VeggieBoards banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was going to put this in the companion animals thread, but since I think the issue applies to more than just companion animals, I'll put it here.<br><br><br><br>
So I am having a little debate about animal rights at another board I post on. Right now we are discussing breeding domesticated animals. I say that humans should stop breeding them, spay and neuter the ones who are left, and eventually there will be no more domesticated animals. I feel that since these aren't naturally evolved species, and since we are dealing with a lot of suffering caused by overpopulation, that this is the best solution. Not a perfect solution.<br><br><br><br>
So anyway, the non-ARA's are saying that I am being a hyprocrite because I feel this way. They say that I can't claim to love animals if I want them to "not exist".<br><br><br><br>
What do you guys think? What should we do about domesticated animals?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Domestic animals in general, like dogs, cats, farm animals. Any animal that humans have genetically manipulated. I think that the other people are focusing mostly on dogs and cats, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
Well, i consider myself pro-AR, and i tend to think that anyone who follows the proposal that you have proposed to be hypocritical. If you are pro-AR, you would have to feel that all animals have rights, that means even animals inwhich humans have genetically manipulated would have rights. These rights should preclude humans from further manipulation of their lives. You, and others, may think that humans need to "fix" this manipulation, but is "fixing" it with more manipulation the proper course of actions to follow? Do humans infact have the right to determine which species should be able to coexist with us on the planet, regardless of how the animals evolved into its current state? My feeling on the issue is a cease and desist of human manipulation of non-human animals, including preservation, in zoos or man made habitats, of species going extinct.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
But don't we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made? Shouldn't we do what we can to stop suffering? Domesticated animals can't survive on their own (as viable species) because we have bred them in certain ways that would put them at a great disadvantage in the wild, so it wouldn't really be humane to release them and let nature take its course, would it? As someone who is pro-AR, I want to stop suffering in animals that is the direct or indirect result of human interference. And I think that a little more interference is necessary to accomplish this.<br><br><br><br>
So I guess what I am asking is, is it moral to interfere in an animal's life if it will stop suffering for the species as a whole? Does an individual's rights outweigh a population's rights?<br><br><br><br>
Another question that is kind of along the same lines as this; what do we do about non-native species that humans have introduced to an area that are having an adverse effect on the native species? Do we just leave them, and let nature sort it out? Do we step in and remove the non-native species or stop them from reproducing in some way?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
<b>But don't we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made?</b><br><br><br><br>
Not when it involves killing of millions of animals that have as much right to life as humans do.<br><br><br><br><b>Shouldn't we do what we can to stop suffering?</b><br><br><br><br>
Yep, unless that means humans somehow have a right that enables us to determine which species should be able to exist or not exist based on what we feel is appropriate.<br><br><br><br><b>Domesticated animals can't survive on their own (as viable species) because we have bred them in certain ways that would put them at a great disadvantage in the wild, so it wouldn't really be humane to release them and let nature take its course, would it?</b><br><br><br><br>
Who is to say which species will survive and which wont, some may evolve on their own and survive some may die off, humans should not take away from the course of nature and decide for themselves who shall exist and who shall not. that is what created the problem in the first place.<br><br><br><br><b>As someone who is pro-AR, I want to stop suffering in animals that is the direct or indirect result of human interference. And I think that a little more interference is necessary to accomplish this.</b><br><br><br><br>
how far will you take this? should we tear down our cities and homes and give it back to those whom we stole it from? pro-AR isnt about pro-non-suffering, it is about choice, an individuals choice to decide for themselves what is best for themself and not have their existance and life determined by another, excluding natural predatory/prey scenerios.<br><br><br><br><b>So I guess what I am asking is, is it moral to interfere in an animal's life if it will stop suffering for the species as a whole?</b><br><br><br><br>
no<br><br><br><br><b>Does an individual's rights outweigh a population's rights?</b><br><br><br><br>
no<br><br><br><br><b>Another question that is kind of along the same lines as this; what do we do about non-native species that humans have introduced to an area that are having an adverse effect on the native species? Do we just leave them, and let nature sort it out? Do we step in and remove the non-native species or stop them from reproducing in some way?</b><br><br><br><br>
we leave them and let nature sort it out as only nature can. though if you are in favour of this how do we determine what is an adverse effect? how far to we go back in time to determine the species that humans have introduced?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
295 Posts
Dogs and cats will reproduce at whim with no genetic manipulation from humans. Some of these animals will become domesticated even though they could survive in the wild if they needed to. Are you talking about those animals too?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
I think she is referring to the genetic manipulations that people have done to cats and dogs along with any other animals humans have taken custody of to gain the desired results. Such as, Bob has a black lab, Sue has a black lab, Bonnie has a bull dog. Bob thinks a bulldog lab mix would be cool, so Bob introduces his lab to the bull dog. Bob likes the outcome, but he feels his new dog is missing something. He notices Sue now has a poodle. Bob thinks the poodle will add something good to the mix, so.... and so on and so forth. Eventually after much manipulation Bob has weiner dog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,902 Posts
