You go, girl. I breed show dogs on a very small scale. My dogs live in my house with me, stay here until they are several months old and I make every effort to breed responsibly and to take back dogs if the owner doesn't care for them or must give them up.

Not one dog I've bred has ended up in a shelter.

The AR people want to end all that and make sure I no longer can enjoy the company of the dogs here.

I suspect that if we give human rights to animals, we will soon find that humans have few rights too.

Not one dog I've bred has ended up in a shelter.

That's not the issue. There are countless dogs being euthanized at pounds and shelters because homes cannot be found. At the moment, you are contributing to the problem by breeding yet more animals - thus causing potentially adoptable dogs to be killed. When this problem is solved, breeding dogs for responsible guardians will not be unconscionable.

I suspect that if we give human rights to animals, we will soon find that humans have few rights too.

I can't think of a worse argument for denying rights to a class of beings. The same argument could have been and probably was used against efforts toward suffrage for woman and African-Americans.

Oppressed canine companion animals are tasty too.

I think the conversation shouldn't be about the legal "rights" of animals (who can't actually exercise their "rights" anyway), but about the legal and ethical responsibilities of owners.

You can't give a dog the "right" to free speech, but you can certainly talk about the responsibility of the owner to provide for the dog in a humane manner.

Humans have rights, animals do not.

Humans have responsibilities, animals do not.

A rat is not a pig is not a dog is not a boy. It doesn't work that way; there are real differences between the species, and those differences are important legally, not just biologically.

Further, what is it that gives dogs or any other animal "rights?" Did they fight and sacrifice for those rights? Did their ancestors debate the meaning of freedom or what it was to be a person? No, of course not. To exercise rights (not on an individual level, but in a more general sense), there has to be the capacity to understand and protect those rights--and understand and protect the responsibilities that come with them.

Rights are a legal fiction (or, at least, a legal agreement that have nothing to do with a natural state). No one has the "right" to free speech, really. That's something that is protected by law and by the vigilance of the citizens. One of my coworkers (and, indeed, many left-leaning folks that I know) believe that we all have the "right" to health care a job and education. Bullshit.

Those social programs that we do have aren't rights, they are the culmination of years of wrangling agreements from voters and politicians. We, as the political body, took part in the forming of the set of "rights" afforded to us by law.

When a dog or a cat can take part in that conversation, let me know.

Don't talk to me about what "right" a domestic pet might have to the due process of the law or to socialized kitty health care or to doggy day care or to obedience school (and, sure, I know that those aren't on the table, but they serve well to illustrate the absurdity of animal "rights"). Instead, talk to me about enforcing the responsibility of people to care for animals that have been entrusted to them.

Lastly, I'll get my dog from a breeder or a friend because I'll have a much better understanding of the environment that dog grew up in. When going through a shelter, behavioral issues are common. I've known quite a few people who have had good experiences with dogs that they picked up at shelters, and others who have had no end of problems with dogs that had little or no history. Those animals acted fine in the confines of the shelter, but had huge behavioral issues once outside.

A breeder who has taken the time to socialize the pups and give it some base level of animal care will provide me with a better pet, in a general sense, than the one that I might bring home from a shelter. I have the choice of what person or animal I invite into my home, and I'll exercise that choice in this by going through a breeder. That's not unconscionable, that's just good sense.

When this problem is solved, breeding dogs for responsible guardians will not be unconscionable.

1 : not guided or controlled by conscience : UNSCRUPULOUS
2 a : EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE b : shockingly unfair or unjust

Loony logic.

Apparently, it us shockingly unfair of me to have children of my own, when there is an excess of foreign children abused and neglected. Only when they are taken care of would it be "reasonable" for me to have my own.

I wish the world were a safe enough place for me to get spun up about this. I'm just thankful the looneys have this issue; the time they spend on this is time they don't spend making real trouble, over real issues.

