• Animals have rights

    They may not be the same rights as humans, but they still have them. If nothing else they have a right to good food, clean water, and a decent shelter with which to live in. They not be human or able to communicate as a human would, but doesn't mean they don't have these rights. So yes I think animals have them.

  • Animals do have rights

    Animals have an inherent understanding of their own personhood and clearly understand their situation. To assume that they should not have rights because they may not have responsibility would be the same as saying that an infant or other dependent person cannot have rights because they have no responsibility for their actions or for their own care. Legal rights granted to animals would ensure that caregivers who do not consider their safety and happiness would be punished just as caregivers caring for those with Alzheimers are punished if they abuse their dependent individuals. Granting those rights helps to guarantee that the compassion that should be afforded to all living beings, will be.

  • We are no different from animals

    We are just more intelligent. Our ancestors thought up religion. They argued that animals had no souls, but that is merely because our brains were more develop than those of an animal, allowing us to think about animal souls and rights. We invented the idea of souls, but most can't even define what a soul is. Just because they can't express themselves doesn't mean that they don't deserve to have rights. Bear in mind that we are only having this debate as we are more intelligent. Remember- after all, we are just animals.

    Posted by: Mhjk
  • Animals have rights

    The golden rule says you should treat others the way you want to be treated. It never said you only have to be human. So that means that we give animals rights like we give to each other. If humans deserve rights then so do animals because we are so similar. All animals deserve rights just like us humans do. We are all decedents from God and God made us equal.

  • Quit writing all of these < and > and .

    Because people are not on this site to see them they are on here to look at the debate between if animals have rights and if they don't have rights so stop posting < > and . By the way I think that they do have rights so stop mistreating animals and start treating them with respect

  • Yes they have rights

    They may not be able to speak and tell us what they want verbally but they do show us! They feel like they are human when they are brought home. They feel as though they are part of the family. And damn it they are. They have rights. Wow people

  • Give rights to animals

    Animals have rights, they have the right to be fairly treated, to be looked after, to be fed, to have a shelter. But it does depend on where they live. In Asia specifically animals such as dogs are eaten not looked after. In places animals have rights, in other places animal rights don'teven exist. Animals are equally important to us, we are no better as we are animals to. So lets Give Rights To Animals

  • >...< >-< >.<

    . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

  • >...< >-< >.<

    . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

  • >...< >-< >.<

    . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

  • . . .

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

  • >...< >-< >.< .

    >...< >-< >.< . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .

  • Killing an animal would considered manslaughter or murder

    While it may seem logical for people to want animals such as pets and farm animals to have rights, animal rights extends much further than that. The idea of animal rights strives to make ALL animals have the same legal standing under the law as a human being. This would mean that flies, spiders, and scorpions, for example, would be on the same legal standing as humans. When a person kills another person for any reason besides war or self-defense, they can be charged with anything from manslaughter to murder, depending on the nature of the crime. If a person were to kill a squirrel crossing the road, that person should be charged with manslaughter under the idea of animal rights. A person who killed a spider intentionally should be charged with murder if animals are considered equal to humans. As absurd as these examples may sound, it is entirely logical under animal rights because any animal should be considered no different than a human under the law.

  • Are animals more important than humans?

    Even some humans don't have the same rights as animals. Many humans are homeless whilst others think that animals have a right to a home. What about our species?
    Even though some people aren't homeless most people are
    to sum everything up animals do not have rights
    sorry to people who believe animals have right but they truly do not

  • A right has a legal framework and there are no legal rights accorded to animals. Therefore in our society, animals do not have rights.

    People should act humanely towards animals and there are laws which protect animals (many of which could be improved). The whole concept of 'animal rights' only applies regarding their relationship with humans, not in their relationship with each other or with conditions in the wild. Therefore the law should be about the obligations, responsibilities and constraints applied humans in their relationship with animals. To talk about animals having rights gets too complicated.

  • Animals cannot reason

    Animals do not have rights. Animals do not possess the ability to use logic and reason. A good rule of thumb is a being has rights in proportion to its ability to respect someone else's rights. The exception are babies, which have rights because they are future reasoning adults. If you are in a cage with a tiger, it will not respect your right to life, because it can't. A tiger does not possess the ability to reason. Therefore it has not rights.

    Animals are property. They have the same rights as a television or a refrigerator. If animals truly had rights, are you going to start giving people the death penalty for swatting a mosquito? What happens if you hit a deer? Is that involuntary manslaughter?

    After reading some of the people who said "yes," from the animal rights crackpots, I am truly scared. People think animals have the right to "clean water, shelter, and good food?" What?!! Humans don't even have those rights.

  • Unless you count the right to be delicious.

    Seriously, why are we treating animals like they are human. Sure, I have a dog. Sometimes I talk to the dog, so in some respect I treat it as human but I know it is not human. I know in some countries they may eat dogs and raise them like cattle. That's fine with me but I think I will pass on the Scooby Burger. Some people have issues with testing things on animals. No matter if it is for to test out a new medication or the latest lipstick, I would rather have an animal suffer than a human. Do you really think the animal cares what they look like or should we make sure they have shoes to match. Most of the animals are raised specifically for that purpose and without the need for testing they may not even have been born. If you have an issue with animal testing, by all means, take the animals place yourself. Use products that are not animal tested but if it has a severe side effect, don't come crying to me.

  • Philosophy 101; as simple and basic as that

    Rights presume responsibilities; just as I have a right to free speech, I have an obligation to defend others right to free speech. Its a cliché,- but as with all clichés, it has truth; no one brings Lions to trial for murder when they kill a Wildebeest.
    "Form follows function; every quality of a wolf, physical and psychological, is built around its function as an apex predator that hunts as part of a group. The house cat, domesticated from a small, highly territorial wild feline, starts, physically and psychologically, from the function of its ancestors, etc. Therefore, not only the quality of mental activity is different, but also the nature.
    When we're around animals, we, by default, accept that, regardless of our philosophies. It is therefore, a fiction that (n0n) human animals have rights.
    The basis for treating animals ethically, compassionately, morally, is NOT, therefore fictitious "animal rights", but OUR obligations, our Responsibilities, as creatures with far greater volition than other animals and creatures with rights.

  • Neither natural nor positive

    There are two primary ways of defining rights, and animals possess them in neither case.

    1. Natural rights. No one or thing has any natural 'rights' what-so-ever. Nature, at least in the dualistic way its implied, does not impart special protections or legislate. Power is the only recognizable force in nature.

    2. Positive rights, in other words, rights via agreement or contract. The other way of defining a right is where two or more agents establish a formal agreement in how they wish to behave toward one another. This requires the ability for the agents involved to be able to explicitly communicate and understand one another, which animals are incapable of doing.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.