Animal Rights or Animal Welfare?

Do you support animal rights or animal welfare?

excuse my ignorance, can you please explain what Animal Welfare is?

Animal Welfare. IMO, if they are taken care of properly, provided with good quality food, shelter, are protected from internal/external parasites, and are a well-adjusted, balanced animal(balanced mentally-Watch Cesar Milan..), then I have done my job as a Vet Tech by educating owners.

Animals do have a right to be provided all of those things I listed above, but the majority aren't. I just want to make sure they are well taken care of, and that's all I ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nathanledet

excuse my ignorance, can you please explain what Animal Welfare is?

---

This link should help clarify......

http://www.fbresearch.org/AnimalActi...areVRights.htm

Basically, animal welfare means taking care of animals properly-making sure they have a good, overall quality of life. (though sometimes it means taking care of animals for our purposes-pets, biomedical research, etc)

Animal rights gives the same rights that human have to animals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Do you support animal rights or animal welfare?

---

Umm... why not both? I support animal rights, and their welfare.

Edit: I DO NOT agree with animal testings for any kind what so ever! I DO NOT think a life should be wasted for humans desire to learn more. We can COPY animal flesh and DNA and make an axact duplicate of it, why do it on animals any more? IMO They shouldnt suffer. A life is a life and a soul no matter what! When we die, we are souls.. we do not take our physical being with us.. so no we are not humans in the other world after dath or that'd mean we'd taken our physical form with us and that'd mean we could take other forms and things with us.. like I aid before a soul is a soul, a life is a life. We should all be treated with respect and love that we all so need.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

Umm... why not both? I support animal rights, and their welfare.

---

I thought about having that as an option....but they really arent the same thing. You can't own a human (it's called slavery).....if you are really for animal rights your against pet ownership ( because they have the same rights as we do).

me too. i don't understand the difference. it's like saying do you believe that children have the right to have a voice or do they deserve to have food? i think they need both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by recycling goddess

me too. i don't understand the difference. it's like saying do you believe that children have the right to have a voice or do they deserve to have food? i think they need both.

---

If you would like to add this option feel free to do so....I'm not sure if you have this power.

But please do so if you do to represent your view.

Well I sort of disagree with "owning" pets. They sort of own me. I treat my animals as humans. As equals.. IMO God put them on earth to keep Adam company back in the Garden of Eden, and thats why we have them, they company us. And I am for their rights, they shouldnt be abused or treated as slaves, but as equals, and companions, as friends. I am all for their welfare and their health.. (read other edited post :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

Umm... why not both? I support animal rights, and their welfare.

Edit: I DO NOT agree with animal testings for any kind what so ever! I DO NOT think a life should be wasted for humans desire to learn more. We can COPY animal flesh and DNA and make an axact duplicate of it, why do it on animals any more?

---

But we cant make a whole kidney organ and study how a drug interacts with a whole kidney (yet). Cells in culture act very differently than those within an organism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

But we cant make a whole kidney organ and study how a drug interacts with a whole kidney (yet). Cells in culture act very differently than those within an organism.

---

Edit: We can duplicate DNA and make clones of goats and other animals, humans they could very easily as well.. they can clone a human kidney just fine... Abusing othe rliving beings is not the answer.. I have been check in on how they 'study" and test animals with these things.. go on Youtube.com and boy.. are thos eabusive animal tester very very cruel...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

If you would like to add this option feel free to do so....I'm not sure if you have this power.

But please do so if you do to represent your view.

---

i added it for you :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

We can duplicate DNA and make clones of humans.. they can clone a human kidney just fine...

---

Ah no.....we can't clone a kidney...or would you like to provide a reputable source of medical/scientific literature to support this?

and human cloning has not been substantiated as of yet. We can duplicate a segment of DNA......that's very different than what most people think of as cloning.