Most of the animals euthanized are older animals with (as noted above) behavior or health problems. Very, very few puppies or kittens are killed. This is balony foisted on us by you-know-who. For example, purebred cats are less than 1% of all euthanized cats. Even that is too high as shelter personel are rarely well enough acquainted with breed standards to know a heinz-57 from a purebred and tend to call any longhaired cat a Persian or any pointed cat a Siamese.

Right, it's fine to euthanize the old and infirm. No problem. If only lowly shelter workers could recognize _breed_ standards so only the unworthy are killed. And the 1%ststistic is just crap.

Animals don't have rights - humans do. But shelters work hard to handle the problem of "disposable" animals. It really has nothing to do with being purebred. Animals are abandoned, given up because someone wants to move and all kinds of other reasons. People won't spend $50 to spay or neuter their animals. It is a problem and lots of good people care about it.

I really can't believe how arrogant and clueless that last post was.

Reggie Rivers has taken a less than mediocre football career and turned himself into Denver's finest "hate America first" media darling. Yeah the country that let you make a living playing a kids game. Jerkwad.

animals (who can't actually exercise their "rights" anyway)

The can do so to the same extent as humans in comas.

You can't give a dog the "right" to free speech, but you can certainly talk about the responsibility of the owner to provide for the dog in a humane manner.

You can't give babies the "right" to free speech either, but you can talk about the basic right to not be harmed or killed.

Humans have rights, animals do not.
Humans have responsibilities, animals do not.

Responsibilities are not required for rights. See infant and coma examples.

A rat is not a pig is not a dog is not a boy. It doesn't work that way; there are real differences between the species, and those differences are important legally, not just biologically.

Real differences, but all suffer and deserve to live free from harm, imprisonment, or death at the hands of humans who know better (yes, we alone have high moral thinking and are responsible for ethical considerations).

Further, what is it that gives dogs or any other animal "rights?" Did they fight and sacrifice for those rights? Did their ancestors debate the meaning of freedom or what it was to be a person? No, of course not. To exercise rights (not on an individual level, but in a more general sense), there has to be the capacity to understand and protect those rights--and understand and protect the responsibilities that come with them.

No, no, no. In the ethical/theoretical sense, we're all born with rights regardless of law. In the legal sense, yes, often sacrifice is needed. But because nonhuman animals obviously cannot speak in our society their legal rights must be won by others who can.

When a dog or a cat can take part in that conversation, let me know.

Very compassionate - let's cut out those who have no physical means to participate.

Apparently, it us shockingly unfair of me to have children of my own, when there is an excess of foreign children abused and neglected. Only when they are taken care of would it be "reasonable" for me to have my own.

Well, admittedly it would be for the greater good for you and everyone else to make that sacrifice. But obviously there is a much more compelling argument for having one's own human children. For pets, you're always "adopting" anyway, regardless of the source.

JJ, you are full of shit. Pure, 100% unadulterated, bullshit. Humans in comas and babies are both potentially human, that is (dear lord, I can't imagine explaining this logic to an adult) they can become human, exercising the one facility that seperates humans from animals: the ability to think.

Animals will never ever ever, no matter how much some lackwit hopes it, be on the same plane as humans.

Animals can't think, (and neither can you, apparently) therefore animals will never have rights. I'm willing to think that if you pull your head from your ass, you might earn the rights you're currently exercising.

Ta ta, fucktard!

Animals cannot have rights. Otherwise, what happens when my dog violates your cat's rights? Do we have a trial by jury? Is the dog entitled to a lawyer? Where does this line of reasoning stop?

Although, a jury of my dog's peers would be a damn funny thing to see...

Humans in comas and babies are both potentially human

We would defend the rights of those in comas even if it could be scientifically proven that they could never recover. Same thing for certain situation of severe mental disability which are imaginable.

Animals cannot have rights. Otherwise, what happens when my dog violates your cat's rights? Do we have a trial by jury? Is the dog entitled to a lawyer? Where does this line of reasoning stop?

You're confusing "any rights at all" with "the entire set of rights humans now enjoy in Western society." The animal rights position has never had anything to do with the rights you list. It's about basic physical protection, and that's all.

