3683464

..
Get free stickers at peta2.com
“Why should I feel bad about eating meat? I didn’t kill the animal.”
You may not have killed the animal yourself, but you hired the killer. Whenever you purchase meat, the killing was done for you, and you paid for it.
The responses presented here are by no means the only answers to these frequently asked questions. They are simply intended to provoke you to think about common assumptions and to serve as a resource as you formulate your own opinions.
“What do you mean by ‘animal rights’?”
People who support animal rights believe that animals are not ours to use for food, clothing, entertainment, experimentation, or any other purpose and that animals deserve consideration of their best interests regardless of whether they are cute, useful to humans, or endangered and regardless of whether any human cares about them at all (just as a mentally challenged human has rights even if he or she is not cute or useful and even if everyone dislikes him or her).
“What rights should animals have?”
Animals should have the right to equal consideration of their interests. For instance, a dog most certainly has an interest in not having pain inflicted on him or her unnecessarily. We are, therefore, obliged to take that interest into consideration and to respect the dog’s right not to have pain unnecessarily inflicted upon him or her. However, animals don’t always have the same rights as humans because their interests are not always the same as ours, and some rights would be irrelevant to animals. For instance, a dog doesn’t have an interest in voting and, therefore, doesn’t have the right to vote because that right would be as meaningless to a dog as it is to a child.
“Where do you draw the line?”
The renowned humanitarian Albert Schweitzer, who accomplished so much for both humans and animals in his lifetime, would take time to stoop and move a worm from hot pavement to cool earth. Aware of the problems and responsibilities that an expanded ethic brings, he said, “A man is really ethical only when he obeys the constraint laid on him to aid all life which he is able to help … He does not ask how far this or that life deserves sympathy … nor how far it is capable of feeling.” We can’t stop all suffering, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t stop any. In today’s world of virtually unlimited choices, there are plenty of kind, gentle ways for us to feed, clothe, entertain, and educate ourselves that do not involve killing animals.
“What about plants?”
There is currently no reason to believe that plants experience pain because they are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings, and brains. It is theorized that animals are able to feel pain so that they can use it for self-protection purposes. For example, if you touch something hot and feel pain, you will learn from the pain that you should not touch that item in the future. Since plants cannot move from place to place and do not need to learn to avoid certain things, this sensation would be superfluous. From a physiological standpoint, plants are completely different from mammals. Unlike animals’ body parts, many perennial plants, fruits, and vegetables can be harvested over and over again without dying.
If you are concerned about the impact of vegetable agriculture on the environment, you should know that a vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a meat-based one, since the vast majority of grains and legumes raised today are used as feed for cattle. Rather than eating animals, such as cows, who must consume 16 pounds of vegetation in order to convert them into 1 pound of flesh, you can save many more plants’ lives (and destroy less land) by eating vegetables directly.
“It’s fine for you to believe in animal rights, but why do you try to tell other people what to do?”
Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don’t always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don’t use humans as slaves, don’t sexually harass women, etc.—and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior.
“Animals don’t reason, don’t understand rights, and don’t always respect our rights, so why should we apply our ideas of morality to them?”
An animal’s inability to understand and adhere to our rules is as irrelevant as a child’s or as that of a person with a severe developmental disability. Animals are not always able to choose to change their behaviors, but adult human beings have the intelligence and ability to choose between behaviors that hurt others and behaviors that do not hurt others. When given the choice, it makes sense to choose compassion.
“It’s almost impossible to avoid using all animal products; if you’re still causing animal suffering without realizing it, what's the point?”
It is impossible to live without causing some harm. We’ve all accidentally stepped on ants or breathed in gnats, but that doesn’t mean that we should intentionally cause unnecessary harm. You might accidentally hit someone with your car, but that is no reason to run someone over on purpose.
“What about all the customs, traditions, and jobs that depend on using animals?”
The invention of the automobile, the abolition of slavery, and the end of World War II also necessitated restructuring and job retraining. Making changes to customs, traditions, and jobs is part of social progress—not a reason to deter it.
“How can you justify spending your time helping animals when there are so many people who need help?”
There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.
“Most animals used for food, fur, or experiments are bred for that purpose, so what's wrong with using them?”
Being bred for a certain purpose does not change an animal’s biological capacity to feel pain and fear.
“Animals in cages on factory farms or in laboratories don’t suffer that much because they’ve never known anything else, right?”
Wrong! Animals on factory farms and in laboratories are prevented from acting on even the most basic instinctual behaviors, which causes tremendous suffering. Even animals who have been caged since birth feel the need to move around, groom themselves, stretch their limbs or wings, and exercise. Herd animals and flock animals become distressed when they are forced to live in isolation or when they are put in groups that are too large for them to be able to recognize other members. In addition, all confined animals suffer from intense boredom—some so severely that it can lead to self-mutilation or other self-destructive behavior.
“If animal exploitation were wrong, wouldn't it be illegal?”
Legality is no guarantee of morality. Who does and who doesn’t have legal rights is determined merely by the opinions of today’s legislators. The law changes as public opinion or political motivations change, but ethics are not as arbitrary. Child labor, human slavery, and the oppression of women were all legal in the U.S. at one time, but that does not mean that they were ever ethical.
“Animals are not as intelligent or as advanced as humans, so why can't we use them?”
Possessing superior intelligence does not entitle one human to abuse another human, so why should it entitle humans to abuse nonhumans? There are animals who are unquestionably more intelligent, creative, aware, communicative, and able to use language than some humans, as is the case when a chimpanzee is compared to a human infant or a person with a severe developmental disability. Should the more intelligent animals have rights and the less intelligent humans be denied rights?
“What's wrong with factory farms or fur farms? Aren't animals worse off in the wild, where they die of starvation, disease, or predation? At least the animals on factory farms and fur farms are fed and protected.”
A similar argument was used to support the claim that black people were better off as slaves on plantations than as free men and women. The same could also be said of people in prison, yet prison is considered to be one of society’s harshest punishments. Animals on factory farms suffer so much that it is inconceivable that they could be worse off in the wild. The wild isn’t “wild” to the animals who live there—it’s their home. There, they have their freedom and can engage in their natural activities. The fact that they might suffer in the wild is no reason to ensure that they suffer in captivity.
Ecological Effects of Animal Agriculture

Myspace Layouts - Myspace Editor - Hot Graphics

Myspace Layouts - Myspace Editor - Hot Graphics