YouTube is NOT a reputable source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by recycling goddess

i added it for you :)

---

Thanks.:handshake

I am definately not against using animals for research; how is it any different than using them as food? My problem with anything animal-related, is when things done to them cross the border from making them useful, to making them suffer needlessly. I am not that knowledgible about what goes on behind the scenes with animal research, but I think it is ridiculous to live life in our society such as it is, while at the same time touting research as wrong; I'd venture to say that any and every product we use is somehow linked to animal research, so it is hypocritical to decry it and sill lead a normal life..
Nature sees no good nor evil; just survival of the fittest and smartest. Humans have gone directly into the face of nature by merely existing and creating ideas of good versus evil.. and in my eyes, it is uber hypocritical for us to frown down upon something while supporting it with our hard earned money!

If we can clone a perfect lamb that live 2yrs before it died back in the early 1991 or 1992 than they can certainly clone a human by now... and they can test on that thing... Animal DNA is different than human DNA we cannot sufficiently test on them, and its just not right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ginevive

it is uber hypocritical for us to frown down upon something while supporting it with our hard earned money!

---

Thats why I hate hypocrites. If I could rewind the ways of us people then I would, for the good of living things and the good of us.. we're just too evil nowadays... And do we have a choice to live how we do nowadays? I buy and wear, and use anything thats has not tested on animals... And my ancestors may not have known as much as I did now about how we should love all life in all sorts of forms, and I live my live well, and do good for life. And thats the best I can offer.. and Im sorry if its hypocritcal of me...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

If we can clone a perfect lamb that live 2yrs before it died back in the early 1991 or 1992 than they can certainly clone a human by now... and they can test on that thing... Animal DNA is different than human DNA we cannot sufficiently test on them, and its just not right...

---

Somatic Nuclear Cell Transfer "cloning" was accomplished first in 1997.

Second cleavage occurs at a different stage in both mice and humans as compared to sheeps.....this makes cloning them even more difficult than sheep.

Dolly was one out of 300 some attempts I believe.

The efficency has gone up some.....but not that much.

Most of our genes have very similar sequence as animal genes. After all, humans are animals we just happen to be at the top of the food chain.

Nobel Prizes using animal research....http://www.fbresearch.org/Education/nobels.htm

Anyway...do this evildoing predator a favor and vote "both".

You have to consider the differant levels of 'welfare' and 'rights'.......I think you can't just lump it all together and ask for support either way. The sad thing about animal 'welfare' or 'rights' is that the majority of the time.....extreamist groups are the ones are associated with the phrases. Do I support animal rights or welfare in the same way that PETA does? NO WAY....but I do believe that animals should be given 'rights' by people since when an animal's 'rights' are violated....it is ALWAYS a person in the wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

You have to consider the differant levels of 'welfare' and 'rights'.......I think you can't just lump it all together and ask for support either way. The sad thing about animal 'welfare' or 'rights' is that the majority of the time.....extreamist groups are the ones are associated with the phrases. Do I support animal rights or welfare in the same way that PETA does? NO WAY....but I do believe that animals should be given 'rights' by people since when an animal's 'rights' are violated....it is ALWAYS a person in the wrong.

---

I agree somewhat....

It can be viewed as a spectrum......the important thing is to realize its a spectrum. I guess which side do you lean towards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

Thats why I hate hypocrites. If I could rewind the ways of us people then I would, for the good of living things and the good of us.. we're just too evil nowadays... And do we have a choice to live how we do nowadays? I buy and wear, and use anything thats has not tested on animals... And my ancestors may not have known as much as I did now about how we should love all life in all sorts of forms, and I live my live well, and do good for life. And thats the best I can offer.. and Im sorry if its hypocritcal of me...

