Psychiatric Help and Animals

I think there's a good reason why cruelty to animals is a crime, while bedwetting and pyromania (as opposed to, say, arson) are not. The notion that people should have a right to torture their pets is only marginally less insane than the people who would actually exercise such a dubious "right."

X: Animals are things and have no more moral right to protection than do rocks or trees or computers. People may choose to treat animals differently than these other things, but we're under no moral obligation to do so.

Perhaps, "animals are things," but "rocks or trees or computers" cannot feel pain. Animals can. I can't imagine that God would find it moral for us to mistreat animals.

When God said that we were to have dominion over the animal world, I don't think he meant to do with them as we please.

Either this is another one of your tongue in cheek posts, or you have a seriously warped sense of morality. Rocks, trees and computers can't feel pain. Cats and dogs can. Anyone who thinks he's under no moral duty to treat his pets better than I treat my computer has no business owning pets.

All: I'm basically completely serious. People with absolutely no difficulty eating and wearing animals cringe at the thought of kitties and doggies feeling pain. Guess what? I bet getting made into hamburgers and shoes hurts a little. And even if you think it doesn't, the animal still dies. Is pain the only criteria you're using here?

People project emotions onto animals in a ridiculous and unrealistic way. That's fine, but that projection doesn't create a moral obligation for anyone.

JT: Rather than argue about the meaning of the word "dominion", please point to a passage in the Bible that commands or encourages us to treat animals well.

X: I don't own pets. If I lived on a farm where, say, dogs would be useful for protecting my property I would definitely do so. Or if there were a rat problem I'd own cats. And so forth. People who buy animals with the express purpose of becoming emotionally attached to them are very odd.

Better yet, try to think of all the Tylenol or aspirin you've ever taken and then think of all the mice and pigs and dogs that were given diseases and ailments and then all the experimental treatments they went through before they found the one that worked.. That's a lot of sympathy to distribute.

X: You're wrong about computers. My computer feels pain, in fact he's feeling it now. He gave me the silent treatment after I did something very bad to him, and while he's away now at the computer hospital I cry myself to sleep every night, awaiting his return. I will never mistreat him again.

Michael,

If I had a clue from whence you come or where you go with this post, I'm might try to argue.

Personally, I don't favor killing animals for their hide alone. As to animals that we eat, I think there is a stark difference between relatively brief, albeit intense, pain that animals feel upon being killed for slaughter. However, to say that that is no different than torturing animals for hours or days, or setting animals on fire, well I just don't get it.

Have you ever thought that your attitude about something such as this might be your way of avoiding some deep pain in your own psyche?

Michael has an interesting point here: Why should pain be the criterion? Suppose that the 11-year-old girl had just killed the kitty painlessly. Would that have been a crime, or as serious of a crime?

Now suppose that you're the kitty. Which would you prefer to be the victim of: the serious crime of pain or the less-serious crime of painless death?

JT: I've got all sorts of pain in my psyche, but I don't hide from it. Nor have I ever tortured an animal, for that matter. I just don't see what the big deal is. Animals are things, they aren't people, even though they share some characteristics with people. Animals are objects to be used and enjoyed. Treating animals properly generally centers around making them as useful as possible to human beings. As michelle said, humans "torture" animals all the time and we all reap the benefits of it -- some of us may just not like to face facts. As for using animals for clothes... Genesis 3:21 pretty much says it all.

BB: That's my point. If something can be killed essentially at will, then it can also be tortured at will. Now, I'd admit that a person who would enjoy inflicting pain on an animal would be pretty repulsive to me because such pain is so analagous to human pain, and a person who likes inflicting pain on animals will probably also want to inflict pain on humans. Still, that doesn't make it wrong; there are lots of behaviors I find repulsive that should certainly not be illegal, and may not even be immoral.

In some cases the killing of an animal has a greater utility: we get their meat, or hides, or protection from their predation. Killing for no reason whatsoever, or killing because you you were clumsy and didn't mean to kill, or killing for the thrill of it is tough to defend. The animals feel pain or fear, or the simple consequence-free thrill kill of animals cheapens the value of *human* life.

