Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Last year Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, Trouble, setting off a heated courtroom battle. California just passed a proposition that says farm animals must be humanely caged. The legal line between humans and animals is blurring further everyday. When it comes to "animal rights," should your cocker spaniel be entitled to the same freedoms and protections as your kid?
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
All wrong.
meh
Well i think just because someone believes in a god they should not participate in this debate. There are religions that hold animals (or at least some of them) in even higher regards than humans. And I think it's safe to say if there were ever a ballot measure in any given state of the U.S. regarding animal rights, that they wouldn't exclude Christians from voting on it! And in addition, organizations such as PETA are trying to market to religious people, even making absurd claims like "Jesus was a vegetarian." I think I have a right to display my opinion to anyone, religious or not, about religion and animal rights.
And might I ask, have you ever been on an airplane? a trip across the country at an altitude low enough to see the ground would be enough to convince anyone that the United States is not overpopulated. Maybe some countries like China, Japan, and India for example sufferfrom those problems, but for us, it's not an issue. Speaking of India, take a trip there! They don't eat cows because the Hindu religion regards them as sacred. They have an overpopulation of cows there, most of them sickly and disease-ridden, often spreading those diseases to humans! Why? Because they aren't allowed to "interfere" with their lives. And my comment about plant growth was (half sarcastically, but who is to say) regarding the fact that feces is a natural fertilizer. And also, we flush our feces into a toilet. Pretty sure animals can't build sewers.
But I do agree with your comment on this question being badly phrased.
- Brady
November 18, 2008 5:11PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Resources
To say that humans are not facing overpopulation and support it by pointing out all of the available land as seen from an airplane is a very narrow scope. It is also a very problematic interpretation of a biblical passage from Genesis.
Land is only one of several vital resources.
Overpopulation doesn't mean there's simply not enough physical space for us. It means that we are not sustainable. We are destroying unfathomable quantities of all resources and converting them into things that we can no longer use to survive. The rate at which we do this is what determines our state of population. We are currently overpopulated, because in our current state, we are sinking into the red. We are not breaking even by an stretch. This is why we have sewers. There are simply too many of us to expect our feces to cycle through the ecosystem in any sustainable time frame. We are overpopulated
Again, the notion that without our killing animals, they would overrun their own habitat is a completely unfounded one. That includes India. India has 1/3 the world's population of cattle. Their overpopulation is a direct result of human interference. Materialist humans are overbreeding, and Jainist humans are not killing them. Both of these practices end up causing great suffering, but only one is directly causing the overpopulation.
I could show biblically that animals were not made for us to "use" and I could also show that the god of Abraham most certainly had no intention for us to destroy all of his creations. It would be simple enough to show that just because we are a "fallen" people doesn't mean we should not be striving for a return to Eden.
But these points are moot, because in a debate where you can defer to a "because my god says so" answer, there is nothing to be gained. Plus, you could just as easily spin biblical text to support your views. You'd have to first take on a debate titled, "Can the bible be a logical guide within any consistent moral framework?" Then bring those arguments here.
Until then your statements are unfounded, and your arguments are undebatable.
- mike
November 18, 2008 8:30PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.