---

I didn't mean to attack you as being a hypocrite. If you are truly trying to live life as bast you can, and make an effort to follow your own beliefs, then I give you a lot of credit; many can not do that.
I think that the worst thing about the world, is greed. I am all for people attaining their full potential; amassing wealth, getting compensated monetarily for their time, talent, and work. But there has to be a place to draw the line; otherwise we turn from parts of this ecosystem, to parasites on it.. and parasites always harm, if not kill, their host.. we need to find ways to be more symbiotic and less parasitic, if you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Ah no.....we can't clone a kidney...or would you like to provide a reputable source of medical/scientific literature to support this?

and human cloning has not been substantiated as of yet. We can duplicate a segment of DNA......that's very different than what most people think of as cloning.

YouTube is NOT a reputable source.

---

:2cent:


Indeed - you will probably get more accurate 'science' from an episode of Smallville or Buffy.

The only way at present to 'clone' a kidney is to clone an entire pig/goat/snake/human and remove a kidney from them. There has been some early work at getting cell cultures to form basic tissues but whole organs are decades if not longer away.

The ethics of animal research and animal welfare in general are close to my heart. You certainly *can* formulate a consistent moral argument against all animal research but most people just do so on a basic emotional level.

If Sapphire 7 is a vegetarian who wears no leather, does not buy anything containing animal products and does not himself use the products of animal research (antibiotics, painkillers etc) then I apologise to him for the slur.

I think we have to be more nuanced about this. Many animal experiments are totally unjustifiable eg: cosmetic testing. Others need to be carefully controlled and carried out to keep any suffering to an absolute minimum. I think it matters a great deal what the animal actually *is*. I am absolutely opposed to all invasive testing on primates for instance. A cockroach is not a rabbit is not a dog is not a macaque.

Generally speaking we should be far far more disgusted by the ways in which animals are raised for food than their use in the lab. The standards in which most animals are factory farmed for food in western countries are vile beyond belief. To decry the use of rats and rabbits in potentially life saving research whilst simultaneously turning a blind eye to the suffering of billions of battery farmed chickens grown to keep supermarket prices competitive is moral hypocrisy of the worst kind IMHO.

To return to the original question, I think it is the right of all animals to be kept to decent standards of welfare because that is the moral contract we enter into when we keep them - be it as pet, for food, wool or to test a new monoclonal antibody on. The other rights of an animal depend on the animal in question. A chimpanzee or gorilla for instance is the moral equivalent of a human child, whilst a sea urchin is clearly not. Cats, dogs and ball pythons fit in the middle of that spectrum.:2cent:

Animal Research also benefits veterinary care....the more we know about animals the better we are able to care for them.

To, um, get back to the original subject (sorry, I was the on that digressed.) I believe strongly in animal walfare; there are few things that upset me more than seeing a neglected or suffering animal that is in this state due to human delinquency. But rights.. I am not so sure about this. Granted, I do believe that there should be laws protecting animals against abuse; purpetrating humans should be punished for this. I see humans basically as mentally evolved animals; and after meeting more and more people through my job, who just want to shuck their responsibilities, I am not so sure we are all created equal after all; definately, humans are not all equal in the intelligence category! But there are a few things that bother me.. say, how abuse against a canine officer is considered as much of a crime, as abusing a human officer.. but then, killing a pig for human consumption is not akin to murdering a farmer, is it? People basically use animals as tools for their own advancement, and this creates a whole garden of topics that are ripe for debate; is it OK to consume cattle but then morally wrong to eat horses?
Humans have evolved into the most intelligent (at least most technologically so) creature on the planet; yet we are destroying the planet.. so who is the smartest animal here...?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sapphire7

If we can clone a perfect lamb that live 2yrs before it died back in the early 1991 or 1992 than they can certainly clone a human by now... and they can test on that thing... Animal DNA is different than human DNA we cannot sufficiently test on them, and its just not right...

---

I don't want to give the impression that I am picking on you so I apologise if it comes across that way but I think this important.

I'm not sure that you understand at all what cloning means. If you clone a human (and I agree I am sure 'they' can certainly do so, after enough tries) then you end up with a human embryo. There is no way to grow a kidney or liver form that embryo without developing it into a human foetus just like any other. The moral status of that is I think best left to a whole other area of the internet!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kurgan

I don't want to give the impression that I am pickign on you so I apoligise if it comes across that way but I think this important.