I realize you are serious, Michael. So, let me pay you the courtesy of being blunt. This way lies madness. You sound like one of those nut-case Libertarians that attempts to logically derive every action from first principles, leading to bizarre and ugly consequences. Look at it from a utilitarian perspective: no woman you would want to date would tolerate this sort of thinking in her man.

If something can be killed essentially at will, then it can also be tortured at will.

And with that, I'd like to induct you into the Non Sequitur Society, where "we may not make sense, but we do like pizza." Seriously, dude, where the hell did that come from? Killing animals for food, clothing, etc. in as humane a manner as reasonably possible is fine. Intentionally inflicting pain on them simply as an end in itself is not. Is that distinction really so hard to grasp?

Consider people, by analogy. Killing people is usually, but not always, wrong. Torturing them almost always is. Few abortion rights activists would argue that it is acceptable for a bored pregnant girl to torture her wanted fetus during the period when she could legally abort it if it were unwanted. As to the born, I'd really have to go out on a limb to come up with a scenario in which it is OK to torture someone in self-defense, or to torture a convicted murderer solely because "gee, we could be executing him instead."

Or look at it this way: if your idea is so far out there that Joel Thomas and I end up agreeing opposition, it's probably pretty whacked.

I actually find the viewpoint that it is ok (or just not a big deal) to torture/kill your "property" animal far more odd (and disturbing) than that of people who get companion animals to fill a personal void.

Especially considering that as someone said above, torturing animals is indicative of a dysfunctional thought process. Whereas owning a companion animal has been linked to more positive things such as reduced blood pressure and a longer life span.

While I'm no animal rights activist, Michael, you seem to be resting your case on a single simple point. "Animals aren't people, thus they are property." One objection has already been raised - why is personhood the criterion for moral consideration? Why isn't the ability to feel pain? Or sentience? There are other possible criteria. The important part is that you've failed to defend yours. Second, how do you define personhood? Princeton ethicist Peter Singer demonstrates the difficulty of this delineation by arguing that some highly intelligent "animals" might be more active/productive/aware than some severely retarded human babies. I won't accuse you of "speciesism," but you should be aware of this argument and the fact that it makes your claims look very simplistic.
You'll need to flush out a much deeper theory about why only persons (as you define them) deserve moral consideration, because right now you're coming across as a cruel sadist.

JD: I am most certainly a speciest.

X: All your comparisons to human torture are beside the point, because I don't think animals and humans are similar in that way. Yes, torturing people is bad, but it doesn't necessarily follow that torturing animals is bad. Is the only connection you posit between them that both animals and humans feel pain? Or is there something else? What other "rights" do you think animals have? What animals? Is the only real criteria that hurting some animals makes you feel bad, ergo I should feel bad too?

BC: "In some cases the killing of an animal has a greater utility: we get their meat, or hides, or protection from their predation. Killing for no reason whatsoever, or killing because you you were clumsy and didn't mean to kill, or killing for the thrill of it is tough to defend." My point is that torturing animals doesn't need to be defended. Isn't that the point of liberty? I don't need to justify my actions to you unless they infringe on your liberties. I agree that it's pretty demented to enjoy torturing animals, but I also think it's demented to engage in homosexual sex and to shoot heroin. Should those be illegal?

"Look at it from a utilitarian perspective: no woman you would want to date would tolerate this sort of thinking in her man." I don't think that's true, but even if it were, what's your point? That all rational thought should be discarded to the extent that it keeps us from getting laid? (There are certainly many men and women who live that way, true.)

In the end, the only real argument I'm hearing from you folks is that animals feel pain, just like humans. So what? So that makes you feel bad? Why should something be illegal (or immoral) just because it makes you feel bad? You can't shift the burden to me to justify why torturing animals is ok, because that shift defies my concept liberty wherein the group arguing for restriction has to show why it's necessary. I don't have to justify torturing animals any more than I have to justify reading books about space or drinking diet soda. (Again, note, I don't torture animals, I just think I have the right to do so.)

