Animal Rights

Rebuttals:"Just because something is natural doesn't make it right. No animals wear clothes, so we should all be nude by your logic? Animals kill and rape each other. Does that make it okay for us to do so?""Just because something is natural does not make it okay. We are a species that breaks every natural law. Show me a species with cars, clothes, factories etc. Show me a species that buys all of its food. http://theweek.com......So by your logic because it is "natural" I can kill any human I want?http://www.livescience.com......Ants commit genocide, so it is natural. So what Hitler did was okay?Drinking milk is unnatural. No species drinks another species milk. I seriously doubt that that milk which was made for baby cows is good for adult humans, again, because it is unnatural."Ok, I would first like to point out that Pro specifically made the point in R2 that eating meat is wrong because it is unnatural. Pro admitted that it is natural, but why doesn't Pro think it works the other way around? Pro is trying to present a one sided argument. Not only is Pro presenting a fallacy, but they are comparing what is natural to a human, to what is natural to an animal; a comparison that cannot be made.Pro mentions that because animals naturally act uncivilized, that it doesn't make it ok. Which I agree/disagree with from different perspectives. Pro fails to mention that there are distinct differences between human beings and wild animals. While some animals possess traits of humans, they don't possess nearly all of them. First, humans are intelligent, civilized, have character, and have a capacity for wisdom. [1] What really makes humans different is, their ability to question, their moral compass, and their free moral agency. [1]These are the natural instincts of human beings. That being said, there are similarities between what is natural to a human and an animal. Genocide, is a crime to human beings and is not seen as natural. This is because of human beings moral compass and our free moral agency. Animals however do not possess these same traits. Animals are "programmed." The do not question, they act of instinct. However, genocide to some animals is ok, because that's their instinct; it's natural to them. It may be natural to certain animals, but it's not the same type of natural as a human beings. This is why you can't compare an animal's "natural" to a human's "natural." Pro's point has been negated, and therefore, my prior arguments remain standing."It is impossible to raise animals in such a way as to make a profit and be cruelty-free. Keeping another being captive causes suffering, correct? As does slitting it's throat, and hanging it to bleed? Even to make milk and eggs, the "by-products" male calf's and chicks, have to be killed at birth to keep making a profit."Once again, Pro is comparing animals to humans. Once again, what's natural to a human is not what is natural to an animal or vice versa. Keeping humans in a prison is not natural to a human, and is a form of suffering. However, it is not the same for an animal. Keeping cows in enclosed areas is not making them suffer; that's what cows/sheep/pigs do. They sit around eating grass or rolling around in the mud. Their in their natural habitat doing what they naturally do. As for the slaughtering process, Pro is greatly exaggerating the "pain" and "suffering" of the animal. This is simply not true. As required by the Humane Slaughter Act, livestock must feel no pain when slaughtered. [2] Slaughterhouses can do this through a shot in the forehead (which causes instantaneous death with no pain), or through other means such as electrical or chemical (which renders the pain absent.) [2] These methods provide ways in which the death is either instant, or quick and painless."Plants cannot feel pain, so are not moral agents. Amoebas react to their environment, so do plants. Doesn't mean they can feel pain. As far as we know, a central nervous system is required to feel pain as we know it. Of course, it is possible that rocks can feel pain and scream in agony when we kick them, but that is an assumption we have to make, or I could justify killing everyone on Earth by saying that breathing tortures the air."I concede that plant are unable to feel pain. However, this does not change my argument. Plants may not be able to feel, but they are still living. As I've shown earlier when livestock are slaughtered, they feel no pain. So how does this make killing a plant and killing an animal different, when it happens by the same means? I know the idea is absurd, but that's exactly the point.Pro's point is negated so my analogy remains standing."My arguments is as follows. If you believe animals have a moral worth, that their suffering matters and it is wrong to kick a dog because you feel like it, then that requires you to not eat meat because animals can feel pain. Either you believe animals are rocks or you are a vegan, or you are a hypocrite."I've shown that the livestock's death is quick and painless, therefore, they are not suffering. Of course kicking a dog is just plain mean, but you cannot compare torturing a dog to humanely killing livestock; only one causes pain. Furthermore, I do not see how that would require one to not eat meat. Consumption of meat does not harm animals in any way shape or form. I would also ask of Pro to expand on why meat-eaters are hypocrites? They practice what they preach: eating meat is ok.Conclusion:It is completely fine to eat meat. It's natural, and a way of surviving. Both people and animals need food, and meat is one of the many ways of obtaining food. The argument that people shouldn't eat meat because it causes animals to suffer is somewhat understandable, but illogical when you think about it. Animals do not feel pain when killed, and keeping them in enclosed areas isn't causing them to suffer whatsoever. Livestock naturally sit in fields, and they naturally eat grass, roll in mud, etc. Eating meat is not immoral.Sources:[1]:http://realtruth.org... [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org...