Children and Annimals do not have rights - Discuss

[Sticks]

This is an odd one I picked up from some place in the dim and distant past.


The argument goes like this

You can not have rights without responsibilities.

Since animals and young children do not have responsibilities in law, then children and animals do not have any rights whatsoever.

Adults may have a duty of care, but that is a different matter.

Anyone else heard of this argument?

Does it philosophically hold water?

[Sunny_01]

Nope I think it is something said by someone who would like to think they do not have rights.

Children have exactly the same rights as adults with the additional one of having the right to be protected from harm.

Animals have the right to be treated in a humane manner.

[Captain.Remy]

Both have rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child for children and same for the animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Kind of surprising you did not know that Sticks.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Captain.Remy
Both have rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child for children and same for the animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights
http://www.unicef.org/crc/

Kind of surprising you did not know that Sticks.

According to the Wiki article about "animal rights"


Critics of the concept of animal rights argue that animals do not have the capacity to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of moral rights. The philosopher Roger Scruton argues that only human beings have duties and that "[t]he corollary is inescapable: we alone have rights." Critics holding this position argue that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for food, as entertainment, and in research, though human beings may nevertheless have an obligation to ensure they do not suffer unnecessarily.


As to the Children's rights issue, what we have is some kind of supra national statutory body explicitly having to say they exist, and one has to assume that the UK has ratified this convention, so it applies here. It comes across as "plugging a loophole" caused by the possible moral and philosophical link between rights and responsibilities. i.e some one spotted that children did not have rights and thought that they ought to, even though they did not have any corresponding responsibilities.

If that makes any sense

It is clear and undeniable that children and animals have protections in law and those over them have obligations for their care, but is that the same thing as rights? - There's the rub

[Captain.Remy]

Both are alive beings so they may not have responsabilities but it doesn't mean they can't have rights. And the rights are not made on 'who has reponsabilities or not'

[Sticks]

According to a Google search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=no+rights+without+responsibilities&btnG=Search&meta=) the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour (http://www.fathom.com/feature/121944/index.html) :conf2:

[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Sticks
According to a Google search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=no+rights+without+responsibilities&btnG=Search&meta=) the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour (http://www.fathom.com/feature/121944/index.html) :conf2:

It's not surprising, all the same. :laugh::tongue:

[bridge7too7far]

A child can divorse his parents an animal can svage you when it wants

[Matt10k]

Originally posted by Sticks
According to a Google search (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=no+rights+without+responsibilities&btnG=Search&meta=) the phrase "No rights without responsibilities" was used a lot by New Labour (http://www.fathom.com/feature/121944/index.html) :conf2:

You can take any speech/ phrase out of context.

Ask anyone in the labour party if they believe children have rights- I think you'll find they'd all say yes.

[secrets]

i believe that all animals have rights,and cruelty to animals is abhorant .
i have seen some appalling cruelty in the Middle east to animals,and its sickening.

[Sticks]

getting back to the main argument, it does not mean adults can be cruel to children and annimals as we have responsibilities to obey the law which gives them legal protection.

So this ends up in the philosophical realms, assuming New Labour do not have the copyright on the phrase No rights without responsibilities

[Tom]

I think every animal (including humans) have rights, you don't necessarily have to have responsibilities. I'd say the main rights for a human include the right to life which includes the right to essential items such as food, water etc and animals do have rights, although if animals are being killed for food instead of the right to life they have the right to a good and enjoyable life and the right to be killed humanely.

[MarkWaldorf]

Every living thing has rights. End of.

[*mazedsalv**]

Both have rights imo.

[Xander]

Both have rights, there both living things.

[Sam!]

I think they both have rights. Its not like someone can just go and kill a child and get away with it. Then again thats different with animals.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by Scampi
Its not like someone can just go and kill a child and get away with it.

According to the original argument of "No rights without responsibilities" as adults, who have rights we also have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, which prohibits the killing of a child. So just because, according to this argument a child may not have any rights, it does not mean it's open season on them.

To put it another way, a child may not in theory have the right to life, the most basic of the rights quoted, but adults have a responsibility to keep the child from harm and to preserve it's life. So that way they are protected.

If that makes sense

It is a similar argument with animals.

[James]

Clearly children and animals do have rights because they are protected by laws. 'Protection in law' is just another way of saying 'rights' - they basically are the same thing.

Responsibilites don't come into it.