Michael, I've seen a lot of unorthodox opinions on your website, such as “The 19th Amendment -- Good Idea?,” and read them with an open mind because I generally respect your opinion and your thoughts and don’t mind being challenged by someone who can present his ideas in a sensible manner, but this really takes the cake. I have to agree with Bruce here, this is one idea I sure wouldn’t tolerate in a man I was considering dating, and I don’t think it’s just because I’m some sappy illogical woman.
As a Christian, you have to know the danger of trying to make a conclusion on the morality/immorality of something based merely on logic, not to mention the stupidity of the assumption that because something isn’t spelled out as immoral in the bible means that it’s ok. Often we have to make educated guesses on these issues based on the gist of certain passages and what we know about God’s character. Abortion is one such issue. There is not place in the bible that expressly spells out abortion as wrong, but it’s not hard to figure out what we should do. So let me point out what I see in the “gist” of the first three chapters of Genesis.
Genesis 1:11-12 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:20-22 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
You’ll notice that God saw that both the vegetation and the living creatures were good, but he only blessed the living creatures, like he blessed Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28. God obviously does not see living creatures as morally equivalent to vegetation.
Genesis 2:18-22 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him." Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
Notice the order: God says it is not good for man to be alone, then he has Adam name them, as he names his wife in Genesis 3:20, and then he makes Eve. I don’t think this is a coincidence, as I don’t think anything in the Bible is a coincidence. This leads me to believe that even though animals are not able to be a helper to Adam, they are still companions to him. Again, they are obviously not morally equivalent to plants and the other non-animate things God made. God did not have Adam name any of these other things, and did not make any of these things after he said it was not good for Adam to be alone.
Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
And finally, this verse makes it clear that God’s moral law has been written on men’s hearts ever since Adam and Eve. Therefore, I think it’s pretty safe to assume that if 99% of the world thinks it’s wrong to torture animals for no practical reason, and everything we can find in the Bible tends to support rather than refute that position, then we can assume it really is wrong.

Raina: "I don’t think it’s just because I’m some sappy illogical woman. As a Christian, you have to know the danger of trying to make a conclusion on the morality/immorality of something based merely on logic, not to mention the stupidity of the assumption that because something isn’t spelled out as immoral in the bible means that it’s ok. Often we have to make educated guesses on these issues based on the gist of certain passages and what we know about God’s character."

Aren't the educated guesses you advocate the product of logic, which you disparage?

I think you're reading an awful lot into a few passages of scripture that say nothing about the "rights" of animals. There are hundreds of commands about how we are to treat other people -- not murder, not steal, be generous, and so forth -- but there are no passages (to my knowledge) that command similar treatment for animals. If treating animals in a certain way were important, God would have said something about it directly, don't you think? There are all sorts of minor laws and commands throughout the OT, and none of them mention animal cruelty. Heck, God commanded animal sacrifice by the thousand, and if you read the procedures it was probably awfully painful. I don't think you have a scriptural leg to stand on.

You don't really think that if 99% of people think something is right/wrong it's automatically so, do you? I mean, there are really hundreds of instances in which this isn't so.

OK, I'm going to try my hand at this: let's accept, arguendo, that animals are property and you have the right to do whatever you want with them. Your house is also your property, and you have the right to do whatever you want with it (assuming you aren't bound by some homeowner's agreement or something).

It is against the law to let your house run down to the point where it is a fire hazard. Why? Isn't the house your property? Well, it is, but when it begins to pose a hazard to others, the state is justified in intervening. Note that the house doesn't have to actually get set on fire for the danger to exist.

It is against the law to torture animals. Why? Aren't they your property? Well, they are, but torturing animals is only done to satisfy a psychopathic urge. Having psychopaths running around in society poses a hazard to others, and the state is justified in intervening. Kids like this poor soul don't have to actually become psychopathic murderers for the risk to exist.

It is not wrong to cause pain to an animal; we usually need to do so for the purposes of getting food or clothing, or sometimes for "disciplining" an animal (a slap on the snout or heinie in housetraining them, for instance). As people made in the image of God, though, we ought to take whatever steps possible to cause as little pain as possible in achieving these ends, and treat animals as humanely as possible without blurring the distinction between us and them.

