Should wild animals have rights?

They aren't humans, so why should they have human rights?

Rundeer wrote:

They aren't humans, so why should they have human rights?

Agreed, but I think as humans we, to a point, perhaps a small point, should protect certain animals in our environment in benefit of keeping species alive, and keeping the "natural" balance of things.

I'm no animal lover/obsessed fan girl, but it would just seem better if certain protection was given. Not really rights, well, whatever you call it.

That's my opinion, for now. I think.

ksrocks333 wrote:

Agreed, but I think as humans we, to a point, perhaps a small point, should protect certain animals in our environment in benefit of keeping species alive, and keeping the "natural" balance of things.

I'm no animal lover/obsessed fan girl, but it would just seem better if certain protection was given. Not really rights, well, whatever you call it.

That's my opinion, for now. I think.

It's survival of the fittest, and humans are the fittest.

Animals have no right, but we have responsibilities towards them.

C0FFINCASE wrote:

Animals have no right, but we have responsibilities towards them.

We have the responsibility to not make every non-human species extinct. :p

Let's wait for someone to take the opposite side of the argument...

no i do not think that animals should be given rights.
they cannot speak for themselves so what good is it?

Angel wrote:

no i do not think that animals should be given rights.
they cannot speak for themselves so what good is it?

Maybe they can speak but we just cant understand them.

Yes, I think they should. Not just some species of animals should be protected, but all of them. The only reason things like culling are "needed" is because of us. Humans destroy habitats and pollute natural areas. This results in a lot of animals dying, and more of another animal coming to life.

They have just as much right as us to be here.

Well, there are two contradicting statements that we all tend to agree on . . . .

1) Survival of the fittest
2) Live and let live

If you agree on both, then how can u have a conclusion? xD

Survival of the fittest is not true these days. We can live safe and happily without interrupting other animals. If it comes down to a self defence situation, like a wild animal was to attack a human, you have every right to fight back. But you also have to realise, if you are in their territory they have every right to attack you.

iAKA wrote:

1) Survival of the fittest

Everyone misunderstands Darwinism. Its not a "I'm stronger than you so I live", its about survival in the long term, its more like"He who has the most offspring wins". That;s how genetic material that shapes the evolution of animals happens not by strength.

Well yes, but they wouldnt have to if people would stop fucking around with the animals.

I mean, they should be abused but hey...it's the laws of nature, its' how life works. =/ If they die in the process humanity's idiocy, oh well.

Isn't that what animal sanctuaries and wildlife preserves are for though? So wild animals can be protected?

Not the same rights, obviously - like voting and holding office bullshit. It's not like they'd pay taxes. But I think sentient animals should have rights to life.

Out here, in India the sanctuaries are being invaded by Adivasi Tribes . . .duh! (Adivasi = Tribal)

i think humans need trry about there own rights first so no i think that wild animals shoould be sos(shot on site)

Tatsuo wrote:

I mean, they should be abused but hey...it's the laws of nature, its' how life works. =/ If they die in the process humanity's idiocy, oh well.

Alright, that's completely different. I'm not saying we should beat animals for fun, but we shouldn't place them next to humans as far as rights go.

all yall that say no ... you are all fucked up and yes not human rights but rights