Laura asked the question, "Do you think that people that are unable to speak don't have rights?"
The answer is that they do. People who cannot speak still have rights because of the fact that they are humans. Humans have more rights (or more substantial rights) than animals, despite the attempts to change that. This means that humans who are sick, blind, deaf, dumb, senile, in a coma, or with any other affliction you could possibly imagine, have rights. Why? The answer simply is because they are human. Humans grant other humans rights, and any human is then protected by that umbrella. In fact, in some cases, having a certain affliction could possibly grant a human more rights if something is done to them. Has anyone ever noticed that a person with a disability who has been wronged is advocated for more and covered more in the news? (Or is this just my perception? Of course, this is not right or wrong. It is only an observation.) It is because they are unique in a way that most other humans are not.
The question is then, what about animals? Why can't animals have the same rights that we as humans do? What is causing the big debate over animal ethics and animal rights? I was going to go on from there, but I think that's a good question to leave everyone with.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
The Death of an Animal
Frederike Kaldewaij believes that animals should not be killed because it does the animal harm; it is in the best interest for the animal to keep living. The animal can no longer enjoy life if it is killed, if life was ever enjoyable at all. Here I am referring to what Kaldewaij points at, animals raised for food. With the conditions most of these animals live in, life cannot be pleasant. Kaldewaij does not directly mention animals raised for their fur or leather, but the same must be said. The animals are killed, their lives cut short, all enjoyment gone.
But what about animals that are euthanized because they are suffering? Some animals are euthanaized simply because the animal shelters are too crowded, and that definitely goes back to Kaldewaij's arguments. But an animal who is sick? I wasn't there when one of our cats was put to sleep and I don't really remember what happened. All I remember there was my parents trying to tell me and me refusing to believe it, wanting to think she had just fallen asleep instead. I was there for the other one, but it was only later that I learned it was because a teeth cleaning operation had put her into a coma. What I do remember was crying in the backseat on the way home, convinced that life would never be the same again. (I was fairly young when both of these happened.) When our dog was put to sleep it was even worse. He had been a part of our family for twelve years and we had known him longer, since we adopted him from my aunt. He had been living with a congested heart condition (or some congestive condition) for about two years and it made him cough, but otherwise there seemed to be no change. The day before we put him to sleep he had collapsed but still got up and kept going. That and the fact that he had kept going for so long made me think he was a fighter, and sometimes I wonder if we did the right thing.
To sum it all up, here is my question. If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?
But what about animals that are euthanized because they are suffering? Some animals are euthanaized simply because the animal shelters are too crowded, and that definitely goes back to Kaldewaij's arguments. But an animal who is sick? I wasn't there when one of our cats was put to sleep and I don't really remember what happened. All I remember there was my parents trying to tell me and me refusing to believe it, wanting to think she had just fallen asleep instead. I was there for the other one, but it was only later that I learned it was because a teeth cleaning operation had put her into a coma. What I do remember was crying in the backseat on the way home, convinced that life would never be the same again. (I was fairly young when both of these happened.) When our dog was put to sleep it was even worse. He had been a part of our family for twelve years and we had known him longer, since we adopted him from my aunt. He had been living with a congested heart condition (or some congestive condition) for about two years and it made him cough, but otherwise there seemed to be no change. The day before we put him to sleep he had collapsed but still got up and kept going. That and the fact that he had kept going for so long made me think he was a fighter, and sometimes I wonder if we did the right thing.
To sum it all up, here is my question. If an animal is suffering (no matter if they are a pet or not), is euthanizing them in their best interests, even when they are young, or is it cutting a life short?
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Another Question
I'll admit that I think the last question I posed was terrible. I did not think on it enough, yet something yesterday and today helped me think of another one.
I'm sure that many are familiar with the Pokemon series, be it the game, the show, or both. In it we have the Pokemon (various animal-like creatures) that are pets, those that are shown in beauty competions, but the most well-known use is training them for battle. There are many good trainers that treat their Pokemon well, and there are other various factions throughout the series that treat their Pokemon poorly, sometimes working them to death or killing them for sport. Yet the overall theme of Pokemon is still training them to use them in battle, often times so much so until they are defeated by another Pokemon and faint. (They can be revived by using potions or by taking them to a Pokemon Center to be healed.)
So far, I have done nothing but sound like a total geek, but there is a point to this. With the popularity of the Pokemon series, especially for people of our age who probably remember when it first came out, my new question is this: Does this series and others like it help shape our ideas of how animals should be treated?
I'm sure that many are familiar with the Pokemon series, be it the game, the show, or both. In it we have the Pokemon (various animal-like creatures) that are pets, those that are shown in beauty competions, but the most well-known use is training them for battle. There are many good trainers that treat their Pokemon well, and there are other various factions throughout the series that treat their Pokemon poorly, sometimes working them to death or killing them for sport. Yet the overall theme of Pokemon is still training them to use them in battle, often times so much so until they are defeated by another Pokemon and faint. (They can be revived by using potions or by taking them to a Pokemon Center to be healed.)
So far, I have done nothing but sound like a total geek, but there is a point to this. With the popularity of the Pokemon series, especially for people of our age who probably remember when it first came out, my new question is this: Does this series and others like it help shape our ideas of how animals should be treated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)