Should the animals in slaughter houses have rights before they are slaughtered?

Asked by: azariah1988
  • Black people and chicken.

    Black people have right and they're animals so its unfair to say chickens can't.
    Think about it, chickens lay eggs, blacks lay landmines in Rowanda, now you tell me, what's more useful a black man or a chicken? Well if your hungry I guess you could eat a black man SEEING AS THEYRE FULL OF CHICKEN ANWAY! HHAHA GG MATE!
    PS I am not racist.

  • Animals are living things.

    Killing is already disgusting and unacceptable in terms, but torturing ANIMALS before they are already TO die?
    It's not just us humans who possess life within. Animals are creatures with life in them, and to make matters worse--they are to be tortured even before they are already supposed to be killed.
    Life is something sacred, beautiful and amazing, killing alone sounds horrifying. Animals should have rights too--equal rights as to humans. After all, we are not the only living things sharing this Earth.

  • Animals should have rights.

    In many slaughter houses inside of America animals are treated terribly before they die. Many chickens are put into a single cage where they do not have room to walk around and they never see daylight. Their never released from the cage. Its the same for pigs and other animals. Pigs are castrated in a violent manner. I understand we need meat but the animals should not be tortured up until they are slaughtered.

  • They have the right to at least a humane death

    I have seen what goes on in a slaughter house, and to believe that animals actually have a humane death is completely false. They do not. Animals, whether in a farm, or out in the wild, are continuously exposed to human brutality. As an "intelligent race", there is no good, credible reason for why animals should be treated as inferior beings. There is no credible reason for why animals should have less rights than us. If animals had the rights we enjoy, how often would Article 3 of the European Convention on human, the 8th (US) Amendment, and Article 5 of the (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights? It would be a daily occurrence. Why should animals be subjected to torture..?

  • Of course they should!

    Animals should have rights- such as the right to a humane death if need be! I guarantee people's opinions would be altered if we were on the opposite side of the fence. If an extraterrestrial race with more intelligence came to Earth and judged us as dumb and edible- would you not at least like a death that is the least painful? Or a life at least moderately full-filling? Does being not as bright as someone else make you feel pain less? No- it doesn't. There is no reason why we can't be humane when it comes to our "meals" especially being the more intelligent species, you would think that our evolution would also mean more understanding and respect for our fellow creations.

  • A society is only as good as how its poorest. Least powerful are treated

    First, I understand that animals do not have 'rights' in the legal sense, nor are they generally considered as 'members' of society. When we allow mistreatment of animals, though, it is easier for people to mistreat other people they view as 'inferior' to them. The 'de-humanizing' tactic used by some would be nullified or at least made far less effective if we as a society resolved to treat animals - of any kind - with some basic respect and decency.

  • Do plants also have rights?

    That makes as much sense as killing plants for food. If you're going to go that direction you have to go all the way and stop eating anything overall. There are many living things we don't care about like bacteria, fungus, and plants. Animals are not above them all, stop thinking this way it's stupid.

  • Animals are dumb.

    Everyone always talks about how "animals are alive too," but they simply do not possess enough intelligence to do know what is happening to them. Intelligence is not a characteristic of living organisms, for example, plants, fungi, and single celled organisms do not have intelligence. And why should we give them rights anyway, they don't do anything for us accept feed us. They don't pay taxes or anything.

  • No, rights do not fix the bigger issues here.

    First off, farm laws are very loosely applied to the corporate farmers. The only legislation which will affect them is mainly that which concerns Monsanto.

    Now, when it comes to how these animals are raised, giving them rights is just another idea of how people believe work really gets done without getting dirty. Many avoid a career in farm work, yet it should be the people's responsibility to feed themselves. Weaning off of centralized, industrial farming, everything can be regulated a lot easier. If the FDA is gains the opportunity to revise a new law, then you will only see further strengthening of laws which affect local farmers, but do not scratch our biggest offenders. While we face many achievements in science and technology, they are hopelessly convoluted and too complex for more than 5% of the population. People want to farm and do self-reliant work, so why not change course and do necessary work???

  • They are here for a purpose

    Animals were put on this Earth by God.(yes I am a Christian) God gave us the animals to use as we need. If that is for eating or clothing. I can almost promise you that anybody who supports PETA or any other organization of that source owns leather purses, leather shoes, or a leather computer/phone case. Were does that leather come from? Uhm... Animals. Also I bet that they support football. The ball is made of leather.

  • Who cares really

    Pretty much everyone eats meat. We don't care when animals are bred specifically so they are as fat as possible so we can get the most of that juicy flank or breast or whatever really. People try to act all high and mighty about animal rights but really its their place in the world to be eaten so who cares how they live their short lives; TLDR; smug people are dumb

  • "Rights" are a difficult concept

    Let us stipulate that we can all oppose animal cruelty. No one wants to torture animals needlessly. But this concept of rights is a tricky one. Some philosophers have argued that rights stem from the self-ownership of the individual. I generally find that argument convincing, but in order to have rights, one must also accept the responsibility for the management of those rights and for ones actions under those rights. We do not deny rights to children, for example, but we do suspend them and consider children the wards of their guardians until they reach the age at which we determine they are able to understand and manage their rights. Animals are incapable of understanding their rights, if we assume they have any, and so any legal protections in this vein would be rendered meaningless.

    No, it is better, as a matter of practicality if nothing else, to not assume animals have rights, but to offer legal protections to prevent abuses.

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