It is wrong, however, to needlessly cause pain to an animal or to torture or harm an animal for essentially no reason. It is wrong because it is an abuse of the dominion God has given us over nature. It is also wrong because deriving pleasure or amusement from causing pain is an abuse of the imago dei and a perversion of right thinking.

I have to say that I find it distressing that a Christian, of all people, would find nothing wrong with torturing or abusing animals. They have been entrusted to us by God, and we ought to respect -- not abuse -- the dominion God has given us over them.

WH: That would be a reasonable argument if you think that torturing animals creates psychopaths, but I think it's much more likely that torturing animals is just a symptom of already-existing pathology.

Jared: Please explain and justify how using animals for entertainment is an "abuse of dominion". If you look up dominion (and radah, the Hebrew word) you'll see that it implies total control and sovereignty. Again, please point to a place in scripture where God explains what types of things are wrong to do to animals and what restrictions there are on our dominion over them.

Dominion does mean total control, but that does not approve abuse. What sort of spirit is evident in the needless harm caused to an animal? It does not accurately reflect the imago dei. God has total sovereignty over we puny humans, but He does not take pleasure even in the death of the wicked.
We have been given a sacred authority over the animals, they are in our care, and it is my contention that we ought to respect that.

We may go as far as the biblical mandate allows; that is, we may "use" animals for our legitimate needs -- food, clothing, the general and hypothetical "betterment" of mankind (like disease research, etc.).

But to be ambivalent about -- or worse, to take pleasure in -- the abuse or pain of an animal disrespects the sacred trust God has given us. It is an abuse, from my understanding of the biblical mandate and parameters, of dominion. The misuse of any of God's creatures is a disrespect to creation and violation of dominion.

God has dominion over man. Do you think that as a human being who was given dominion over creation we should maybe use God's example to model how we treat lesser creatures?

I am not at all disparaging the use of logic. Logic is a friend of the Christian and I would never intend to suggest otherwise. I'm disparaging the use of logic by itself without any support from the Bible or contemplation of God's character.

Nor do I mean to suggest that the mere test of morality is whether 99% of the people agree with a moral statement. But I do think that when 99% of the people agree with the moral statement, and the Bible does not deal with it clearly, and the moral statement seems in character with God; then most likely that moral statement is true, which I think is the case here.

I don't know that I'm saying that treating animals correctly is vastly important when compared with the many other things the Bible deals with, but that doesn't mean that it has no moral value at all. As I said before, just because the Bible does not directly deal with an issue does not mean we can make any assumptions about its morality. Again, abortion is not specifically dealt with in the bible, but I think it's important and immoral, and obviously so do you.

My point in citing those scriptures was not even to conclude that treating animals poorly is wrong, but to point out that one of your premises in your argument is wrong. Your argument, as stated above in the comments seems to be:
P1: Animals are things.
P2: Things have no moral right to protection.
C: Therefore it is not immoral to torture animals for no reason.
I think P1 is refuted by those Bible passages. From the first three chapters of Genesis, I see pretty clearly that while animals certainly are not in any way equivelent to humans, they are also not equivelent to inanimate objects. The fact that God commanded animal sacrafices and commanded us to have dominion over animals and such does not make animals equivelent to inanimate objects. That doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily false, but it means you haven't proved your case at all.

please point to a place in scripture where God explains what types of things are wrong to do to animals and what restrictions there are on our dominion over them.

I realize I didn't respond to this. I didn't think I had time at first. But I'll give it a cursory go after doing a little searching.

Proverbs 12:10 -- "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal, but the kindest acts of the wicked are cruel."
Proverbs 27:23 -- "Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds."
Exodus 20:10 -- we must rest our animals on the Sabbath
Exodus 23:5/Deuteronomy 22:4 -- we should help out when a friend's animal has fallen over from a too heavy load
Deuteronomy 22:6-7 -- instructs merciful care of birds (letting the mother bird go if one takes the little birds for food)
Job 38:41 -- God hears the cries of little ravens needing food

All these verses, plus what I see as the logical extension of the spirit of caring for God's creation and properly demonstrating the imago dei, speak to the relatively humane treatment of animals. If the Bible would speak to the proper care of animals in this way, surely it is implicit that mistreatment of them is wrong. Or that at least there are some improper ways to treat animals.
Animals are not equal to us or anything like that. I'm no PETA person. The Bible clearly allows the use of animals for food, clothing, etc.

