told Noah and his descendants (us) that we have the right to eat meat. God said the same thing to peter in the N.T. If God said that eating meat was OK, then why should I listen to you instead?
==edit==
I agree that it is wrong to be unnecessarily cruel to animals, but I will still eat them.
BTW, you misspelled %26quot;poll%26quot;.
It's possible that I'm intentionally misinterpreting the question here, but humans have a lot of rights that can't even be applied to animals, such as (in the US) freedom of speech. So... no. They shouldn't. It wouldn't make sense.
I do think that cruelty to animals should be illegal, however, which is what I think you're really asking.
