Animal Rights in Germany

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Fri May 17, 2002 9:56 am

This is interesting. Check out CNN's article on the change in the German constitution.

Any thoughts?

Why do I have odd thoughts of dogs garaunteed 6 weeks vacation and maternity leave?

Ned Flanders · Post by **Ned Flanders** » Fri May 17, 2002 10:18 am

by lazarus
Any thoughts?

We're done as a society perhaps?

More recent news with animal rights includes:

In Eugene, Oregon USA: animal activists are seeking to get the official title of 'pet owner' changed to 'pet guardian' using insightful examples such as pointing out that a dog is not a sofa and a cat is not a blender.

Also, PETA has been petitioning the NCAA (USA collegiate sports) sport of basketball to move from leather basketballs to synthetic basketballs. Well, it worked. Apparently the two groups met several times over steak dinners. PETA is rumored to be trying to get leather basketballs out of the NBA (USA mens pro basketball association) as well.

Moleman · Post by **Moleman** » Fri May 17, 2002 11:34 am

Whatever it's worth, my honest opinion is that in most (Western) civilized cultures the talks about animal rights are absurd as they are concentrated in really wrong topics; pet animals (like cats/dogs), test animals and domestic+fur animals (cows, horses, foxes etc). Those are so unintelligent that I don't see the point in making such a big fuzz about their "rights".

As long as dolphins are kept in captivity, the animal right activists are way off the topic...

After human, dolphins are the most intelligent species on Earth, and an average dolphin has intelligence similar to 2 year old human child. In Soviet Union (R.I.P.) dolphins were studied for military purposes and they were taught to act as "soldiers" - they could plant mines on enemy vessels, shoot tracking devices with harpoon on boats and even shoot divers with harpoon. Their sonar is so accurate they can spot a small fish from 150 metres distances. They have advanced social hiararchy and they live within families.

Now these creatures are put to concrete pool 20-30 m. in size, to perform circus tricks! In pools that size they get too much input from their sonar, and suffer from claustrophobia. The dolphins are separated from their families. Their training methods are very questanable. The mortality rate of captive dolphins is increased.

Boycott dolphinariums!

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Fri May 17, 2002 3:06 pm

I think that most of this "save the animals" people talk about is bull****, but some of it makes sense, like not killing animals for the fun of it.

But, for the fun it, save the Dolphins!

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri May 17, 2002 5:16 pm

I see no problem with giving animals more law protection, even if it mean we have to give up wearing fur coats or stop going to the zoo or whatever. To try to draw a logical line between species that deserve fair treatment and species that dont is imo a doomed atempt. We should instead see this as a neverending struggle to give nice living conditions to as many things as possible and not argue about if this one deserves to be saved before that one etc.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 17, 2002 7:11 pm

What a strange turn of events. Just the other day I saw this posted at another site. Is their anybody that can verify if this is true?

EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND - Like hunters bashing a baby seal, animal-rights crazies savagely beat a man who was trying to make a donation - because he pulled the cash from a leather wallet!

An angry Angus MacBride, 28, said the frenzied fanatics ganged up on himat a rally against cosmetic testing on animals. He was pummeled by about a dozen protesters outside a department store. From his hospital bed, where he was recovering from injuried including a concussion, a broken arm and several bruised ribs. He said he approached the groups donation jar and pulled some cash from his wallet. "All of a sudden," he recalled "one of those nuts grabbed the wallet right out of my hands and found the tag on it that said 'genuine cowhide'. She held it up over her head and started screaming 'Murderer! Murderer! Cow killer!' and then she jumped on top of me, and her loony pals piled on and started beating me to a pulp!" The activists bashed him with their fists and even pummeled him with picket signs - one of which read, "All life is sacred!".

Horrified witnesses said the cowardly attackers ran off when cops arrived to save the brutalized man. "They were all over him like jackals on a piece of meat." seethed Archie Wallace, who was browsing a nearby bookstore when the attack occured. Lawmen said they are searching for the bloodthirsty attackers, but hold little hope of catching them. They were not part of any formal animal-rights group and did not take out a permit for the demonstration. Angus vowed to find the attackers and take his revenge.