But I'd also like to take back my concession that our dominion implies "total control" over God's creation. The whole earth is God's, and what he has given us dominion over is best thought of as stewardship. Money is neutral, and it is a gift from God, but the abuse of it is wrong. Likewise, we must exercise proper stewardship of the animals we have dominion over.

I also think it is fairly self-evident -- as it seems to be to almost everyone here ;-) -- that abusing or torturing animals demonstrates indecency and is a denigration of ourselves as bearers of God's image.

What other "rights" do you think animals have?

First, I think one species of animal - humans - has a righit not to be misquoted. I never said anything about animals having "rights," yet there the word is in your response, quotes and all. You pulled the same stunt on Raina, who also hadn't said anything about animal "rights." Quotes are for what the other guy said, not for what you've decided he/she might have meant (and, in my case at least, did not in mean). Enough already.

I think Bruce hit the nail on the head. You warped sense of morality seems to stem from an assumption that any act not expressly condemned by the Bible is presumptively moral, and that anything that doesn't violate recognized clear, cognizable rights of another human should not be illegal. That is insane. On the Biblical level, wantonly misusing, let alone destroying, anything God made should be presumptively immoral. Doing so in a sick and sadistic manner, more so. On the secular level, intentionally causing suffering is presumptively immoral. Both presumptions can be overcome under the right circumstances - e.g., killing an animal may be necessary to feed humans, and some pain may be inevitable - but that's just the point; there has to be a justification beyond the facile "my victim is non-human, and therefore has no rights."

In fact, some acts that don't necessarily cause suffering are still so depraved that they should be, and rightly are, prohibited by law. If someone has sex with a goat, send him to prison. I don't want to hear expert testimony on whether or not the goat consented, was capable of consenting, need not consent, actually initiated the encounter, enjoyed it, etc. Just lock the perv away, dammit. And whatever you do, don't ask whose goat it was, or whether the owner consented, unless you're thinking of tacking on a separate, relatively minor charge of trespass to chattels/livestock (or go after the owner too, in the event that he did consent).

X: Sorry for the use of quotes in a misleading/confusing way.

I think you hit on an interesting point regarding motivation, because it's quite clear that God takes our motivations into account when judging the rightness of our actions. It may be perfectly fine for me to fire an employee, but if I do it because I want to hurt the person then my motivation can taint an otherwise neutral act. It's quite reasonable to argue that the vast majority of the time, people who torture animals do it to satisfy evil desires, which then taint the otherwise neutral killing/hurting of an animal. This rationalization would also serve to justify medical experimentation and so forth. The problem with it is that as a society we don't like making laws based on motivation, even though we do allow for motives to affect, say, sentencing. Plus, of course, who gets to decide what's a good motive and what's a bad motive? It gets very subjective. Also, psychopaths don't really experience the same sorts of emotions that normal people do (by definition), so it's hard to know how this criteria would be applied to them.

Jared: Proverbs 12:10 looks particularly applicable, although it must of course be mitigated by the fact that most animals (especially back then) were raised to be purposefully killed. Still, good verse.

Further, you hint at the motivational criteria, which I think has some interesting consequences.

We normally tend to allow good motives to excuse otherwise bad actions (killing in self-defense, for instance) but we don't generally allow bad motives to make otherwise good/neutral actions punishable (for example, I can say all the terrible things I want about you and try to damage your reputation, as long as all the things I say are true). But using this motivational criteria, you're arguing that hurting animals is wrong in cases where it's improperly motivated.

I think that's a good spiritual argument, but I'm not sure it's sufficient to justify a law protecting animals. Some cultures/beliefs value different motivations differently, and reacing agreement for which are ok might be contentious.