I would like to point out that Peter Singer, whose philosophical outlook has been adopted by at least portions of the animal rights movement, would both argue that it is perfectly alright to euthanize both the severely retarded AND infants (under the age of 6 months, I think), AND that animals SHOULD enjoy at least some of the rights Eichra and Tom K referred to.

"Animals can't think"? Don't you mean animals can't reason? Apparently you have never owned one. Having grown up on a farm, married a vet, and currently living with 10 pets, I can assure you that most animals do think, but not on a collegiate level.

Before you go off- I don't agree with PETA, and I don't believe that animals have equal rights with people. I do think that as the more sentient beings in this world, we need to act with compassion towards them. Noblese oblige.

Animal cruelty has a connection to murder, serial killers, child abuse, and violence against women.

"Animal cruelty has a connection to murder, serial killers, child abuse and violence against women."

Maybe I missed something but what's the connection between animal cruelty and breeding show dogs on a very small scale? I don't see anyone here arguing in favor of animal cruelty.

You grew up on a farm? Well, pleased to meetcha, neighbor. So did I. So don't think I'm some damn inexperienced city slicker talking out my ass here.

Animals don't think. Period. Animals act on the perceptual and instinctual level.

Humans act on the conceptual level, an entirely different ball of wax.

JJ, you're arguing that we should use the exception as the rule, a common enough mistake in your circle, I suppose, but one that thinking adults aren't prone to make.

Peter Singer is an idiot. Quote someone I can actually respect, if you're going to try the old argument from authority nonsense.

JJ, you're arguing that we should use the exception as the rule, a common enough mistake in your circle, I suppose, but one that thinking adults aren't prone to make.

Am I correct in assuming you're referring to my comparison of the capacities of some nonhuman animals to those of humans in certain rare circumstances? If so, you're wrong. If not, please elaborate.

The humans in these situations are the set we should examine in this case because they are the individuals whose capacities most closely match those of nonhumans. Treating people in these circumstances as rights-having is not an exception, but universal.

"Animals don't think. Period. Animals act on the perceptual and instinctual level.

Humans act on the conceptual level, an entirely different ball of wax"

Assuming facts not in evidence, I see, neighbor.
Perhaps when you get through comparitive physiology, neuroogy, and primate behavior, you'll change your mind. Until you show some science behind your beliefs, I'll stick to my guns.

The next dog who posts in here will convince me that animals deserve all sorts of rights.

After reading through this thread, I was struck by how the anti-animal rights side is so defensive and paranoid (e.g., I suspect that if we give human rights to animals, we will soon find that humans have few rights, too), and oftentimes devolves into irrational-attack-mode (e.g., JJ, you are full of shit. Pure, 100% unadulterated, bullshit). I'll let you draw your own conclusions about why they're so touchy despite the fact that they believe they hold the moral high ground.

I think part of the problem here is a matter of terminology. Are animals sentient/self-aware?? No ( except *maybe* chimps ).

Can higher order animals learn?? Yes. Do they "think" on some level?? Probably.

Do animals warrant rights?? In the legal/moral sense, not really. While killing animals for no reason at all should be "discouraged" ( to put it mildly ). However, I see nothing wrong with hunting ( assuming a basic level of concern to minimize suffering of the prey ), husbandry, and animal testing. The last one, especially, is a case where humans clearly have to be put above animals, unless you genuinely believe that an animal's life is worth as much as a human's life.

Mr. VodkaPundit, sir, I apologize for this, but I've posted a reply to JJ on my own site. In doing so, I also cut and pasted a large amount of the text involved in the conversation.

I felt that this deserved a larger conversation, though, than I felt comfortable taking part in within the comments of your post.

Space, I'm terribly defensive about rights. What rights we have are things that were carved out of history with more death and violence that I can even imagine--and that sacrifice shouldn't be sold or held cheap.

Again, apologies, and I wouldn't normally do this, but I wanted to feel free to answer in a much larger fashion that I would feel comfortable with in this thread. If this is a horrible breach of etiquette, let me know. Thanks.