[Sticks]

Some plants, like rare orchids have legal protection under various Wildlife and countryside acts, so does it follow that the plant has rights?

[Sunny_01]

I think that talking about plants etc.. is clasping at straws to use as an example.

Children and animals have a key right and that is to be protected by those who care for them. I dont agree that with rights comes responsibility, we have a huge vulnerable group of children, adults, animals in this country and to say they have to be responsible seems mad.

[Harry!]

All creatures have rights!

[Sticks]

Have not got time to read this in full, but I found this article (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights-children/)

What I have gleaned so far is that it talks about legal rights and moral rights.

Children and animals are granted by statute law, legal rights, but this may not be the same thing as moral rights. It seems the philosophy I heard of, no rights with out responsibilities refers to moral rights and some people here refer to legal rights.

So perhaps we have been talking cross purposes.

[LadyPortia]

All children and animals have rights on paper and in law.

But in secret family courts- that is not the reality.

Children in the care system are supposed to have a voice and say if they are being abused or not.

That is a LIE.

A lot of abuse is covered up in the care system in case people discover truth.

Like thousands of children disappearing from care every year.

Do you see it reported??

There is the answer.

[bigbr0ther]

Are you saying they do have rights or they should have rights?

As it is, animals and children don't have basic rights.

Animals don't have the right to live, one of the most basic freedoms that we humans take for granted.

Children don't have the right to vote, drive, drink, or even go outside at certain times, and they face constant discrimination.

I think what you're saying though is that animals and children should have rights. With this I agree completely, for the reason that no one chooses what species or what age to be.

[xSammyx]

Animals have rights to a point,
but if everyone believed they did then everyone would be vegetarians wouldnt they?

Of course children have the same rights as adults.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by xSammyx
Animals have rights to a point,
but if everyone believed they did then everyone would be vegetarians wouldnt they?

Of course children have the same rights as adults.

I agree with your post. :)

But... I think people keep using "have" to mean "should have." Animals and children do not have rights as things are; the debate is whether or not they should.

[Sticks]

It has been a while since I started this thread

Re-cap on the proposition

Someone can only have rights if they have responsibilities

Since children and animals do not have responsibilities, therefore they do not have rights whatsoever. (Moral rights rather than "paper" legal rights some feel they ought to have)

However adults have a duty of care towards children and animals which is how they are protected.

So in theory, so the argument goes, a baby has no right to live, the most basic of these rights. However, adults have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, and to kill a baby or to allow it to die is counted as being against the law of the land, which protects the baby.

So the argument goes.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
It has been a while since I started this thread

Re-cap on the proposition

Someone can only have rights if they have responsibilities

Since children and animals do not have responsibilities, therefore they do not have rights whatsoever. (Moral rights rather than "paper" legal rights some feel they ought to have)

However adults have a duty of care towards children and animals which is how they are protected.

So in theory, so the argument goes, a baby has no right to live, the most basic of these rights. However, adults have the responsibility to obey the law of the land, and to kill a baby or to allow it to die is counted as being against the law of the land, which protects the baby.

So the argument goes.

Either you disagree with that stand or you've just pointed out a flaw in your own argument.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther

Either you disagree with that stand or you've just pointed out a flaw in your own argument.


Actually it was not mine, but one I came across a while back.

As a further recap, some have pointed out that various legal statutes purport to give rights to children and animals, so they have "legal Rights", but you could interpret them as legal duties on those who are seen to be caring for said children and animals.

In the US they have this thing known as the Bill of Rights, but I am not skilled in American Law, so if anyone is, that would be most useful.

Anyway, this argument I came across, referred to moral rights, rather than legal rights, if there is such a distinction, the the supposition was, you only had rights if you had responsibilities, but part of those responsibilities was to care for those who have neither.

[bigbr0ther]

The whole argument of "no rights without responsibilities" is flawed to begin with. People who are unemployed have rights. People who are unemployed and leeching off of a friend have rights. People who inherited their money have rights. The argument implies that all of these people should lose their right not to be slaughtered and sold for food because they do not have "responsibilities."

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
The whole argument of "no rights without responsibilities" is flawed to begin with. People who are unemployed have rights. People who are unemployed and leeching off of a friend have rights. People who inherited their money have rights. The argument implies that all of these people should lose their right not to be slaughtered and sold for food because they do not have "responsibilities."