I'm not sure that you understand at all what cloning means. If you clone a human (and I agree I am sure 'they' can certainly do so, after enough tries) then you end up with a human embryo. There is no way to grow a kidney or liver form that embryo without developing it into a human foetus just like any other.!

---

No way yet.....Advances in Therapeutic Cloning+Tissue Engineering may change that someday.

Basically the principle....

You take some somatic (body) cells remove the nucleus put it in an exnucleated egg (one without a nucleus), do some reprogramming, generate some embryonic stem (ES) cells

That's when the tissue engineering takes over.....using chemicals, biosynthetic scaffolds, etc. it may some day be able to grow a organ genetically identical to a person to prevent organ rejection.

Under this scheme, the ES cells wouldn't need to develop into a fetus that can sense pain or make a conscious thought.

It is a possibility......but even if this is accomplish it wont mean that we will not need animal research.

I think we are a long way off being able to grow an organ from those ESCs - if I was a betting man I'd day 20 years for a liver, 30 or 40 for a kidney or heart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kurgan

I think we are a long way off being able to grow an organ from those ESCs - if I was a betting man I'd day 20 years for a liver, 30 or 40 for a kidney or heart.

---

I Totally agree....but the idea has not been disproven...in fact it's only beginning to be explored.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Do you support animal rights or animal welfare?

---

Well, rights to a point. I mean, you wouldn't give an anaconda the right to vote or own property, would you? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JasonGranger

Well, rights to a point. I mean, you wouldn't give an anaconda the right to vote or own property, would you? :P

---

Hey; I would definately rent an apartment if he agreed to pay the rent! He'd be doing better than some of the tenants we manage!
Now voting.. I don't know if they can read or not.

Except all that poop he left on the carpet would be a drag... :P

IMO with rights come responsibility.. we don't trust animals with responsibility.. (they are animals after all!) so they do not have rights in the sense that a human does. Animal welfare is humans putting limits on what other humans can do to animals.. it is a good thing to prevent cruelty. Animals do not understand 'rights'.. we protect them because we think they are valuable and feel pain and they deserve to be protected from needless suffering.

Do I believe animal testing is needless suffering? No. Tests on animals have helped perfect many live saving drugs. A lab rat or mouse may not be a human, but our bodies react the same way to many things, so testing on them is very beneficial to both medical and veterinary science.

I believe that God created animals for our benefit. We are to respect them for what they are, but we were given the right to use them for our advantage.

This is my view. :)

I agree with a lot of what you say but I take issue with the fact that because a creature is unable to 'understand' rights they do not warrant them. Babies, incapacitated and mentally disabled people all have human rights without 'understanding' them.

I also vehemently disagree with you about animals being there for our benefit, on several levels but I'd better not go there :)

I chose both, but neither to any hardcore degree.

I feel that, by all means, *any* animal that humans choose to keep, be it as a "pet" or as a display in a zoo or whatever, should be properly cared for according to the animal's needs and comfort but NOT be made into little 4 (or how ever many) legged humans. Nor I do agree with these people (not y'all here, other people) who feel that if you can not "afford" a "pet"..according to *their* standards of what "afford" means, that you shouldn't be allowed to have pets. I think that is just wrong. Just because someone doesn't have the money for "pet insurance" or regular teeth cleaning and professional grooming (which I think is stupid anyway) or they don't have a fenced yard, doesn't mean they should not be allowed to adopt. However, on the other hand, I think that these people who "collect" should be black listed from adopting anywhere. There are tons of wonderful pet owners who, while not having a ton of money to spend on pink bows, nail polish and show rings, take great care of and love their pets as much as their human families. Then again, you have these rick people who treat their pets like they are some kind of disposable toy or just furry money makers.