Moleman · Post by **Moleman** » Fri May 17, 2002 10:40 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
To try to draw a logical line between species that deserve fair treatment and species that dont is imo a doomed atempt. We should instead see this as a neverending struggle to give nice living conditions to as many things as possible and not argue about if this one deserves to be saved before that one etc.

Yeah, you are right about that one.

But it is besides my point, but it seems I failed in presenting my point. What I said about pet/test/domestic animals being unintelligent and not worth the fuzz, I didn't actually meant that - instead I should have said that in Western countries most of these animals have better life conditions already than they would have in living wild in nature.

I didn't mean we should only save dolphins and forget the other species. Instead, I meant that we should prioritize and first improve the dolphin situation.

Originally posted by Dottie

It says in the anatmoy of gamebanshee memners you are 16 years old... somehow i find that hard to belive. ]

Who is?

Moleman · Post by **Moleman** » Fri May 17, 2002 10:50 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
What a strange turn of events. Just the other day I saw this posted at another site. Is their anybody that can verify if this is true?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDINBURGH, SCOTLAND - Like hunters bashing a baby seal, animal-rights crazies savagely beat a man who was trying to make a donation - because he pulled the cash from a leather wallet! ....

If this is true, well, this just show how off-topic the animal-right activists many times are. Of course they might have different moral values from mine, but also they seem to lack common sense.

I understand, and agree, that having animals as test subjects in cosmetics industry is wrong. No animal should suffer just for the vanity of human. But I also believe that the life of human is more valuable than the life of any animal. So going berserk and hurting a human being for the sake of a leather wallet - that's absurd! Cows are kept for food (milk+beef) and leather is a side-product that comes from growing the cattle for food!

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sat May 18, 2002 7:00 am

Well, I am with Ned and Gaxx on this one. I do not believe that animals have any rights. Not that I believe they should be treated inhumanely (and dolphins in a 30'x50' pool is bordering on the inhumane), but I do not believe that we can equate humans and animals. If so, using pesticide on our crops would be mass-murder. Just digging a hole for a house would constitute genocide - think of the ants!!

I agree with Dottie: trying to distinguish between species that deserve "more" rights, and species that deserve only "lesser" rights is impossible - so I say: no rights for animals.

island007 · Post by **island007** » Sat May 18, 2002 3:52 pm

Hi,

I never concerned myself with animal rights. I think the amendment is insane; however, I don't live in Germany. I agree we should treat some living things humanly, but if I see a roach I'm still squishing it.
I think more time some be spent on Human rights.
Just my 2 cents

Thanks

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun May 19, 2002 1:38 pm

I think other species than humans should have certain rights. This is for two reasons:

1. Many species that might seem insignificant to our life, or simply are in the way for our exploitation of resources, may play a pivotal role in an ecosystem.

2. Many species, and not only dolphins, whales or apes, are highly intelligent and suffer greatly from cruel treatment. However, many living creatures are fully capable of suffering and experience of physical pain and distress, and I don't think unlimited cruelty should be allowed towards mice or turtles either.

Applying human rights such as 6 weeks holiday or parental leave, is IMO ridiculous since these things are adjusted to human needs. I'm sure a working dog or horse like police dogs/horses needs some kind of break every now and then, but Christmas vacation is hardly something a dog cares about. I've heard that dogs working for rescue forces often are very exhausted after a mission, so I guess they just like humans, need some rest before taking on the next assignment. What rights a certain species should have, must be adjusted to the needs of that particular species and to the situation at hand. A Swedish common adder is not believed to suffer from being caged, but they are an endangered species and it's illegal to kill them. On the other hand it's not illegal to kill a common dolphin (I think), but the dolphin will suffer greatly from being caged in a small delphinarium.

