Animal rights

Before I start, I will define animal rights here: Animal rights: The avoidance of abuse and exploitation of some, if not all, animals by humans by maintaining appropriate standards of accommodation, feeding and general care, the prevention and treatment of disease and the assurance of freedom from harassment, and unnecessary discomfort and pain.~Taken from ‘Saunders Comprehensive Veterinary Dictionary’Animal rights simply guarantees freedom from unnecessary exploitation and abuse. They don’t necessarily give animals a place in society and are different from civil and human rights. “Human/Civil rights provide, in other words, the description of a good and civilized society. To the extent, then, to which we want to live in a society in which animals are not subject to "barbarous acts," we may well want to extend them at least a modest, if appropriately refashioned, set of rights.” You wouldn’t define a good, working and civilized society the one that keeps exploiting animals.~Taken from:http://www.huffingtonpost.com...*This debate is all about animal rights, not whether animals should have a place in society.•I will be providing my counter arguments here:Con said, “You are attempting to humanize animals (when read in context). Yes they are aware of each other's existence but they are only aware because the other provides them something. They have no social reasoning skills like a common human and thus are not relatable.” He said, "Yes when read in context it meant animals do not have the conscious ability that is humans have. Without these levels or even close to these levels of consciousness then it makes them not relatable to us and makes them useless in society.” This is not personification and not an attempt to humanize animals. I will say it again, some animals show signs of consciousness and some don’t. And we can only prove it by observing their behavior. IT is very difficult to prove something not existing than something existing when it comes to psychology of each animal. Look at advanced animals such as Crows, Octopus, Dolphins, Whales and Apes (ones that has a similar DNA match to humans). They proved to us that they are conscious (and some with self-awareness of their existence). We haven’t discover any sign of consciousness on animals like Pigs, Cows, Chicken, Cats or Insects but this DOES NOT mean they are voided from awareness and social reasoning we humans have. Advanced animals mentioned above are promising; the chances of them having a consciousness level close to humans are high. How are animals not relatable just because of their conscious level not being similar to humans? Animals are relatable to humans in many other ways. They breathe, eat, drink, move, grow and feel just like us. Most importantly they are living like us.“According to one of the leading scholars in the field, there is an emerging consensus among scientists that animals share functional parallels with humans' conscious metacognition -- that is, our ability to reflect on our own mental processes and guide and optimize them.” Taken from: http://www.sciencedaily.com... Con said, “- Please get your facts right no matter what you believe in then the earth was left to humans. 'Mother Nature' would have simply left the earth to the most dominant species since it is only the order of life.” No. Earth was left for humans, ANIMALS plants and microbes to thrive. We may be superior to any other organisms, but this does not make others more or less important than us. In order for Nature to thrive, all type of organisms must exist and interact with each other. Everything depends on each other, and without one of them, nature becomes unstable. Talk about the balance of life. Each organisms are unique in many different ways and each contribute to the survival. Con said, “-Humans would do it anyways hence kindness..” Humans do not always show kindness. Humans were always greedy and have been exploiting each other for thousand of years now. This is one perfect example of how humans are related to animals. Greed is the reason for animal abuse. Take battery-caged hens as an example. Farmers resorted from free range (having a large perimeter fence and allowing chickens to grow in the open) to battery-caged. Of course farmers goal is profit, and having battery-caged hens increases production of eggs, as there are more hens per square unit than free ranged eggs. This is cruel to hens as they are confined to a small place, lacking freedom of movement; only purpose being served is to lay eggs. Con said, “Nothing under societal laws, under the obsolete biological laws there is some correlation but in the end the earth is left to the dominant species.” I agree that the society that we live in is getting more and more stupid. In everyone’s common sense (logic), a painting [ordinary property] is a non-living thing and an animal is a living thing. Burn a painting, the painting won’t hesitate or feel anything. Burn an animal alive, it will feel pain. Both may not talk and both may be purchasable but animals suffer, and that’s what differentiates animals from ordinary properties.Con said, “Solving primitive problems has no potential in society, remember we are arguing about animal rights, if they can not contribute to society in an intellectual way then they are useless and primitive problems is nothing.” Yes the argument is all about animal rights [read the definition above], NOT whether animals have a potential in society. Animal rights is about having the right to live it’s own life, free from unnecessary exploitation and abuse. It does not have to grant them a position in society. Pro saying that some animals can solve primitive problems was in response to Con saying that animals have no problem solving abilities back in round 1. If animals can solve primitive problems, there will be a chance that they can solve complex problems. (look at apes and dolphins, runner ups in Intelligence).Con said, “- Let's say for argument's sake that animals were conscious and had the capacity for pain, would that change anything? No it would not animals would still be needed for research and food. Also it would not change the fact that animal serve a use in research and food.” Yes it would change things. If animals were conscious and can feel pain (that is they can), this means animals should be subjected to humane treatment and not to unnecessary exploitation. If animals were to be killed for food, then this must be done swiftly and it shouldn’t cause any unwanted suffering. So sure people will say, the animal will die anyways, so why bother humanely kill them? Animals feel pain and they suffer, this should change the way they are treated. And also this is the 21st Century, technology advances to the point that animal testing is no longer necessary. It is cruel to do so; test subjects will feel the unnecessary pain. Animal testing also has its flaws: 90% percent of experimental drugs that are safe and effective in animals fail in human trials due to their dangerous effects on humans[1]. Not to mention better alternatives. In Vitro testing [see round 1 factor 2], computer simulations and micro dosing; these methods combined proved to have more accurate findings than animal testing[2].[1] ~ https://www.dosomething.org...[2] ~ http://www.sciencedirect.com... •So why should animals have rights?That is because animals are being exploited worldwide for unnecessary reasons, causing unnecessary and harsh suffering. Major examples include animal testing and harsh conditions in industrial-style animal farming. Also because in a sense, animals are like humans. (This is based on logic and biological facts and it is not humanizing animals). All animals reproduce, breathe, eat, drink, excrete, move, feel and grow just like humans do. All animals feel pain and some have responses like humans – adrenaline in most chordates and humans trigger fight or flight responses (combat the threat or run away from it). Some animals show signs of awareness and some don’t. A few can solve primitive basic problems and a couple share similar genes to humans (Orangutans and Chimps). All of them cannot talk, use machinery or do stuffs humans only can and they may have no purpose or potential in society or the same IQ and EQ capacity as humans but all these creatures need the love and respect humans receive.