I don't think that killing an animal is morally neutral. I think it is a moral negative, that must either be outweighed by a positive (e.g., needing to eat, find cures for disease, etc.) or it isn't. And if it isn't, I see no reason why it shouldn't be punished.

I also disagree with your suggestion that society never sanctions morally neutral acts + bad motives. Motive, intent, and the like are a major element of criminal law. As they say, even a dog can tell the difference between being kicked and being stumbled over.

In addition to the verses Jared cited, there's also Deuteronomy 25:4 - "Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain."

I think it's pretty obvious that animals are "things" of a completely different sort than rocks and computers and so forth. There are many reasons for this distinction, but I think one thing that should be noted is what Michael said about God demanding animal sacrifices. The reason God demanded sacrifice is at least partly because the sins of humankind demanded their own lifeblood as payment. The sacrifice of animals, however, served as a sort of substitution (at least until the real, final sacrifice came along), and also served to remind the ancient Hebrews that sin did (and still does) exact a terrible price--blood and death. Animals are living beings--if they were not, they would have no use in sacrifice to God, because they would have no lifeblood to offer. Although animals are not quite in the same category as humans, they are still much closer to us than to rocks and computers, or even to plants.

X: Interesting how obvious it is to you that torturing animals for fun is wrong, and yet abortions of convenience are okey-dokey.

Sorry, but I too am going to have to interject with a "dude, WTF."

Search my archive for the term "abortion," you won't find me raving about the joy of abortion. OTOH, if you can't see the problem with torturing fully developed, conscious animals but do have too big of a problem with an abortion at the pre-cognitive stages, then I submit that you are having trouble distinguishing the potential from the actual.

X: I'm not "raving about the joy" of animal torture. I think it's sick. But I think people have a right to torture animals. I'll even concede that it's immoral to torture animals for the purpose of cruel entertainment (because it's always wrong to do things out of cruelty).

Two comments,

First, with humans, torture can be said to have a purpose beyond cruel entertainment, ie the gathering of information and such. With animals, torture is basically defined as hurting an animal for the purposes of cruel entertainment. I don't consider hurting an animal for a purpose such as food, animal sacrifice, or medical research to be torture. Therefore, unless your definition is different, you must believe torture of animals is immoral, according to what you said above.

Which brings me to my second point. Where are you getting this right to torture animals from? There are God given rights and man given rights. God doesn't give us the right to do things that are immoral, and since you conceded animal torture to be immoral, then it's not a God given right. Man gives rights by making laws, and apparently since it's currently illegal to torture animals, then we have no man given right to animal torture. The only other place you can be getting this from is some libertarian logic. I also have libertarian leanings, except when that logic starts handing out rights to do things which are patently immoral, such as abortion for instance. I would agree with the libertarian position that there should not be laws outlawing sodomy, even though I think it's immoral, but that's not because I think that people should or do have any sort of right to sodomy, but because I think the detriments of the law outweight the benefit to society.

Folks, maybe I'm wrong - and I hope I'm not - but methinks me smells a rat. A non-tortured rat, if you will.

Methinks me also smells a straw man argument, or more succinctly a devil's advocate argument here.

What clinched it for me was this:

X: Interesting how obvious it is to you that torturing animals for fun is wrong, and yet abortions of convenience are okey-dokey.

I think Michael is using this argument to exercise people's brains to defend actions that are morally ambiguous - actions such as...oh, I don't know...say, abortion. Arguments that can't be proven or disproven by logic or law, but have very strong moral arguments based on common morality, religious and other subjective-based beliefs.

Passages condemning abortion can't be found straight out in the Bible (that I know of) but taken as a whole the underlying meaning might be said to suggest the Bible condemns it.

Pro-choice people believe women have a right to choose what is done to their own bodies, but pro-lifers believe the life of an unborn child supercedes those rights.

Taking that argument and translating it into a less volatile, everyone-but-Michael-is-against-it-and-thinks-
he's-crazy "straw man" contention and you have a
basis for arguing abortion without arguing abortion :)

But you are forced to use parallel logic to defend it. Thus people who are pro-choice (Xlrq? Is that correct?) end up using similar arguments against animal torture that pro-lifers use against abortion.

