Human Rights vs. Animal Rights: Is There a Difference?

That is the designation given in the Califormia civil code under animal laws. The sheer number of laws dealing with animals is mind-boggling. There is some attempt made to insure humane treatment of every species from pet animals to livestock.

In the end, however, the lawmakers, as usual, miss the boat and end up with ineffective and half-baked "protections." I cannot cite chapter and verse here--the list is far too long and couched in the excessive verbiage of "legalese"--suffice it to say the laws read more to make excuses and exceptions to said laws than offer any real protections. The same is true for virtually every state.

It seems to be a sad truth that many humans, and particularly those in postitions of power, still view "non-human animals" as less deserving of safety, compassion and protection. This angers me.

There is no excuse for using animals for research of any type. Seriously. While this may be technically legal, the rationale is flawed. While we are all, indeed, animals, (as I point out in my related hub), with many traits in common, still and all, a dog, rabbit, or guinea pig is not a human, and test results from one cannot reasonably be extrapolated to the other.

Therefore, all animal testing should cease. We have sufficiently advanced computer technology and knowledge of human physiology and chemistry to be able to analyze initial safety of any given compound prior to starting human tests on volunteers.

Anything in serious doubt at the end of the computer analysis stage should probably be abandoned as unsafe. Goodness knows, in spite of all this so-called 'safety testing' on animals, there have been plenty of dangerous drugs and topical potions seep through. Countless recalls and lawsuits have resulted.

So much for animal testing as a predictor of safety for use in humans. Some of us are old enough to recall the Thalidomide tragedy. In spite of "testing" in which researchers "...could not find a dose high enough to kill a rat," countless birth defects resulted. No, you don't have to be killed to be adversely affected.

What if it was people subject to these unecessarily cruel experiments and bogus tests? Would you volunteer for the initial testing proceedures, with your brain opened up and wired to a machine?

What if it was your child, or your own pet dog or cat in that laboratory? Human rights/animal rights. it's all one and the same thing.

Sometimes, in the case of small animals such as mice, rats and guinea pigs, they are bred for the purpose. They are born, given new life, only for the purpose of living that life in suffering and to be sacrificed in the name of science. This is just not right.

What these pseudo-scientists do to animals, they are equally capable of doing to humans. It is a mindset, not a job description. Don't you find that a frightening thought?

Remember the movie, Planet of the Apes? Sure, that was a Hollywood fiction, but put yourself in the shoes of the humans in that story. It could just as well have worked out that way. How would you like it?

 Other products, not intended as medicine or for consumption are still tested to this day on innocent animals with no voice in their fate.

This melange of products includes everything from gasoline to garden fertilizers.  The way they determine toxicity is a nefarious scheme called the LD-50 test.  Never heard of it?  They don't like to publicize it.

Here's how it works:  In order to determine the Lethal Dose (the "LD" part of the equation), they administer by various means (ingestion, injection, topical application, inhalation) a specified quantity of the agent being tested.  Then they measure how many animals have died.  They repeat, increasing the dose level until they have succeeded in slaughtering 50% of the subjects.  (There's the "50" part).  So, the number on the package following the LD-50: tells you how much it took to kill all these poor animals.

The real problem here, is that these are no longer tests ! These products have been 'tested' to death--literally--to the deaths of countless thousands of poor wee beasts. They already know the product is harmful or toxic!

Animal testing makes no more sense than nuclear testing. Once you know something works, does not work, or is dangerous, the testing is finished. Continued repetition is nothing more than abuse.

Why, then, do they keep repeating these same proceedures?? This is a horrid menace haunting our human race, and destroying our very humanity. If we do not think of our fellow animals as brothers whom we should protect and nurture, how can we expect to stop violence between people? We cannot.

Animal "testing" is an evil and outdated practice that must stop. This is the true definition of moral depravity--picking on those who are defenseless. The laws must be changed to protect our brethren lest all hope is lost for ourselves. So no, there is no difference between animal and human rights. The oft-quoted "golden rule" applies to all creatures.

Of course animals have souls. The organized religions would prefer you did not think so, but they do. Look into the accepting, non-judgemental eyes of your dog as you come home from work; see the sublime expression of bliss as you pet your cat and scratch just the right spot.

How many stories of heroism by pet animals have you heard? Hundreds! A being with no soul thinks purely in terms of preservation of self, with no thought to others. The fact that many, many animals live in family groups, care for each other, and can transfer that bond to us humans is soul.

They show emotions--joy, sadness, fear, pain, all properties ascribed to 'soul.' They are, indeed, our brothers and sisters as we walk this world, and they must not be harmed.