Should pets have rights?

1. 62

   Miss Infoposted 13 years ago

   Should pets have rights?
   
   Pets are NOT humans. US law enforces that pets are NOT responsible for their random and uncivilized behaviors at any time, but that the "owner" is fully responsible and liable for their pet. If, for example, your pet dog bit someone - for whatever reason, you (the owner) will be sued – not the pet. However, like children, the law also fully protects the well-being of pets, as owners can get jail time in the US for starving their pets. Therefore, should pets have a FORMAL bill of rights – similar to our Constitution’s – to judge their behaviors, punish owners accordingly and secure the animal’s

   replyreport
2. 76

   Rob Wintersposted 13 years ago

   "Pets are better than peope" - Seriously, I get that you like animals etc but that's just a rediculous statement. Yes they should be cared for and not mistreated and protected if necessary but aside from that they (as oppossed to their owners) are not responsible and do not require their own bill of rights - where would that end.I'm not saying peoples behaviour in relation to animals shouldn't be governed btw.What seperates humans from animals is their ability to reason so even if pets could talk Memories 1932 they would'nt be able to explain their reasons for doing anything. Some people spend way too much time anthropomorphising the actions of animals based on an emotional connection they have with them.

   replyreport
3. 76

   psycheskinnerposted 13 years ago

   Pets already have rights.  'Rights' is just another way of saying we have duties towards them.  Thus if you abuse an animal cruelly, you fail in your duty and will be prosecuted.  because animals have the right not to be abused due to their sentient nature. Having rights does not mean having the rights of a human.  Beings have rights that reflect their needs and natures.
   
   I am not sure that creating a bill of animal rights would be helpful rather than pursuing enforcement of their existing legal rights.  For example there is a move to have animal abuse be a federally reported category of crime separate from crimes against property.  I think that would be a good move.

   replyreport
4. 61

   KK Trainorposted 13 years ago

   I am sure this will make some people angry, but until pets (be they dogs, cats, reptiles, whatever) are running the planet, they should not have rights. It's all about heirarchy and right now the humans are in charge. When we are dead and gone (as a liberal would say we will be because we are destroying the planet) then the animals can take over and make what they want of the world. Like planet of the cats maybe. Then they can deprive the dogs of their rights.

   replyreport
5. 0

   Emily Sparksposted 13 years ago

   No, they are not humans and are not equal with us.  No, I do not think it is right to purposely abuse them, but as long as innocent children are being murdered by abortion, I am not going to bother myself with animals rights.  Again, do not abuse them for no reason.  Animals were created for us, but lets act like humans concerning our animals.

   replyreport
6. 61

   AnthonyT1978posted 13 years ago

   I agree with psycheskinner. We have a duty to take good care of our pets. So yes, I believe that pets should have rights. Of course! I'm not talking about how many people interpret it, you can't eat chicken or any type of animal. I'm talking about rights when it comes to the caring and well being of our pets. For example, when a person ties his dog on the back yard and just leaves it there for the rest of it's life, that dog's right to live well is being abused and violated, and the owner should be fined and punished for it. Same goes with someone torturing cats or any animals.
   
   We must use our common sense when it come to defining animal rights. Not go to the extreme and treat animals as if they were these holy cows from India, but obviously not be cruel with them.

   replyreport
7. 61

   NorthEast Timberposted 13 years ago

   No pets do not have rights.  You'd be a fool to give them any.  you can punish the people who hurt them, but to give them rights they would have to be able to converse with us or we would have to be able to read their minds. 
   
   As it is, a human would have to represent them so they are being represented by someone who can only assume how they feel, and we would be subject to laws and punishment thought of by people who all have their own interpretation of what cruelty is.
   
   There are really radical people out there who think we shouldn't fish or hunt animals, eat meat, walk them on a leash, ride, make them work, make them live outside, etc.  Maybe you won't be able to swim in the ocean for fear of invading some fish's privacy.
   
   Once you start that ball rolling it's only going to gather speed and mass. So leave the constituional rights to people, making laws to punish people who are cruel is a more definitive and enforcable way to keep things in line.

   replyreport
8. 0

   jasper420posted 13 years ago

   yes pets should have rights they are living breathing things they diserve to be safe and respected just as we do

   replyreport
9. 56

   MrAhSeaposted 13 years ago

   YEP pets (all animals actually) should have rights...One day the Human race will realise they are not Gods, And shouldn't stamp on all other life forms (before anyone says thinks it I'm a carnivore so maybe I'm being hypocrytical.)..Having said that actually that will once again demote me because its seems i have far fewer rights than i do wrongs in my life.

   replyreport
10. 59

    SuperSavercaposted 13 years ago

    Yes they should and do have rights, they are after all a member of the family

    replyreport
11. 0

    klevifushaposted 13 years ago

    LOL, good question. I'd say yes, up to a certain extent.

    replyreport
12. 57

    Mr Grimwigposted 13 years ago

    I believe an animal's rights are to be treated fairly and humanely, to live in a loving home which provides for it's needs, to be allowed to interact with others of it's kind and live a life at least similar to the one it would live in the wild, and to never be purposefully harmed by a human (the exception clarified below).
    
    I personally think animals should also have a right to live, but as the majority of people eat meat and can't be convinced by anything not to, I won't add that to the list.
    
    Beyond that - no. Animals do not have a level of intelligence high enough for us to create a formal bill of rights for them.

    replyreport
13. 49

    saicomputerposted 13 years ago

    
    
    Yes, I think they have also a right to give their choice for someone and They have a full rights for punish their owners if they do bad or hit their animals and pet owners must give good facilities for their pets what you actually see in this photos.

    replyreport
14. 0

    Guantaposted 13 years ago

    I think anything can be carried too far and a bill of rights for pets is a little too much.  However if you own kittie cats, you know that they already have the 'attitude' that their rights come before ours.

    replyreport
15. 78

    randomizingposted 13 years ago

    They definitely SHOULD!
    They are living creatures and deserve to be treated as such.
    Animals follow their instincts and do not think of the consequences like we do, but they have rights. They cannot be put in jail for biting someone. This is why owners have insurances on heir pets, especially if they have a dog that is likely to bite someone.
    
    I guess natural instincts cannot be punished and if we really love our pets we will deal with it since we love them so much.
    
    For example, I have a dog and has done some biting here and there to some people, but i just deal with it, cause every time the person who got bit was "wrong" as she/he (don't remember) went to touch the dog in his territory.
    In this case, the dog was just protecting his territory from people he did not know. So i support him fully.

    replyreport
16. 71

    Ann Marie Dwyerposted 13 years ago

    I think pets have a sufficient amount of rights currently. I work closely with Animal Control and my county's animal shelter (add to that adopted animals). Animals have rights to be protected against abuse and neglect because they have no voice to make their positions known. (Although my dogs are keen in letting me know their choice of sustenance.)
    
    The problem with a formal "bill of rights" is its inherent inequity. To properly craft a bill of rights, it would need to uniformly cover all animals. As the needs of animals differ vastly by species, rights appropriate for one species may well infringe upon those of another species.
    
    If left in a generic enough form to encompass all species, it would resemble the current laws protecting animals' rights to shelter, food, water and freedom from abuse.
    
    The short form: A formal animals' bill of rights would be bureaucratic overkill designed to line the pockets of attorneys prosecuting and defending it.

    replyreport