I would be concerned about some of these farm animals that have been bred to completely different from what they were originally, like the featherless chicken, or the turkeys that are so top heavy, their legs can barely hold them up if they grow to full size.<br><br><br><br>
It would seem to make more sense that if this were to happen, it would happen so gradually, that no sterilizing or human interference would need to occur. Some farmer would just kill all the ones he had left and/or stop breeding them and they would no longer exist. I doubt there would ever be an "emancipation" where all the animals were just let loose.<br><br><br><br>
And I think there can be a spectrum of AR with different degrees of human interference. Total non interference would mean not caring for or directly helping an animal in anyway. No veterniary care, no helping a chicken with a broken wing that just escaped a farm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
I understand the point that some ARAs have about wanting to stop the breeding of farm animals. I also understand wanting to stop the indiscriminate breeding of companion animals.<br><br><br><br>
Hypothetical situation:<br><br><br><br>
What if all the companion animals were bred by a person who took amazing care of all of their animals. And all of the young of these animals were adopted out to people who had to go through reference checks and have house visits and all the animals that were adopted out were spayed and neutered. Would you still have a problem with that? What if there was a guarantee that all of the companion animals were taken care of in the best way possible and have wonderful homes and there were no strays and no abuse. Would it be ok to breed companion animals then?<br><br><br><br>
I'm not looking for a debate- I'm just curious. Of course my personal stance is that I'd rather die than to live in a world without cows and horses and rabbits and piggies- but I tend to be a tad overdramtic at times- <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=";)"><br><br><br><br>
I guess I'm selfish, but I like sharing my home with animals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
With domestic cats and dogs, the overpopulation crisis must be weighed against the legitimate desire of "fanciers" to maintain the integrity of particular breeds.<br><br><br><br>
The solution to this is for top-of-the-line purebred cats and dogs to be bred under very controlled circumstances. This would basically mean one or two litters over the course of a female's entire lifetime, ending with her being spayed.<br><br><br><br>
Peace,<br><br>
Maggie
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
19,873 Posts
<div class="quote-container"><span>Quote:</span>
<div class="quote-block">So I am having a little debate about animal rights at another board I post on. Right now we are discussing breeding domesticated animals.</div>
</div>
<br><br><br>
Stop posting on other boards. Problem solved. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":D">
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,009 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
You're right, Michael! Now why didn't I think of that? <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/tongue3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":p"><br><br><br><br>
VealPrincess, I like having animals around me too! <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/smiley.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title=":)"> About your hypothetical situation, I really don't know. On one hand, if everyone took really good care of them, and everyone of them had a home, then it is kind of easy to think that it wouldn't hurt to keep having them. But then I think what majake said, that a happy slave is still a slave. In the end, an animal can't really tell us if they like living with us.<br><br><br><br>
majake, I never said anything about killing the animals. Just stop purposely breeding them, and sterilizing the ones we have so that the population will go down. But certainly not killing them.<br><br><br><br>
About your idea about "cease and desist", what would we do with the animals that are living in captivity now? (including companion, resource and entertainment animals)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,804 Posts
ok for the domesticated animals(non cat/dogs) we have now i think we should reintroduce them to the wild, for cats/dogs a policy of mutual companionship may be acceptable, such as how "outside" cats live. They may come and go as they please and they can get food and shelter from whom ever wishes to provide it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
487 Posts
I didn't read all the posts but I just wanted to say that we as a whole are not responsible enough to care for and own these animals therefore we should not have them. 17 million cats and dogs are killed yearly if I remember correctly, we are too irresponsible for this much responsiblity, simple as that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,684 Posts
A few days ago I saw a pheasant run across my yard. This seemed odd considering that even though it's mostly country where I live, no wild pheasants habitate for miles around. I asked my rents cuz I was curious, and they said that the neighbor who owns the cornfield and stand of trees across the street had given some hunters permission to release and then hunt farm-raised pheasants. I guess that's like stocking the pond before going fishing.<br><br><br><br>
It made me somewhat upset to realize that they raised pheasants not for their meat, not for their companionship, but because these hunters wanted 'the thrill of the chase' or whatever you want to call it. It sounds rather barbaric to me.<br><br><br><br>
And these pheasants weren't your average wild pheasants, either. My dad says that a bird raised by a light bulb is rather dim, so I guess these hunters didn't want to have to chase too long or too hard to catch up with these frightened birds. The bred pheasants stood no chance in the wild; they had no idea how to search for food. I've heard twisted reasoning that because the pheasants couldn't fend for themselves, then it was ok to chase them around and kill them to get a little thrill from the hunt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
0 Posts
(Ruthie sniffs and wipes the tears)<br><br><br><br>
Hunters like this are low life scum who should be hung by their toes naked from the nearest tree!
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top