All of the people you mention, still have responsibilities, even in law

The unemployed person has the responsibility to prove they are actively seeking employment to continue to receive JSA

The leech, has a responsibility to not break the law if they are not actively seeking employment like the first example. Their friends may ask them to do things. At the very basic level he has the responsibility to get themselves dressed in the morning, or noon whenever they get up.

The person inheriting money may have the responsibility to pay inheritance tax and may still have other responsibilities, like getting washed and dressed.

Responsibilities need not be things you would add to your CV

The quote, "No rights without responsibilities" is only half of the proposition.

It disputes primarily the existence of animal rights, because an animal can have no responsibilities in the human world.

(It could be argued that in the wild, some adult animals in animal groups will be doing things for the rest of the group, like the lioness hunting the food for the pride, and therefore have responsibilities with in lion-kind that just means they have a right to a position with in the pride, so perhaps this proposition may still hold in the animal kingdom)

However, responsibilities are encumbered onto those who come into contact with animals, either on an ongoing basis or a casual basis, to care for them and not mistreat them. Should an animal be destined for the pot, the slaughterer has a responsibility to kill the animal in a humane a manner as possible. Whether we should be eating animals is a totally different argument

Likewise with young children, the idea of "Children's rights" is disputed from the moral perspective, rather than the statute rights mentioned earlier. It could be argued that these statute rights are not really rights but responsibilities to be imposed on those who have a caring role for children.

Children however must be cared for and not mistreated, and the responsibility for that will fall on the carer.

So although according to this moral argument, animals and young children do not have any rights, including the most basic one the right to life, as they have no responsibilities, it is not open season on them, as there are adults, with rights who have the responsibility to protect them, care for them and keep them from harm.

No animal or young baby is put at risk by this assertion of no rights without responsibilities, because somewhere their welfare is the responsibility of someone.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
All of the people you mention, still have responsibilities, even in law

The unemployed person has the responsibility to prove they are actively seeking employment to continue to receive JSA


Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?


The leech, has a responsibility to not break the law if they are not actively seeking employment like the first example. Their friends may ask them to do things. At the very basic level he has the responsibility to get themselves dressed in the morning, or noon whenever they get up.


Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.


The perpson inheriting money may have the responsibility to pay inheritance tax and may still have other responsibilities, like getting washed and dressed.


Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)


Responsibilities need not be things you would add to your CV

The quote, "No rights without responsibilities" is only half of the proposition.

It disputes primarily the existence of animal rights, because an animal can have no responsibilities in the human world.


Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.


(It could be argued that in the wild, some adult animals in animal groups will be doing things for the rest of the group, like the lioness hunting the food for the pride, and therefore have responsibilities with in lion-kind that just means they have a right to a position with in the pride, so perhaps this proposition may still hold in the animal kingdom)


Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.


However, responsibilities are encumbered onto those who come into contact with animals, either on an ongoing basis or a casual basis, to care for them and not mistreat them. Should an animal be destined for the pot, the slaughterer has a responsibility to kill the animal in a humane a manner as possible. Whether we should be eating animals is a totally different argument


Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.


Likewise with young children, the idea of "Children's rights" is disputed from the moral perspective, rather than the statute rights mentioned earlier. It could be argued that these statute rights are not really rights but responsibilities to be imposed on those who have a caring role for children.


What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.


Children however must be cared for and not mistreated, and the responsibility for that will fall on the carer.

So although according to this moral argument, animals and young children do not have any rights, including the most basic one the right to life, as they have no responsibilities, it is not open season on them, as there are adults, with rights who have the responsibility to protect them, care for them and keep them from harm.

No animal or young baby is put at risk by this assertion of no rights without responsibilities, because somewhere their welfare is the responsibility of someone.

So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?


They still have responsibilities to obey the law, responsibilities to at least feed themselves somehow

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.


A number of points here

As we get older and our cognition develops, we gain responsibilities and then rights follow, a child under a certain age, in law is not held accountable as they are not clinically capable of knowing right from wrong. This was once used as a plot device on CSI

Animals behave on instinct, they may attack on an instinct, like intrusion into territory, hunting for food, these are survival instincts needed for life in the wild. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise animals

An animal can of course be trained not to attack, or controlled by a human with responsibilities for that animal, which is a different matter.

Humans by contrast have a cognitive ability that develops as we get older, this separates us from the animals and is why we went on to develop the internet and they did not.

Animals being playful, that is more anthropomorphising again.


Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)


Paying death dues correctly is a heavy responsibility, as anyone who has been clobbered by the system. A comment like that betrays a certain viewpoint of certain people in a certain income bracket. Whether that viewpoint has any validity is moot I will grant that, but makes for a poor argument here. It is usually best to try and avoid letting one's emotions entering a debate.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.


In relation to humans, how?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.


Why, I am using an example from nature where instinctive and partly learned behaviour leads to animals to take on limited responsibilities with in their grouping, which gives them rights within that animal grouping. I was trying to show that the connection between rights and responsibilities is played out in nature, so how is that a logical fallacy?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.


Actually, you have the responsibility to obey the law, and in most cases, killing your neighbour is a violation of the law. Yet again this is anthropomorphising but in reverse, relating to the eating of meat, a totally different argument.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.


Emancipated? that means being set free. Are you thinking of the word orphaned? Children of the age of three trying to fend for themselves is tragic, and an indictment against those adults who have shirked their responsibilities to care for the weaker members of their community. Just because the child has been able to eek out a living does not detract from that responsibility in surrounding adults. Also why was the child orphaned in the first place, if you dig deeper who will find somewhere up the line, someone who did not live up to their responsibility.

But even so, all this shows is that the three year old, managed to develop their cognitive ability to take on the responsibility to keep themself alive.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.

I was using the old trick of arguing from the "in extremis" position. The right to life is such an "in extremis" fundamental right.

What I am getting at, is that connecting rights to responsibilities, means that a baby, with no developed cognitive ability, has no responsibilities and therefore does not have rights, which following to the in extremis logical conclusion includes the right to life. The right to vote is a right that comes way later so I could not use that one.

I am using the words,"Do Not" to indicate what the situation is, as opposed to any situation that might be proposed. To put it another way, it is telling it the way it is, not the way it might, should or could be, but the way it is.To use the word should is an emotive word here and unhelpful.

It is quite clear, from the law people are not allowed to murder children, and it is our responsibility to obey the law.

As for the probability of me having children, you are sailing close to the wind on "poisoning the well". Were I to have a wife, and then children, it would be my responsibility along with my wife, to look after, protect and care for my children and to teach them to be good citizens.

Like I said earlier, the connection of Rights to Responsibilities does not put anyone or any animal at risk.

[bigbr0ther]

I don't have time to write a long response right now (maybe I will later) but most of your argument is Appeal to Authority, another logical fallacy.

All living beings should have rights whether they also have responsibilities or not because it's impossible to decide what counts as a responsibility. Do you have a dog or a cat? If so, I'm sure you would agree that because of his species he is not capable of having responsibility, therefore he has no rights, therefore if someone decided to come over and kill him you should just shrug and decide that it was that person's right to do so.

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Er... no. What about the unemployed person who just doesn't want a job?


They still have responsibilities to obey the law, responsibilities to at least feed themselves somehow

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Ha! Responsibility not to break the law? Well then, kids have the responsibility not to break the law too! Animals have the responsibility not to attack anyone. And responsibility to get dressed? Kids have that responsibility too! And animals have the responsibility to be playful and happy bringing pleasure to their caretakers.


A number of points here

As we get older and our cognition develops, we gain responsibilities and then rights follow, a child under a certain age, in law is not held accountable as they are not clinically capable of knowing right from wrong. This was once used as a plot device on CSI

Animals behave on instinct, they may attack on an instinct, like intrusion into territory, hunting for food, these are survival instincts needed for life in the wild. It is not a good idea to anthropomorphise animals

An animal can of course be trained not to attack, or controlled by a human with responsibilities for that animal, which is a different matter.

Humans by contrast have a cognitive ability that develops as we get older, this separates us from the animals and is why we went on to develop the internet and they did not.

Animals being playful, that is more anthropomorphising again.


Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Paying an inheritance tax? Getting washed and dressed? Doesn't sound like too much responsibility. And what if that person doesn't get washed or dressed? (Even though most of them do.)


Paying death dues correctly is a heavy responsibility, as anyone who has been clobbered by the system. A comment like that betrays a certain viewpoint of certain people in a certain income bracket. Whether that viewpoint has any validity is moot I will grant that, but makes for a poor argument here. It is usually best to try and avoid letting one's emotions entering a debate.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Well, with all the "responsibilities" you've just listed, animals have quite a few.


In relation to humans, how?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.


Why, I am using an example from nature where instinctive and partly learned behaviour leads to animals to take on limited responsibilities with in their grouping, which gives them rights within that animal grouping. I was trying to show that the connection between rights and responsibilities is played out in nature, so how is that a logical fallacy?