And as such, are forced (subconsciously) to examine the bases for their own convictions in a much more volatile and significant issue.

Am I right?

I hope to God you are, Barry.

This reminds me of the personal webpage of a teenage girl I was reading once. She had a bunch of essays on topics up that were so poorly thought out that they were basically just repetions of popular culture. One was your typical diatribe on old white men telling women that they have to be barefoot and pregnant their whole lives and, *gasp,* shouldn't kill their unborn babies. Another was an account of some terrible terrible person drowing a litter of unwanted kittens, which was told in horrifying detail. She may not have seen the contradiction, but I sure did.

I have to say the opposite is, um, interesting to say the least.

Barry, if you are right, MW's point wasn't as completely whacked as I thought. Even so, if I was the target of the analogy, he picked a lousy target. I am pro-choice to a limited extent, but only for the first trimester, and am morally opposed to casual abortions even at that stage. Search my archive for "abortion" and you'll find a lot more negative references than positive ones.

In fact, I see elective abortions much the same way I see the needless killing of animals: both involve killing a life form that falls short of a full-fledged human being with legally cognizable rights, but which probably should enjoy some limited protection nevertheless (e.g., a law that generally prohibits the killing of X unless you have a good reason to do so).

"I think that you are a fucking asshole and maybe someone should torture you and see how you like it, you're nothing but a sick and twisted fucking freak!!!!!"

It's pretty simple. When you take responsibility of an animal and assume ownership, you have a responsibility to that animal to take care of it and ensure it feels no unnecessary pain.

If you are a sadist who wants something to torture, go and find a consenting masichist, but leave the unconsenting, helpless animal who has unwillingly ended up in your "care" out of it.

CH: Why does taking ownership of an animal give someone a responsibility to take care of it or protect it? Do I have a responsibility to take care of my car and protect it, or can I treat it however I want?

Now it seems to me someone just has not spent enough time with animals to know that they are different from computers.
Some reasons why a cat (or pig) is different from a car or computer:

1. Cars do not need to socialize with other cars or humans. They do not have emotional needs. They do not have any emotion at all. Cats do. Just as with humans, locking a cat up in with no contact with other animals is a form of torture. Cats have emotion, and feelings. This is not some crazed old lady who thinks her cats are her children. But cats can be happy, sad, angry, worried, lonely, and more, if you want to contest this live with a cat for a couple weeks.

2. Cars can not understand language, or learn commands or tricks. Even cat lovers say that cats can not be trained, but they simply do not have the willingness to please that dogs do.
Given proper motivation (treats), cats can learn many words and phrases. They won't always obey them, but that just shows they have intelligence and a will.

3- 3 million. Well, every pet owner with anything smarter than a hamster will have their own stories. Some of mine:

A car can not know when you are sick and lie on your bed when you are.

A car can not learn how to open a cabinet to get to the cat food, and then learn how to open a child proof lock.

And of course the list goes on...
I do not believe killing animals is wrong, but I believe torturing them is. So what is your proof that animals are objects?

KJ: No proof is needed. Animals are either objects with no rights, or they're human beings with all the rights of everyone else. There's nothing in between. Until an animal can sue in court, they have no rights. Whether they have "emotions" (as you call them) or can do tricks is irrelevant.

Thank you, I think I understand.

Well animals obviously do not have the same level of capability of understanding that most humans do. But why is it everything or nothing?
Why would there be amoebas and other primitive forms of life which are no more than biotic programs, and than humans, with their complete thought processes, with nothing in between?
Can't a creature have a small degree of thought?
Just not as much as ourselves? And wouldn’t they be entitled to at least have lives free of unrequired torture?

Sadly, many humans do not have the capability or intelligence to sue in court. Some are the moderately to severely mentally handicapped. They do not have exactly the same rights as most humans, but they still have some. It’s the same thing with small children. Why can't sufficiently intelligent creatures be treated a little like that? Of course, killing them would still be okay; otherwise you would have to charge every carnivore in the woods.