As for the animal rights thing....I'm real weird about that. I can't stand PITA (I think they're all on way too many drugs) but I *do* think that animals should *not* be used as clothing or luggage, should not be destroyed for the sake of development and should *never* be hunted for sport.
I don't really have a problem with animals being used in labs, however, I would LOVE to see these labs breed animals for *that specific purpose* rather than buying animals from people who go around and steal other people's pets right out of their yards.

I think animal rights gets a bit too crazy sometimes, as does animal welfare, but I think if I had to weigh them both, I'd go for animal welfare before animal rights...just because most people don't know where to draw the line between realistic, rational and ridiculous.

I also agree with the biblical view of animals. I suppose if one does not believe in God and creation then it would be a moot point to them, but for me, it's not.
God put animals on this planet *for* man and to coexist *with* man, but not for man to rule over or enslave for our sick, twisted entertainment.
In the beginning, God *did not* give animals to man as *food*. That didn't come along until wayyyy after man was booted out of the garden of Eden...anyway, I'm rambling now...again. :D

I feel that animals are here for our company, enjoyment and pleasure just as much as flowers and sunsets are. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowspider

I don't really have a problem with animals being used in labs, however, I would LOVE to see these labs breed animals for *that specific purpose* rather than buying animals from people who go around and steal other people's pets right out of their yards.

---

Lab Animals are animals breed for that specific purpose. The amount of labs in developed countries that would accept a pet for biological/biomedical research is virtually zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

Lab Animals are animals breed for that specific purpose. The amount of labs in developed countries that would accept a pet for biological/biomedical research is virtually zero.

---

Oh, you might be suprised. ;)
A "kennel" near here that supplies animals to several "undisclosed" labs in the US was just shut down not too long ago. They claimed *all* of their animals were bred there at the kennel, except that the undercover guy who got a job there went with the kennel owners on their outings to flea markets to buy pets and neighborhood searches for *specfic* animal breeds (mostly specfic dog breeds) that they could "aquire" for the labs' needs.

The labs have no clue (generally) where the animals come from, they're told what they want to hear.

Animal welfare for me. I love animals, don't get me wrong, but they aren't equal to humans. I wouldn't send an iguana to school and expect him to understand or gain any knowledge from it. :disbelief

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowspider

Oh, you might be suprised. ;)
The labs have no clue (generally) where the animals come from, they're told what they want to hear.

---

When I worked in a lab we knew exactly we are mice and rats came from......T

There is a ton of oversight for animal research.

Could someone forge paperwork? Possibly but unlikely....and even if they did...they likely get caught eventually. University Labs, like the one I worked in, are under federal oversight which is very especially strict in regards to this aspect of animal husbandry.

The big name suppliers are the only ones a University would ever buy from......and these suppliers are not going to lie about their source of animals.

Most researchers want animals with a known and controlled genetic pedigrees and medical histories. That way they can eliminate extraneous variables.

What paper or news channel was this story on? If you can provide a link to the news story I'd appreciate it....you can share it here or pm it to me if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowspider

professional grooming (which I think is stupid anyway)

---

Ok, sorry but being a professional groomer I have to say something. :)

Have you ever seen a shih tzu who has not been groomed in a year? I have seen mats so tight they have cut the circulation off of ears and tails.. dogs with the mats over their private areas so tight they can't properly relieve themselves anymore and dogs with crusties stuck so long to their eyes that there are infected sores underneath them.

Now.. a lot of that is pure neglect, but there are others who unknowingly wash their long haired dog without brushing first then let it air or towel dry which can also cause intense matting.. which can cause some of the issues I described above.

Then.. there is the person who decides to give their dog a home haircut.. usually with scissors. We NEVER use scissors to demat a dog.. why? Tight mats pull the skin up into itself.. and if you use scissors you will cut the skin. We have seen some butchered dogs who were home-groomed.

