The Rights Of Animals

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Exmedic113 @ 11/21/2008 10:59:31 AM

    In California, the new laws will result in huge increases in the price of: beef, milk, chicken products, eggs, etc. If the price of basic foods such as milk and eggs doubles, and beef goes up 500% this will impact the lower income folks who are now struggling the most. When lower income folks begin starving because they can't feed their children it will precipitate an interesting crisis discussion, do animal rights supersede people's right to reasonable priced food? No matter, Californians will soon endow animals with souls and the right to vote.

    • Posted By: theycallmekram @ 11/21/2008 1:47:57 PM

      It seems you have obtained wrong information:
      1) The new CA laws do not result in huge increases as you point out.
      2) You have no proof that the price of eggs, milk etc will
      double...you are supposing.
      3) You have no proof beef will go up 500%
      and you have no proof that even if some economist predicts costs will double that is precisely as a result of the new laws.

      And completely as an aside, even if these astounding guesses came true, you hinted that people would be starving. Umm..there are hundreds of millions of people around the world in many countries ( even developed ones ) that do not eat beef, eggs, or milk on a regular, everyday basis and they are not starving.

      • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 2:08:19 PM

        Correction there are hundreds of millions of people around the world, in manyy countries ( even developed ones) that do not eat beef, eggs, or milk on a regular basis and many if not most of them are indeed starving. Do some research, i bet you'll find that those countries which consume the least animal protien also have the highest rates of nutrition related diseases and starvation.

        • Posted By: theycallmekram @ 11/21/2008 2:26:01 PM

          I am clearly not referring to starving people. I believe there are hundreds of millions of people around the world, that are vegetarian ( India for example ) and they are not starving and they do not eat animal products on a regular basis compared to Western Diets. Include other countries such as China and Japan, where they are not big on cheeses or animal milks and where beef/chicken is not the primary food on the plate (as opposed to noodles or rice ), and it appears that there are hundreds of millions of people who are living fine without regular dietary intake of animal products. To imply that if one doesnt have an intake heavy on meat, milk, eggs, chicken etc then they are starving as the original post implied, is wrong in my opinion.

          • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 4:46:15 PM

            You believe incorrectly, dairy is HUGELY improtent in the Indian diet. It is so important that many Anthropologist believe that is why the hindu religion began to hold the cow as sacred.
            heavy intake, no, but intake, yes it is imoprant in virtually every culture.
            And while you can live on vegtables alone, to imply thatthat is as healthy is simply silly.

            • Posted By: theycallmekram @ 11/21/2008 5:06:16 PM

              I guess you and I come from different restaurants then. When I go to Indian restaurants ( Northern and Southern style ) I see foods with some cheese cubes and some ghee in the food ( some dishes have some cream ). Lots of the dishes are cooked in vegetable oils, But they are not heavily laden with dairy products as I observe, so when you say they Hugely important, I wish we both had some real evidence. Also Im never saying someone can live on vegetables alone--there are fruits, soy, grains, nuts and much more!

              • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 5:12:38 PM

                India is the worlds number one milk producer, and it has the highest number of cows in the world, most of these cows are raised by small farmers for the milk. Above I posted a link to a site whicth should tell you about it.

                • Posted By: theycallmekram @ 11/21/2008 5:54:01 PM

                  August, nothing personal, but that link and your point does not really confirm the importance of dairy in Indians food because the population of India is vastly different than the population of the US...so per your links OWN text "Furthermore, the annual rate of growth in milk production in India is between 5-6 per cent, against the world's at 1 per cent. The steep rise in the growth pattern has been attributed to a sustained expansion in domestic demand, although per capita consumption is modest - at 70 kg of milk equivalent"
                  I read from that the per person consumptions is modest. if you read on wikipedia on 'vegetarian'
                  "Today, Indian vegetarians, primarily lacto vegetarians, are estimated to make up more than 70% of the world's vegetarians. They make up 20???42% of the population in India" so 20-42% of India have some dairy with no eggs or nomeat products...that means the other 52%-80% are the big consumers. BTW based on the population of India ( 2007: 1,129,866,154) then thats 225,973,230 - 474,543,784 lacto vegetarians-- which seem to be surviving on some dairy but no meat or eggs.

                  • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/22/2008 12:17:17 PM

                    Enter Your CommentDamn I had a really long post in response to this.... it didn't make it.... i'll have to beack to you later.

                  • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/22/2008 11:56:40 AM

                    20 to 42% what kind of figure is that anyway thats a margin of error of 220 million people.

                  • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/22/2008 11:55:39 AM

                    Wiki is not a very reliable source. thats why I went to a reliable site.

              • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 5:11:13 PM

                http://www.indiadairy.com/ind_world_number_one_milk_producer.html

    • Posted By: SilentObserver_intheCorner @ 11/21/2008 2:02:24 PM

      One cannot lived there anyway, I think it will become the first place to clearly demonstrate the have and the have not.

  • Posted By: mfenwick @ 11/21/2008 7:01:21 PM

    Oh, yeah, I forgot that the animal rights weirdos were in cahoots with the Democrats. Now that the Democrats rule the country animal rights activists will beg for tax money to fund their agenda, meat-eaters will be treated like smokers (higher taxes on meat, non-meat-eating sections in restaurants, etc.), propaganda commercials will depict some flea-beaten critter as a victim of abuse, etc. Next thing you know there will be tofu farms in place of dairy farms. What a bunch of imbeciles; sometimes I think the terrorists could run the country alot better than the riff-raff we got up there now, Uncle Remus and his bunch of thugs.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/22/2008 10:37:16 AM

      "Uncle Remus"

      As hilarious as I find the Vegans, you are even funnier, Jethro.

  • Posted By: rustyone @ 11/22/2008 9:49:24 AM

    plants have rights too. so when do the animals get to vote and how long after that for the plants to vote? also, to the murderers of LIVING plants, how could you?!?!?! and you kill the offspring of flowering plants, the tomatoes, cucumbers, bell peppers, corn. you killers!!! also, will Prop 8.5 give "marriage" rights to plants and animals and will chickens be allowed to marry pigs? how will you stop it? stop traffic, blow you whistles? just wondering you murderers...

  • Posted By: jeffrey1234 @ 11/22/2008 12:34:44 AM

    Fellow Americans - please consider more vegetarian options to eat; your waist will thank you.

  • Posted By: martialguy @ 11/21/2008 10:25:02 PM

    The last time the same treatment on animals afforded to humans, it was called genocide or ethnic cleansing. It has been worse for animals because they can't talk.

  • Posted By: talexvet @ 11/20/2008 2:01:34 AM

    Please visit a farm or food producer before you make such general assumptions. Producers have their animals' well-being as the basis of their economic well-being. "Unhappy" chickens do not produce eggs.Free range chickens are at a far higher risk for self-destructive behaviors, cannabilism, and disease. Free range egg facilities increase the risk of zoonotic diseases (such as Avian Influenza), predation, and infectious diseases. There is limited accountability for eggs layed on free range farms. Caged systems allow for safer eggs (dramatically lowers the prevalence of Salmonella). What will likely result in California is the movement of egg producers out of the state to Mexico or neighboring states that do not have these laws. This will defeat the purpose of Proposition 2.
    I know all this from first hand experience- I am a veterinarian.

    • Posted By: AlexMelonas @ 11/21/2008 5:58:12 PM

      You are relying on an invalid syllogism: All X's are Y's, therefore, all Y's are X's. This doesn't follow. (All dog's are animals, therefore, all animals are dog's?) Flesh producers rely on output, as measured by net financial gain. Individual animals, if treated "well," will result in "better products." However, as "factory farming" is defined by the end result of the process, each individual animal need not receive the attention you believe they do so long as the net gain is economically beneficial to the producer. Therefore, I suppose, "all well-treated animals are good flesh, therefore, all good flesh was once a well-treated animal," doesn't follow.

      We must remember that "factory farming" is the norm, not the exception. Small, idealized, fictionalized versions of farming are not competitive, profit wise, which means that the vast majority of the animals we eat do not come from these sources. (These fiction farms are not ethical either, however. Don't get me wrong.)

      • Posted By: talexvet @ 11/21/2008 8:47:10 PM

        I did not intend to draw that analogy. The production of eggs is hormonally controlled in chickens. Stressed chickens do not lay eggs due to the release of inhibitory hormones. It is in the producer's interest, therefore, to minimize stress to his chickens.
        Caged vs non-caged systems is an issue which exists in shades of gray, not black and white. I know food producers personally(dairy, poultry, cow-calf beef) and they are wholly committed to their animals and their welfare. They are often 3rd and 4th generation farmers to whom their careers are their tradition and their identity. They are not monsters of factory farms. Their intention is to feed the nation and their own families.

    • Posted By: MARS2 @ 11/20/2008 9:40:12 AM

      I bet slave owners used to claim they had the best interests of slaves in mind because it was uneconomical to abuse them. Haha! What a farcical claim.

      • Posted By: talexvet @ 11/21/2008 8:26:07 PM

        I can see how it would be convenient to liken the poultry industry to slavery. It actually insults the tragedy of slavery if we make it analogous to every cause we see fit.

      • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 10:26:13 AM

        So it is your opinion that Blacks are animals?

        How very 1860 of you.

  • Posted By: sweet_compassionate girl @ 11/20/2008 4:08:11 AM

    Eorotrash you speak trash just like your name..Imagine if all guys like you apoke about women rights the same way..Why to bother about rights of women when men across the world are dying in war, flood, famine etc..YOur mother or sister would now still be in some harem sucking it up

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 10:28:58 AM

      Women are human. Farm animals aren't.

      Your analogy is garbage.

      • Posted By: AlexMelonas @ 11/21/2008 6:02:49 PM

        Indeed, women are human, nonhuman animals are not. However, women were once not moral persons, neither were black Americans. Nonhuman animals are not moral persons today, which the point of this entire discourse. Please follow the conversation.

  • Posted By: busby @ 11/21/2008 5:59:53 PM

    People seem to be talking about farm animals being used as a food source on this site. But animal rights extend far beyond that point. Gratuitous cruelty shown to animals such as dog fighting, *** fighting, training methods in circuses, medical research and sick people who get off on torturing animals is a much bigger part of the picture and it does show a "sickness" in society. To have far stronger animal cruelty laws would make us a better, more compassionate society. Anyone who has owned animals knows they have the same emotions as us for the same reasons. What they don't have is a language we can understand and an opposable thumb. And for this some people actually think they don't feel pain, fear, happiness or any of the emotions that we humans possess. Maybe they are not as important as us humans but, when we don't understand that we should be the protectors of those beings considered less than humans, it just lowers us to their level, not elevates them. There is something wrong with a culture that can make jokes about a puppy being put in an oven alive and cooked as happened in Atlanta and not care about the pain, fear and suffering that that puppy felt. In short, they are god's creatures too and, as such, are deserving of our mercy (it's called kindness) for something that is basically helpless before us.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/19/2008 9:57:50 PM

    NEWSWEAK: Making Even The Dumbest S..t Seem Interesting [with apologies to INSTAPUNDIT].

    Oh to be sure,Singers screed will go down well in the BlueZone,among its vegan denizens. Forget it in the Red States [Or Obamas own Chicago for this matter where many of the great steakhouses can still be found]. One restaurant in Amarillo cranks out the ''Big Texan'',a 72-ounce behemoth that will scare away the lesser diner.[winners get their pictures on the wall and a t-shirt proclaiming their victory]. Diners from OK City to Omaha boast of six and eight -egg omelettes. Pork remains King in Iowa,where you can load up on buffet ham and bacon by the bucketload for less than seven bucks in Des Moines. Crabs in Frisco are dropped still-alive into steaming pots on Fishermans Wharf to feed hungry tourists,where you can literally hear the high-pitched ''screams'' of the ill-fated crustacean. Live fish in Seattle get a bop to the head with a thing resembling a Louisville Slugger where they are sold and shipped in their hundreds of thousands.

    Meat isn't going anywhere. Singers meatless defense notwithstanding. It is simply too all-encompassing in the American diet,especially with the influx of the ethnics, predominantly Hispanics, who eat meat voraciously. Indeed,the very addition of ''Carne Asada''cuts,thin sliced meats and usually shop-seasoned,to accomodate this ethnic market, is a multi billion dollar business in the US with Mexican butchers and meat dressers springing up all over the country.

    ''The Scoops are coming... The scoops are on their way''

    SOYLENT GREEN ,Charlton Heston,Edward G.Robinson,Chuck Connors. [1973].

    • Posted By: AlexMelonas @ 11/21/2008 5:47:50 PM

      The same was true in America at one time regarding racism: Slavery defined an economic institution; the dominant paradigm sought to justify Jim Crow. A reasonable argument could be made for sexism today, i.e., unpaid labor in the private sphere. The fundamental point is that citing what "is" does not engender a valid claim about what "ought" to be. Indeed, ethical challenges to the dominant paradigm are always difficult - as the abolitionists of the nineteenth century can attest too. However, that does not remove the need for such challenges in some instances - again, as the abolitionists of the past, and animal rights activists today, can attest too.

    • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 10:37:09 AM

      "Oh to be sure,Singers screed will go down well in the BlueZone,among its vegan denizens. Forget it in the Red States [Or Obamas own Chicago for this matter where many of the great steakhouses can still be found]. "

      Southern Arizona is blue as hell, and we love a good steak. This is not a blue/red issue. It's not even a liberal/conservative issue. It is a "Berkeley Liberal" vs everyone else in the world issue.

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/20/2008 11:57:24 AM

        ''Berkeley liberal''.


        The defense rests.

