€145,000 bill may throw dog charity to hounds

by maggot Tue May 09, 2006 17:40

It's very sad about the greyhounds . Some friends of mine have an ex-racer - I can confirm that they are really nice dogs and make great pets. I think it would be better to put unwanted dogs down than see them treated cruelly or abandoned by uncaring owners. Having said that , the idea of "animals rights"needs to be challenged.
Greg on another thread today wrote about a Galway animal rights protest against animal exploitation in circusses . Cruelty to animals should of course be opposed ,but to say that animals can have rights is to demean the nature of rights . Rights have to be won ; they can't be granted .Only humans can have rights

by Kate Mon May 15, 2006 16:15

Maggot,

You say that animals having rights demeans the nature of human rights, and I feel compelled to respond. I cannot, for the life of me, see the logic to this and would like to hear some clarification of how allowing an animal to have basic rights could demean human rights on any level.

My personal belief is that animals ought to have rights - the right to live a life without suffering from cruelty and abuse where they can act out their basic, natural instincts. In the case of my dog, this means she has the right to food, water, shelter, affection, walks and games. In the case of a chicken (for example) this means food, water, shelter, freedom to scratch in the dirt, interact with other chickens, stretch her wings and legs, and so on.

How can giving these rights to animals, of all kinds, demean human rights? How can, for example, the abuse inflicted on the circus monkey discovered in a darkened truck without food, water, or company of any kind (in Stradbally Co. Laois last week) lend any weight to an argument for human rights? Humans, too, are animals after all, and I firmly believe that all animals, both human and non-human, should have rights. In other words, yes, of course the defense of human rights is important, but one of those rights is not, or rather, should not be, to inflict suffering for pleasure, profit or entertainment. Advocating animal rights does not equate with apposing human rights.

Glad to hear the ex-racer has found a good home, by the way!

by maggot Mon May 15, 2006 16:50

Kate ,you wrote
".....yes, of course the defense of human rights is important, but one of those rights is not, or rather, should not be, to inflict suffering for pleasure, profit or entertainment "

I'd go along with that. I'd say that it should be a HUMAN RIGHT to live in a world where animals are not ill-treated . But that isn't an animal right . All rights - workers rights , women's rights ,gay and lesbian rights , the right to vote ,freedom of speech etc, have been fought for and won by the people whose rights were previously suppressed and not by any group fighting on their behalfs.

by andrea samašová - no Mon Jul 10, 2006 21:02 andreas194 at zoznam dot sk slovakia 00421 903 370 067

REQUEST FOR HELP FOR MY LITTLE DOG

My name is Andrea Samašová, I am from Slovakia and I am writing to ask Blue Cross Charity to help my little dog - american kokrspaniel who was marked as loosing mobility because of deterioration of jugular spinal column and his vertebra
He was treated by medicine who absored pain but did not cure the disease. He was loosing movement, with permanent pain and stopped to react to any situation. We visited veterinary doctors and asked about 12 opinions after his x-ray results. Diagnosis was to operate acute extrusion of intervertebral disk /damage in between C2-C3/. We do love our little dog as a part of the family and can not image to let him to be slowly dying, without ability to move and without a chance to live happily his dog life. He is only 5 years old. We are willing to do everything we can to help him. Dog s hospital said to us that operation will cost 22,200 czech crowns which is about 780 euros. This was terrified information for us. Average salary in our country is 4800 czech crowns /163 euros/.
We do not have such an amount and that is why we are looking for financial help. Please, be so kind if there is any way you can help us please do so. We thank you for your time and cosideration of our case. We thank you very much from the bottom of our hearts.

My address: Andrea Samašová, Rúbanisko I /10, 98403 Lučenec, Slovak Republic
Email: andreas194@zoznam.sk
Cell phone: 00421-903-370-067

Yours Sincerely,

Andrea Samašová

by Gerri Tue Jul 11, 2006 03:40

Anyone who defends the rights of animals invariably comes up against the retort 'but peoples rights are more important' or as seen above 'animals don't have rights as rights have to be won'.

It is stated above:

'All rights - workers rights , women's rights ,gay and lesbian rights , the right to vote ,freedom of speech etc, have been fought for and won by the people whose rights were previously suppressed and not by any group fighting on their behalfs'

By this logic, only those capable of agitating for their rights would be afforded rights, therefore the strongest would be in possession of the most 'rights'. It thus follows that those who are mentally handicapped would have very few rights as it is usually other groups that fight on their behalf, to use one example. Another example would be the rights of very young children - by this logic how could they have any rights?

Perhaps the criteria for allocation of very basic rights, such as the right to live a life according to the inherent nature of its species, should reside with animals on the basis that like humans, they are sentient beings and can feel pain, suffering, loss and despair.

Nobody would dare say that a baby has no rights on the grounds that she cannot fight for them, or articulate why she should have them.

As the allocation of rights will invariably lead to a conflict, perhaps we should have a hierarchy of rights, no contest for guessing whose rights should prevail.

In the case of wanton animal cruelty such as that inflicted upon many greyhounds once they have ceased to be as profitable to their owners (e.g. mutilating their ears so as to make them unidentifiable, or sending them on long journeys to Spain where they will be raced to death), surely there can be no conflict of interests between the rights of humans and the rights of these creatures not to be worked to death and to a bit of comfort in their last days, having made alot of money for their owners?

We would enhance the human condition were we to afford non human animals more rights and were they to be treated with more respect and less callousness. Happiness cannot be found through making another creature miserable, for the sake of profit.