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Yes, and if I decide to murder my neighbor, I have a responsibility to make his death quick and painless.


Actually, you have the responsibility to obey the law, and in most cases, killing your neighbour is a violation of the law. Yet again this is anthropomorphising but in reverse, relating to the eating of meat, a totally different argument.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
What about kids who are emancipated? In some countries, kids as young as three must care for themselves and prove themselves to be quite capable.


Emancipated? that means being set free. Are you thinking of the word orphaned? Children of the age of three trying to fend for themselves is tragic, and an indictment against those adults who have shirked their responsibilities to care for the weaker members of their community. Just because the child has been able to eek out a living does not detract from that responsibility in surrounding adults. Also why was the child orphaned in the first place, if you dig deeper who will find somewhere up the line, someone who did not live up to their responsibility.

But even so, all this shows is that the three year old, managed to develop their cognitive ability to take on the responsibility to keep themself alive.

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
So you're saying that kids should not have the right to life? People should be allowed to murder them? I just hope you never have kids. If you do, I feel extremely sorry for them.

I was using the old trick of arguing from the "in extremis" position. The right to life is such an "in extremis" fundamental right.

What I am getting at, is that connecting rights to responsibilities, means that a baby, with no developed cognitive ability, has no responsibilities and therefore does not have rights, which following to the in extremis logical conclusion includes the right to life. The right to vote is a right that comes way later so I could not use that one.

I am using the words,"Do Not" to indicate what the situation is, as opposed to any situation that might be proposed. To put it another way, it is telling it the way it is, not the way it might, should or could be, but the way it is.To use the word should is an emotive word here and unhelpful.

It is quite clear, from the law people are not allowed to murder children, and it is our responsibility to obey the law.

As for the probability of me having children, you are sailing close to the wind on "poisoning the well". Were I to have a wife, and then children, it would be my responsibility along with my wife, to look after, protect and care for my children and to teach them to be good citizens.

Like I said earlier, the connection of Rights to Responsibilities does not put anyone or any animal at risk.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Do you have a dog or a cat? If so, I'm sure you would agree that because of his species he is not capable of having responsibility, therefore he has no rights, therefore if someone decided to come over and kill him you should just shrug and decide that it was that person's right to do so.


Where I live I am not allowed a dog or a cat, but were I to have a pet, as I have responsibilities, the law recognises I have property rights, and that the destruction of my property by others would be unlawful.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
Where I live I am not allowed a dog or a cat, but were I to have a pet, as I have responsibilities, the law recognises I have property rights, and that the destruction of my property by others would be unlawful.

"Property" rights? So that's all your dog is to you. Just another piece of property. Another thing you own, for you to abuse as you please. Disgusting. People like you are the causes for animal abuse. A dog has consciousness. He has emotions and feelings. He has thoughts. He solves problems. But because he's not human, you think you have the right to own him. That is just sick.

[spitfire]

If something can feel pain then it has the right not to feel pain.


Yes,children and animals have rights.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
"Property" rights? So that's all your dog is to you. Just another piece of property. Another thing you own, for you to abuse as you please. Disgusting. People like you are the causes for animal abuse. A dog has consciousness. He has emotions and feelings. He has thoughts. He solves problems. But because he's not human, you think you have the right to own him. That is just sick.

You asked me what would happen if a hypothetical party killed a hypothetical dog I might own.

Pets, because in law, are classed as property (as are domestic animals that a farmer may own), so in law the offender would have to be done on those laws. Also, depending on the manner they killed this hypothetical animal they would be done under animal welfare legislation (Note Animal Welfare not animal rights)

Also note, if I owned a pet, those same animal welfare laws would also apply to me and it would be my responsibility in law to ensure the welfare of my animal. So I have a responsibility to not abuse any animal I may have in my lawful possession.

Animals may be clever, pigs are actually cleverer than dogs, but because they lack certain cognition skills, we are at the top of the food chain and are top predator. That is just the way it is.

As for a right to own an animal, that is actually a privilege rather than a right, since if anyone is found guilty of being cruel to an animal they can be banned from keeping them.

Yet again you are allowing personal feelings about how you feel things ought to be govern how you debate.

If I might ask a personal question here, are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

[bigbr0ther]

Your post is nothing but a combination of appeal to authority, appeal to common practice, and appeal to tradition, all of which are logical fallacies. And excuse me for allowing my personal opinions to come into play here... I thought that was the point of a debate.