        Obviously,Arizona is ''Red''enough to send Republicans Jeff Flake and John McCain back to the US House and Senate. Do not get me started on Sheriff Joe Arapaio,the bane of liberals everywhere.

        • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/20/2008 12:14:05 PM

          Have you looked at the county election maps, Lee? Also, the defense rests for what?

          What in the hell are you trying to say? Your response made no sense at all.

  • Posted By: russian_guy @ 11/21/2008 5:42:49 PM

    I'm not a vegetarian. I eat any kind, except for the red. Just don't like it.
    Though I must say I reduced the consumption drastically after bumped into the issue.
    Ate a lot. Never hurt animals with own hand, but neither thought about what they were going through to make out tables well served.
    For me, it's not about turning vegan at night, but I doubt anyone, choosing to live own life with his/her mind open, could dismiss the whole concept of animal rights.
    Or whatever you call it. Personally, I don't like the concept of rights itself. :) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - ok. But nearly anything else
    just tries to clog your mind with sometimes highly illusive philosophy. Instead of simply sticking with what is right in the certain context. Like with animal
    rights, the alleviation and reduction of suffer.
    I keep my fingers crossed about in-vitro meat. They already do it. And now it's only about making it commercially feasible.
    May take a decade or so, I hope. Till that time, animals, help is on the way, just hold on.

  • Posted By: Brien Comerford @ 11/20/2008 11:54:01 PM

    In addition to idyllic Judeo-Christianity advocating vegetarianism (Genesis 1:29), so have many historical luminaries. They include Mahatma Gandhi, Empedocles, John Wesley, William Booth (the founder of the Salvation Army, ) Leo Tolsoy, Albert Schweitzer, Ellen G. White (The founder of the Seventh Day Adventists), Leonardo Da Vinci and former Indian President, Abdul Kalam.

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:18:11 AM

      The Bible does not advocate veganism. In Eden God gives the fruits and grains to Man to eat, but remember lions are eating grass. In Genesis 9:2 God gives man all of the animals to eat. Able sacrifices animals to God way back in Chap 4. Pelease don'e thy to Use Judeo- chirstian tradion and agrue it supports your position. It does not.

      • Posted By: AlexMelonas @ 11/21/2008 4:27:58 PM

        The Bible does advocate veganism as the ethical ideal, if Eden is meant as an example of perfection (which follows given that god created it as such). For it was not until the Fall of Man (i.e., "Original Sin") that god rescinded his initial covenant with Man (we were vegans), and death from our hands for gastronomical pleasure entered the world. It has been argued by many Christian vegans that as we do not require meat to live healthily, their veganism is predicated on the assumption that Eden was an ethical ideal; therefore, they are making efforts to return to that.

      • Posted By: PhilipS @ 11/21/2008 1:26:51 AM

        I'm a vegan and I agree with you augustperson. The bible does not support the idea of being vegan. The only position the bible supports is that people will believe the most insane fairy tails despite massive amounts of evidence against it.

  • Posted By: revwehling @ 11/21/2008 4:23:38 PM

    Scrambled eggs have rights. Preborn humans don't. Go figure.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 11/21/2008 4:06:24 PM

    When, in the course of animal events, it becomes necessary to dissolve the bonds of dominance by one animal species over all other animal species, and to assume the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the rights and welfare of animalkind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to act.
    We, therefore, the often abused, slaughtered and eaten, and otherwise objects of derision and contempt by humankind, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World and the Universe, do solemnly publish and declare that we shall from here forward and forever be independent and revered animals, never again to submit to the unjust authority and abuses complained of by the said humankind.

    To which below we set our paws, claws, fins, feathers and territorial poop and wee wee marks to this document.

    And don't you forget it.

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 4:14:29 PM

      Well if the animals are going to rise in revolution.... lets get it on, it's been to long since people feared the beast. I think we could usea good shake up.

  • Posted By: jeffssmith1 @ 11/21/2008 3:58:52 PM

    Good article. In a hundred years, most people will be vegetarians. Certainly, the ability to create synthetic meat will accelerate the process. In response to scott_g, no, I don't expect that people who hunt for fun today will become vegetarians anytime soon. Society changes slowly in this country. But how many white people who cheered when MLK was shot in 1968 would have thought we'd elect a black President in 40 years?

  • Posted By: SilentObserver_intheCorner @ 11/21/2008 2:07:41 PM

    Hey what about fish? Are they still good or will they be put on the list? How about invertebrates and parasites? And plants, don't forget the plants some species react to certain stimuli and can conform to their environment, and some eat meat/ invertebrates? Well I guess the only thing left to eat is dirt and rock, kinda of bland from what I can remember from when I was a child, and gritty. Oh well, Cheers!