Ok I'm off my soapbox.. it's just that not grooming some dogs can be very unhealthy for them.. now if we're talking a labrador.. then, you're right.. grooming is a luxury. :)

Sorry Shelby, I didn't mean to offend you (or anyone else). I suppose I should have clairfied what I meant by that.

Grooming is, indeed important for our pets, not only so they look good, but also to help maintain their health.
What I (just in my own opinion) think is dumb is when people's pets are humanized at the dog (or cat) salon and come out with hair spray, polished claws and...my favorite....pink bows in the ears of male dogs.
Animal groomers are just as important as human hair stylists....not everyone knows how to (or has the time) to perm, cut or color their own hair and not everyone knows how to or has the time to properly groom their pets.

I apologize for making that a blanket statement...my bad.

It's ok.. I understand what you mean.. and I hate it when people want us to put nail polish on the dogs.. it's SUCH a pain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mendel's Balls

When I worked in a lab we knew exactly we are mice and rats came from......T

There is a ton of oversight for animal research.

Could someone forge paperwork? Possibly but unlikely....and even if they did...they likely get caught eventually. University Labs, like the one I worked in, are under federal oversight which is very especially strict in regards to this aspect of animal husbandry.

The big name suppliers are the only ones a University would ever buy from......and these suppliers are not going to lie about their source of animals.

Most researchers want animals with a known and controlled genetic pedigrees and medical histories. That way they can eliminate extraneous variables.

What paper or news channel was this story on? If you can provide a link to the news story I'd appreciate it....you can share it here or pm it to me if you want.

---

The documentary was called "Dealing Dogs" and aired on HBO. I watched it and the footage was grimly depressing and quite plausible.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dealingdogs/index.html

Oh yeah, I saw that too. That's not what I was refering to, but yes, simular situation. The case I was thinking of I read it in the paper a few years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slartibartfast

The documentary was called "Dealing Dogs" and aired on HBO. I watched it and the footage was grimly depressing and quite plausible.

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/dealingdogs/index.html

---

Glad you remembered that, I watched that documentary just last year - it was heartbreaking how these animals were treated, and purchased at flea markets for this purpose.

Welfare!!!!!!!

Why was the "both" option added?

If Animal Welfare means that it is necessary to treat animals humanely while keeping them as pets or using them for testing, and Animal Rights means applying the same rights to animals that humans have, then it is illogical to support both at the same time.

I'll play "devils's advocate" for a moment. When we speak of animal welfare, what species does that encompass? As an example, the family dog is ill and requires vet care/treatment. What do you do? Now,you're kid has begged for a corn snake and you have given in. The snake gets sick, what do you do?

Craig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CraigC

I'll play "devils's advocate" for a moment. When we speak of animal welfare, what species does that encompass? As an example, the family dog is ill and requires vet care/treatment. What do you do? Now,you're kid has begged for a corn snake and you have given in. The snake gets sick, what do you do?

Craig

---

take them both to the vet

I support animal welfare and rights. I believe that animals should be given a comfortable life as long as they are being over seen by people. I think that even livestock should be given every effort to keep them healthy and happy (you are what you eat). However I am also a hunter and fisherman. I do not hunt for trophys and I catch and release. If I take a deer, elk, hog ect it for the meat not the rack. When I fish I either throw it back or eat it. I enjoy all of Gods creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freakie_frog

I support animal welfare and rights. I believe that animals should be given a comfortable life as long as they are being over seen by people. I think that even livestock should be given every effort to keep them healthy and happy (you are what you eat). However I am also a hunter and fisherman. I do not hunt for trophys and I catch and release. If I take a deer, elk, hog ect it for the meat not the rack. When I fish I either throw it back or eat it. I enjoy all of Gods creatures.

---

So would you hunt people for meat? Lol...obviously not, but the point is, Animal Welfare means you hunt and fish and keep livestock with respect for them, while animal rights mean you treat them the same as you would another human being. It really doesn't make any sense to say you are for both, by my logic at least.