Regarding medical research, I certainly think we should aim for decreasing the consumption of animals, especially for routine experiments. Also, I think there should be regulations for housing such animals, and for what experimenters are allowed to do. This is already the case in most countries.

@Dottie: Theroretically, I agree with you that there is no logic way of drawing lines between species that deserve a certain treatment or not. However, practially I see certain problems. There are many special protection programs for endangered species that give them exteneded rights. For instance, hunting or killing for eating might be prohibited or limited in the case on of one species, but unrestricted in another species. How do we get around this problem if all species should have the same rights, or lack of rights?
Another problem is in research. Much basic research concerning general basic functions is conducted on "lower" animals such as worms, snails, flies (like C Elegans, Aplysia, Drosophilia etc). One reason for choosing such species in genetic research is of course the speed of reproduction, but it's also a question of degree of suffering. In the 1950's and 60's many cruel neuroscience experiments were conducted on apes like chimps, who in intelligence and self-awareness can be compared to a 5 year old child. Nowadays, you aren't allowed to pick out pieces of the brain one by one in a chimp just to figure out what happens if you remove or destroy a certain brain structure. You can still do this with rats though, if the rats are properly anaesthicised. Same thing with the knock-out/knock-in techniques of genetic changes. In a mouse or rat, researchers can remove a certain gene coding for a specific thing for experimental purposes - this is not (yet) allowed in apes and may never be. Many countries, like Sweden and the UK, don't allow research on for instance chimps at all.

Yet another problem, of a moral philisophical nature is: Why should humans have rights, and not other species? What makes us have the right to consume, use and torture other living beings as long as they belong to another species than our own?

Finally, a note regarding animal rights activists: Many organisations are serious and work with issues I personally think is good such as protection of endangered species and minimising cruelty towards animals used for eating or for research. But unfortunately, there are also some organisation who are total fanatics and have ideas that are not based on any rational values. Letting out animals from fur farms and reserach labs, leads only to the death of the animals due to stress, and often to disruption of the local eco system as has often been the case with mink farms. At Karolinska Institute, we've had problems with animal rights activists threatening children and partners to researchers. This is IMO no different from other types of fanatic behaviours, and does not lead to any constructive solutions.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun May 19, 2002 1:47 pm

Why should humans have rights, and not other species?

What would a chimp say when you asked it 'What are rights?'

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun May 19, 2002 2:07 pm

Originally posted by frogus
What would a chimp say when you asked it 'What are rights?'

I have no idea, I don't speak their language, but since they can be taught abstract, symbolic language we might have an answer to that from the chimp researchers

What would a 5-year human say if we asked it "What are rights?" Or a human infant, that can't speak at all?

I do not think a creatures rights should be dependant of that creatures ability to conceptualise rights or moral - the consequence of this would be that human infants, mentally disabled, people with neurological and psychiatric disorders, would have limited or no rights. So how do we solve the problem: "Why should a 3 year old human child or a person with a severe development disability have rights that a chimp should not have?"

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun May 19, 2002 2:09 pm

It is an interesting topic for debate with you especially, C Elegans, in light of our previous discussions on Human Rights. I recall you dropping a link to the United Nations Human Rights Accord (or some such), which did indeed detail that all humans have the right to a job and a home, etc.

I know you think Christmas vacation for dogs to be silly, but isn't that precisely the direction Germany is moving in by writing animal rights into their constitution?

People should not be cruel to animals, but nor should animals be written into law as being equal to humans. They are not.

Your point about fanatical animal rights groups is well-taken. They have done millions of dollars worth of damage to the university that I attend.

Bruide · Post by **Bruide** » Sun May 19, 2002 2:23 pm

"Why should a 3 year old human child or a person with a severe development disability have rights that a chimp should not have?"

Because they are human.

I want my children to have more rights in society than a chimp, a dog, a donkey, a koala, a beetle, a dolphin.
I want all members of the human race to have these same rights.

