Animal Rights

R1Pro asserts that there is a generic right against pain and suffering. However, there are certain responsibilities that come with having rights. Most notable is not harming others' rights (as it was agreed that humans lose their rights when committing an immoral, such as murder). Animals fail to meet these responsibilities. This was addressed in my third contention, but I'll discuss it here too. Pro cites the golden rule, but as mentioned every carnivore and omnivore kills other animals or humans and often makes them suffer in the process; since these animals don't want to be killed or suffer themselves, they have absolutely no way of following the golden rule. However, animals don't just kill other species or kill just for food. For example, male lions who want to join a pride will kill the pride's existing cubs. (1) If a human did that to another human they'd automatically lose their rights, but it is in male lion's nature to do this. Many animals will never follow these responsibilities and won't even understand them. Therefore, animals should not receive rights. I will elaborate more on the responsibilities of rights in R3.Pro asserts that collard greens, leafy greens, tempeh, and tofu have vitamin B-12. However, it is impossible to get 100% of one's daily recommended vitamin B-12 amounts with these foods. I have no way of checking Pro's source, but according to the USDA 100 grams of collard greens (both raw and boiled) contain 0µg of of vitamin B-12. (2) Same with other leafy greens, such as lettuce, spinach, and kale. (3, 4, 5) One hundred grams of tempeh has only 0.1µg of vitamin B12 (1% of one's daily recommended amount) and tofu has none. (6, 7) Moreover, although, walnuts, seeds, and flaxseed oil all have omega-3 they have ALA. (8) Omega-3 experts recommend that adults should consume 500mg of EPA/DHA a day, which cannot be attained from any of the foods listed above. (9) Although ALA can be converted to EPA and DHA, it was found to be unreliable and restrictive way of attaining them (DHA especially). (10) By the way, omega-3 supplements are dangerous. Studies found that the majority of omega-3 supplements are oxidized. (12) Oxidized omega-3 creates a chain reaction with other PUFAs that someone's ate and make them toxic. (11) Finally, some people have no choice, but to hunt for food (not for sadistic reasons). There are still several hunter-gatherers in existence today, which rely on hunting to survive. (13) Therefore, vegan diets are harmful to humans and taking away meat from them, fails to give each human their due, and therefore animals should not have rights.C1Even if animal testing is not always effective, when it is, it allows humans to live longer and healthier lives. I have already provided several examples of how animal testing has already and is currently advancing medicine. However, Pro does admit that animal testing is sometimes required and can be done in humane ways, such as giving painkillers or anesthesia. However, animals sometimes will have to die in animal testing. A famous example was Griffith's Experiment (which is what allowed us to discover genetics), where mice had to die. (14) Also, if alternatives to animal testing exist and are more effective, they will be used. However, the FDA (and Pro) admit that sometimes animals needed to be tested upon. (15) Therefore, animal testing is sometimes necessary and will sometimes lead to the death of animals.R2As already mentioned, animal testing has brought cures to certain diseases animals suffer from. However, there are other examples of humans giving back to animals, while using them. For example, some farms often raise their animals in a healthy environment before they are killed for meat. Also, most farm animals are unable to survive in the wild, so merely holding them in captivity is an example of a give and take where the animal is ultimately being used, as many of the animals would have no chance in the wild. (16)R3The argument that because infants and mentally handicapped receive rights, animals should too is flawed. It is based off a false premise that sentience is the reason people have rights. Pro backs this claim up with the fact that those who are mentally handicapped and infants have the same rights as mature, rational, adults. Infants are given rights because they will likely grow up to be fully mature, rational, adults themselves. However, that argument doesn't apply to the mentally handicapped, except for the fact is a cure was found they would now be rational humans, while animals would still be animals. Although we agree that all humans have rights, we never agreed that all humans inherently have rights. Those who are mentally handicapped don't inherently have rights. Even though the idea of human rights has existed for centuries, the mentally handicapped haven't have had completely equal rights until the past few decades. (17) However, they were given rights by more mature humans. Like pets, there can be an exchange, such as an exchange of love between the mentally handicapped and other humans. This is much like pets, who are given rights for similar reasons. They aren't inherently there and if humans did not find a useful exchange they would not have these rights. However, if the mentally handicapped or pets commit an immoral act, they'd lose their rights (which is why dogs are killed if they harm a human). However, animals as a whole cannot be given rights since most will follow their instinct and violate the rights of others.1-http://en.wikipedia.org...2-https://www.google.ca...3-https://www.google.ca...4-https://www.google.ca...5-https://www.google.ca...6-https://www.google.ca...7-https://www.google.ca...8-http://www.flaxcouncil.ca...9-http://meg-3.com...10-http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...11-http://www.hindawi.com...12-http://www.nature.com...13-http://www.huntercourse.com...14-http://en.wikipedia.org...15-http://www.fda.gov... 16-http://thepetwiki.com... 17-http://www.nbcnews.com...