I am definitely not saying animals should have the same rights as small children. Just trying to give you examples of situations in which being have some rights but not others.

It really is ridicules, even cruel, to believe that other animals are the same as humans and deserve the same rights.
But they still feel pain, and someone has to speak up for those without voices.

Just because they can't talk does not mean they can't feel or think.

KJ: Absolutely, and if someone wants to impart and protect rights to an animal it's easy to do so, just buy it. Then it becomes your property and you can take legal action to protect it.

Of course that would work. Just like adopting all of the children in the world would prevent them from being abused.

One of the points I made in my last post, if you read it, was a comparison in mental ability, feeling, and reasoning, between many animals, and small children or the mentally handicapped.
What you said with the appropriate terms substituted in for this similar situation is:

Absolutely, and if someone wants to impart and protect rights to a [mentally handicapped person] it's easy to do so, just [obtain guardianship]. Then [he/she] becomes [in your care] and you can take legal action to protect [him/her].

If you cannot spot the problems in this, then you are not the intelligent being I assumed you to be.
Also, does this sound relevant to you, in any way, to certain conflicts going on right now?

If you were simply referring a solution to my comment about “speaking up to those without voices”, then I am sorry to say that was more of a rather clichéd endnote, not an actual point to be made. The questions posed above said statement were what I had intended to be the real subject matter of the post.

My bad, I will leave my philosophical musings out of the discussion, which should prevent them from being debated on.

If you need help with any difficult words, just ask.

KJ: Sorry, I did misunderstand. I had assumed that it went without saying that a human, by virtue of their species, implicitly deserved more protection than an animal, even one with similar intelligence. That's my position, and I think most people would agree with me. It's "specist" or whatever the species equivalent of "racist" is. Humans are to be preferred and treated differently because they're human, part of our group. Animals aren't, so they get less protection. A mentally handicapped person is still human, and should be treated differently than a dog that's as smart as the person. People can't be property, animals can. And so forth.

No, my fault. I tried to make it clear that it
IS wrong, even abusive, to treat animals as human, because they are not human. Even if a dog is as intelligent as a human, it still thinks like a dog.
If you read my post more closely you would note a repetition of such words as "similar", "slightly", and "comparable to", as opposed to "just like", "the same", and "equal".

"Animals aren't, so they get less protection."

Exactly. Well said.

So are we agreed now that animals deserve less protection?

I will leave it to you to spot the key word here.

Hopefully, everyone is speciest to some degree. I would hate to meet someone who believed jellyfish were equal to them.

animals are here for our use/pleasure. i have a cat because she brings joy to my home. if she were some great burden she would not be with us. i have steak because i'm hungry and enjoy the taste. some animals are useful such as goats, mules, and horses. others provide articles of clothing. there are those that try to place animals on the same level as humans. they, to be frank, are nuts. i feel that a person should be allowed to treat their animal as they like. i see shows on tv about animal police and have to wonder do they not have "real" crimes to investigate. if someone mistreats an animal then they are pretty low but i don't think the law needs to get involved. perhaps they could have taken the girl and the cat to her parents and let them deal with the situation. would have been cheaper for the taxpayer and probably just as effective.

How can any supposedly Christian person support misuse of animals?! Animals weren’t created for us! If anything, we were created for them, to rule them and subdue them and replenish them (Gen. 1:26). They are not ours; they are Gods (Ps. 50:10). We have the right to eat them (Tim. 4:4), but not to do whatever the heck we want. We have a responsibility as their rulers. That means care for them, govern them, manage them, and make sure they fill the seas and skies, and woods and fields.

“fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth” Gen. 1:22.

You know, it seems that whales aren’t quite filling the seas like they used to. Not to mention God’s Chilean Sea Bass, Belugas, or Bluefin Tuna, just to name a few. And how about those moas, or the auks, or dodos? This might sound a little hasty, but I don’t think we’ve been doing a very good job of letting God’s fowl multiply in the Earth. I seem to recall carrier pigeons filling the skies at some point, but haven’t seen any fruitfully multiplying as of late. Weren’t we supposed to be, like, doing something about that? Or can we just do anything we want...