I like animals. I like people more. And yes, I do think people are more important. However i see no problem with the bill that has just been declared in Germany. I just think it is just trying to formalise some basic consideration for animals.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun May 19, 2002 2:49 pm

posted by Lazarus
I know you think Christmas vacation for dogs to be silly, but isn't that precisely the direction Germany is moving in by writing animal rights into their constitution?

People should not be cruel to animals, but nor should animals be written into law as being equal to humans. They are not.

Your point about fanatical animal rights groups is well-taken. They have done millions of dollars worth of damage to the university that I attend.

As far I as understood it from CNN and BBC, the new wording in the German constitution is as follows:

"The state takes responsibility for protecting the natural foundations of life and animals in the interest of future generations."

What this will mean when applied in different situations I'm not sure of, but I don't think Christmas vacation for dogs is on the agenda. it seems like the agenda is aiming to make regulations of caging and experimental use stricter. The UN human rights declaration includes, as you say, rights to education and work, and I really hope no country is striving to extend the UN human rights to other species. Germany I think are not aiming for this, I think their extension of animal rights is more in the direction of protecting the life of animals and decreasing animal suffering.

I really resent the total misdirection of some animal rights extremists. At another lab in Sweden, they had let out over hundred rats and rabbits during the night, and left the note "We wanted to save the rabbits, they were so cute". The next morning when the researchers came, all the animals were dead, partly due to stress but partly because the distressed animals had injured themselves on lab equipment and broken containers with chemical compunds in.

posted by Bruide

Because they are human.

Yes, but speaking at a theroreical level, why should humans have more rights than other species? Because we are more powerful? ("The strong have a right to rule over weak-argument") Because some god said so?

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun May 19, 2002 3:27 pm

@CE: I never meant any animals should have same rights as another animal or as a human, I meant that we should extend our compassion to cover as much ground as is practically possible. And a fanatic repeating of the line "animals are not human" is not going to do that. To me it only feels like that kind of comment is an atempt to get away with the least possible need for responsible behavior that is still acceptable within this social context.

Well, Im sure you know what Im thinking, This isnt only directed at you.

Bruide · Post by **Bruide** » Sun May 19, 2002 3:31 pm

Yes, but speaking at a theroreical level, why should humans have more rights than other species? Because we are more powerful? ("The strong have a right to rule over weak-argument") Because some god said so?

Theory eh - tricky stuff that thing

Soo - why did I say what I did?

I dont believe in any god, so thats not it. Yeah sure, we are more powerful but thats not it. Hmmmm - should one life be more valued than another? Should it have more right to exist, to do what it wants, to be represented, to have the same rights.

Your correct, to say that it shouldnt, that would be a bad thing to say. But, i would kill an ant before I would kill a cat and ...
But I also eat meat.

(Sorry if this is incoherent. I'm trying to think it out as I type.)

I think we give the rights we see fit as a species, there is no intrinsic good or bad in the universe there is only our imposition of what we think. I think people have more rights because they are my species, they are my 'gang'. I belong. I believe in their abilities. Sorry this is not a rational argument with proofs and logic I know but it is just what i feel.

No answers here then I guess.

Edit -
Also @dottie : I didnt mean to offend. Or sound fanatical. Woops. Sorry.

Ode to a Grasshopper · Sun May 19, 2002 9:54 pm

Originally posted by frogus
What would a chimp say when you asked it 'What are rights?'

"Ook"

On a serious note, the only argument I've seen from those in this thread who are opposed to giving animals rights has been, in essence, "Because they're not human". Perhaps if they could explain this view in more detail we could have a clearer discussion on the matter. What is it about being human that automatically makes such a difference in how they should be treated? Whilst I agree the concept of paid canine maternity leave and christmas vacation is absurd, animals should have some rights. I do not believe that human rights should be reduced in favor of animal rights, however I feel that the status of animals should be raised from where it is. Good on Germany for passing this bill.

I'm still going to keep eating white meat, however. And those animal rights fanatics from Scotland Weasel mentioned are just being stupid and over-the-top.