Originally posted by Sticks
You asked me what would happen if a hypothetical party killed a hypothetical dog I might own.

Pets, because in law, are classed as property (as are domestic animals that a farmer may own), so in law the offender would have to be done on those laws. Also, depending on the manner they killed this hypothetical animal they would be done under animal welfare legislation (Note Animal Welfare not animal rights)

Also note, if I owned a pet, those same animal welfare laws would also apply to me and it would be my responsibility in law to ensure the welfare of my animal. So I have a responsibility to not abuse any animal I may have in my lawful possession.

Animals may be clever, pigs are actually cleverer than dogs, but because they lack certain cognition skills, we are at the top of the food chain and are top predator. That is just the way it is.

As for a right to own an animal, that is actually a privilege rather than a right, since if anyone is found guilty of being cruel to an animal they can be banned from keeping them.

Yet again you are allowing personal feelings about how you feel things ought to be govern how you debate.

If I might ask a personal question here, are you a vegetarian or a vegan?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by spitfire
If something can feel pain then it has the right not to feel pain.


Yes,children and animals have rights.

Very well put. :)

[Sticks]

Emotions can motivate people to act rashly. In a debate you need to use reason, logic and evidence, so appealing to common practice can be argued as providing evidence to back up a position.

With this proposition it seems people can confuse rights with welfare.

If we talk about Animal and child welfare then we can see that children and animals are protected bye stringent welfare standards, especially in the UK. Rights are not required, as welfare standards are imposed by statute and common law. Animal welfare standards require us to look after animals and keep them from harm and needless suffering, (Which is why sometimes we have to put an animal down if it is suffering)

likewise child welfare standards also requires a child to be kept safe from harm, kept safe from abuse and neglect and other provisions.

Under welfare standards, and not rights, are children and animals to be kept from pain and suffering.

[bigbr0ther]

Appeal to common practice and appeal to authority are both logical fallacies and are thus irrelevant.

[amydropdead_x]

Any living being, has rights.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by amydropdead_x
Any living being, has rights.

Lettuce?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by amydropdead_x
Any living being, has rights.

Lettuce?

Lettuce is not a living being.

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Lettuce is not a living being.

When it is growing in the field it is, as is grass

They obey the rules of FRIGMER

Plants are living, so why do people not chant on about plant's rights?

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Lettuce is not a living being.

When it is growing in the field it is, as is grass

They obey the rules of FRIGMER

Plants are living, so why do people not chant on about plant's rights?

Because plants are not conscious.

[Sticks]

But some research did show that plants felt pain

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
But some research did show that plants felt pain

:laugh3:


Pardon my laughter. Would you be so kind as to provide some sort of reference for this? I'm not buying it.

[serensilver]

so basically helpless/dependant children:flowers: and animals:flowers: dont have any rights but criminals:nono: who rob/murder/rape etc:mad: cant be named/need to have play stations in their cells because they have rights!:conf2:

i hate it as soon as they break the law their ********** rights GO OUT THE WINDOW!!!!!!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::ma d::mad::mad:

dont you agree:conf:

[Sticks]

Originally posted by bigbr0ther
Originally posted by Sticks
But some research did show that plants felt pain

:laugh3:


Pardon my laughter. Would you be so kind as to provide some sort of reference for this? I'm not buying it.

What I have found on Google so far (http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php)

This is getting off topic, the connection of rights and responsibilities.

What is overlooked is that cognisant people like us have responsibility to ensure the welfare of children and animals. This argument does not declare open hunting season.

[bigbr0ther]

Originally posted by Sticks
What I have found on Google so far (http://ds9.botanik.uni-bonn.de/zellbio/AG-Baluska-Volkmann/plantneuro/neuroview.php)

This is getting off topic, the connection of rights and responsibilities.

What is overlooked is that cognisant people like us have responsibility to ensure the welfare of children and animals. This argument does not declare open hunting season.

I couldn't find where on that page it said that plants could feel pain.

In this case I'm not really sure what the argument does declare. If adults have rights, and we have the responsibility to give children and animals rights, then won't children and animals have rights if we have properly carried out our responsibilities?

[Sticks]

Today on BBC Radio 4's Law in Action they were discussing this

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7838424.stm)

What they were talking about is that children and animals may not have rights, but they have protections

As I said earlier, saying children and animals do not have rights because they have no responsibilities does not mean open season on them as they have protections.