  • Posted By: mhmidhudson @ 11/20/2008 9:20:35 PM

    I groaned at the subject matter of this piece of non-news...speculation. I winced at the hopeful phrasing, realizing that it's really an opinion piece, an advocacy piece for something other than "animal rights". Finally, I laughed. Then, I lifted my hand to my mouth, made sure my canine (meat-ripping) teeth were still firmly implanted, and smiled.

    • Posted By: Michelle O @ 11/20/2008 10:45:05 PM

      I guess you enjoy your meat-eating. I guess that's what separates men from beasts. In a perfect world, I would enjoy it too, but too many animals suffer for our meals.

      • Posted By: SilentObserver_intheCorner @ 11/21/2008 1:48:12 PM

        No, cognitive thinking separates us from beasts, or at least not solely depending on instincts does. Also if performed right then the animal should not "suffer" no more than a convict on death row. If you'll excuse me I have a need to perform a double avian abortion to go with my whole grain muffin, gotta stay healthy.

  • Posted By: PhilipS @ 11/21/2008 1:09:44 AM

    Not true. Millions of buffalo do not compare to the Billions upon billions of cattle being raised for beef as we speak. Your arguments are non arguments. The truth is also that a plant based diet is the most healthy diet for the humane primate. Read the China Study.

    • Posted By: Progressive American @ 11/21/2008 12:27:00 PM

      What is your stance on abortion?

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:17:35 PM

      The China study is not accepted by any reasonable scientist. enough said.

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:05:42 PM

      Billions upon billions? Are you serious? There are about 1.5 billion cattle on Earth. Almost 300 million of them are in India, where they are generally not eaten, alone. Only about 100 million are in the USA, where 150 years ago the buffolo roamed in great herds. with a minimum of 30 million and more likely 60 million bison on the Great Plains alone. Comparatively the 100 million cattle are far more spread out and dispersed over the entire USA. In a state of nature the plains were forage for meat animals NOT farms.

  • Posted By: PhilipS @ 11/21/2008 12:18:23 AM

    Yo dead animal eaters...!!!wake up!!! Our modern fancy pants culture and our high tech society does its very best to cover up the massive amount of animal suffering caused by humans desire for the taste of animal flesh. Which is an unecessary requirement to live a healthy life. I've been vegan for 20 years and its the best choice I ever made. The real problem is that people do not want to know the truth behind the meat industry and when combined with the fact that our own culture hides it all from us makes for a very ignorant and unconcious population. When it comes to the reality of slaughterhouses humans who eat the products of death are not well informed. That is the real problem in all of this. If you can't watch it...you shouldn't eat it. Death and violence that is!!!
    Go Vegan!!

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:15:21 PM

      Are you going to answer my question.

    • Posted By: Progressive American @ 11/21/2008 8:08:37 AM

      PhilipS,

      We all see that you support the ethical treatment of animals and that you are a vegan and do not eat meat at all. I am curious to know what you stance is on abortion. Please tell all of us. Thanks so much.

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:20:42 AM

      So if we can calmly shoot our prey, then it's okay. What if we raise it and dispatch it ourself... is it okay then?

  • Posted By: scott_g @ 11/21/2008 11:41:39 AM

    Correction.. make that Prop 2. I was actually quite saddened to see Prop 8 pass.

  • Posted By: jsmithII @ 11/20/2008 3:12:16 PM

    I wonder what the god professor means by "...including limiting our own population growth." We are already doing this. Hasn't he heard of abortion? So far - in this country alone - we have "limited population growth" by more than 50 million. How much more does he want, and how does he want to do it? Oh, I forgot, we can always count on "assisted suicide", also known as euthanasia, and for this we have a practically unlimited supply of people.
    This professor is a scary guy!

    • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/20/2008 3:25:01 PM

      Oh by significantly more than that. We started killing our children en masse more than 35 years ago, so we "limited" not just them, but all of the children that they would have had since then.

      • Posted By: merlinsdaughter @ 11/20/2008 9:03:00 PM

        And how many more people can this planet feed, house + clothe? We are nearing 7 BILLION people. Preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place should be a goal that the pro-life + pro-choice movement must work on together. vehmt.org

        • Posted By: augustpersonage @ 11/21/2008 12:35:36 AM

          Quite a few I would guess. But when we get too crowded we will do what all animals do, we'll fight. until there is a sustainable population.

          • Posted By: Doc Howl @ 11/21/2008 8:59:43 AM

            I have to disagree with you there, AP. We're already overcrowded.

        • Posted By: Michelle O @ 11/20/2008 11:05:45 PM

          Thanks for some sanity.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse