Animal Welfare And Animal Rights
Animal Welfare And Animal Rights
Respect for animals used for food is a value that is contained in religious texts throughout history. Regardless of the level of care provided and the actual level of wellbeing experienced by the animals, close-confinement housing systems and institutional settings appear unnatural to many onlookers: laboratories where animal studies are conducted; zoos, circuses and marine animal parks where exotic animals can be seen; large farms where thousands of animals may live in close confinement and commercial dog breeding kennels.Some people use the terms animal welfare and animal rights interchangeably, suggesting that they represent the same concerns, principles and practices. Public concern over substandard care and treatment of animals in large-scale or institutional settings has led to an enormous body of federal, state and local laws governing the treatment and housing of animals in these settings, sometimes creating numerous layers of regulations and requiring multiple agencies to perform inspections of the same entity.Animal rights activism has been prominent, especially in the UK, since the 1960s. It is also important to recognize that the animal rights movement is the only social movement in the US with a history of working with underground criminals , which the FBI has named single issue terrorists Notably, many in the animal rights leadership do not condemn violence when it is committed in the name of their cause, a hallmark of unethical and radical movements.Animal welfare endorses the responsible use of animals to satisfy certain human needs - from companionship and sport, to uses that involve the taking of life, such as for food, clothing, and medical research. In 1875, the Irish social reformer Frances Power Cobbe (1822-1904) founded the Society for the Protection of Animals Liable to Vivisection, the world`s first organization opposed to animal research, which became the National Anti-Vivisection Society In 1880, the English feminist Anna Kingsford (1846-1888) became one of the first English women to graduate in medicine, after studying for her degree in Paris, and the only student at the time to do so without having experimented on animals.Examples of animal welfare organisations include the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the Captive Animals` Protection Society (CAPS), and, in the United Kingdom , the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Both ALF and PETA share a common goal of ending all animal research, a philosophy that represents a fundamental split from other animal rights organizations such as Stevens`s Animal Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States, which accept animal experimentation but work for the humane treatment of animals in that and other contexts.
Dozens of law schools in Europe , the United States, and elsewhere offered courses in animal law and animal rights; the Animal Legal Defense Fund had created an even greater number of law-student chapters in the United States; and at least three legal journals—Animal Law, Journal of Animal Law, and Journal of Animal Law and Ethics—had been established.Another is that this movement is driven by hard-core believers impressively willing to sacrifice their own liberty in defense of their political values — namely, trying to stop the mass torture and gratuitous slaughter of animals — and that frightens both industry and its government servants; that animal rights as a cause is gaining traction worldwide makes the threat even more alarming.Singer Peter Singer, author of the excellent book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for our Treatment of Animals makes the extremely interesting and challenging point that the amount of suffering and pain caused by the tyranny of human beings over animals (particularly in food production) far exceeds that caused by sexism, racism, or any other existing forms of discrimination, and for that reason the animal liberation movement is the most important liberation movement in the world today.During that month we had plenty of discussions with friends (lots of biologists and generally environmentally friendly folks like us) and we really noticed that many people feel apprehensive about letting animal products go. They do not like the idea of animals suffering for their food, but the next step: letting go of meat, milk, and eggs was too far away.It is refreshing to see someone from the Atheist/skeptic community to at least acknowledge that the case for Animal Rights/welfare is something that needs to be taken seriously, as opposed to all of the nasty and even bordering on hateful responses that I have seen online and heard from fellow skeptics, where I even have heard the comments that vegetarians and vegans should be murdered, and other comments that are not very nice to say for people who supposedly follow reason” wherever it leads.
In contrast, humans are deemed legal persons,” possessing intrinsic value and the capacity for an infinite number of legal rights as the owners of legal things.” Another reason is that the term animal” encompasses the enormously diverse biological kingdom of animalia, which comprises more than 1.25 million known species (with more to be discovered) that fall along a vast continuum of consciousness, sentience, general intelligence, and autonomy.In 1970, 22 years after the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN, and more than three decades ago, the term speciesism was coined in order to talk about discrimination of sentient beings due to the species they belong to. Thinking that other animals are inferior and we can use them solely because they were born with fur or feathers is an irrational and unfair prejudice towards other species.Domestic terrorism involves acts of violence that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, committed by individuals or groups without any foreign direction, and appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.While no deaths or injuries have resulted from this threat or the blasts at Chiron and Shaklee, it demonstrates a new willingness on the part of some in the movement to abandon the traditional and publicly stated code of nonviolence in favor of more confrontational and aggressive tactics designed to threaten and intimidate legitimate companies into abandoning entire projects or contracts.Activists are believed to engage in significant intelligence gathering against potential targets, including the review of industry/trade publications and other open source information, photographic/video surveillance of potential targets, obtaining proprietary or confidential information about intended victim companies through theft or from sympathetic insiders, and posting details about potential targets on the Internet for other extremists to use as they see fit.