This little piggy has rights
Focus on animal rights should be expanded at American schools
In 2009, animal rights activist Bob Barker donated one million dollars to the University Law School to create Virginia's first Animal Rights Law program. Host of the popular game show "The Price is Right," Barker has spent his life advocating for animals. His commitment to animal rights and philanthropy in retirement should be commended. Barker's donation recognizes that animal rights is a hot topic in American law and society. Furthermore, humane treatment of animals should become a staple for all levels of education in our nation.
Bob Barker's donation is part of a wider Animal Rights Movement that has made significant strides over the past decade to implement ethical legislation and humane education. Already, almost half of American law schools have animal rights curricula. This donation follows a string of previous donations to other prestigious law schools, including Harvard, Columbia, Georgetown, Stanford, Duke, UCLA and Northwestern. The Animal Law Program saw its first class, "Animal Law 9040," appear in the Fall 2009 academic semester. Law students tackled the extensive scope of animal law and other ethical issues. According to Prof. Margaret Riley, head of the University Animal Rights Program, the new course focuses on "legal issues pertaining to animals, the laws that govern their treatment, as well as a number of topics that fall within the general headings 'animal law' and 'animal rights."
Those who advocate for animal rights believe that animals, as sentient beings, have a unique set of interests that must be protected from human exploitation and abuse. Issues of animal rights law include factory farming, animal experimentation, the fur trade, dog fighting, vivisection, puppy mills, hunting, animal entertainment, and other forms of animal cruelty. Under United States law, animals are valued as property and thus have historically failed to gain necessary rights protecting their interests, specifically to live free of pain. For example, in Mississippi, when a man set his dog on fire for entertainment in 2009, he was charged with a misdemeanor, sentenced to six months in jail and fined $1,000. Mississippi is not the only state that still fails to treat animal cruelty cases as felonies, which would carry both a longer sentence and heftier fine. Opponents of animal rights like to skirt around the issue, ignoring basic fact and obvious statistics. Often this opposition stems from a fundamental misunderstanding and often ignorance.
Barker's donation touches upon a critical need for increased education. Humane treatment must be taught from an early age. The way Americans currently treat animals tells of the many contradictions that exist within our society. European nations have far surpassed the United States when it comes to the ethical treatment of animals. Already several European Union countries have banned cosmetic testing, and age old traditions such as bull fighting and hound hunting are on the decline.
Whether or not one believes in the values of the Animal Rights Movement, cruelty to animals has further implications. Crimes against animals are most often the precursors to crimes against other humans. According to FBI detective Robert K. Ressler, "Murderers ... very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids." Furthermore, the exploitation of animals in the United States is affecting both our health and our environment. According to PETA, over 400 animals are killed per hour in a typical American slaughterhouse. These animals will never see the light of day before they are slaughtered. The question is why? Whether or not you believe animals should have certain basic rights, the reality is that America cannot afford to continue to exploit and mistreat animals.\nFurthermore, factory farming destroys the environment and is a primary contributor to global warming. The green house gases produced by factory farming exceed those of all transportation vehicles in the world combined, according to a 2006 United Nations study. Ethical legislation that mandates more suitable conditions for animals raised for meat is necessary. Such legislation deals with the most elemental needs of any creature. For example, California's Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty act, passed in November 2008, regulates the confinement of farm animals. Many farm animals in the United States are kept in gestation crates and battery cages without the ability to stand or move for the entirety of their lives. Beyond the clear ethical problems associated with these practices, studies have shown that animals in stressful environments have severely compromised immune systems and thus are at increased risk for illness.
Progress in the ethical treatment of animals has been made, but only through the tenacious efforts of animal rights activists. The persistent mistreatment of animals in the United States lies in the fundamental pitfalls of the American education system. Barker's Animal Law program should be the stepping stone for similar programs at an undergraduate level. There is no justification for animal cruelty and continued unethical practices. The University should embrace its chance to become a leader in animal rights and should further establish instruction on humane treatment at an undergraduate level.
RSS


Commentary
Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed
john649
(02/05/10 11:40pm)Report
Great article! As a vegan and animal lover I am working toward the day when all animals are treated with loving care and live in peace and safety, are no longer food for humans and live the life as was destined for them. It is the promised land when all beings live free from violence and abuse.
Francis
(02/06/10 12:48am)Report
Oh. My. God. Have you done ANY research? I can't even figure out where to begin with this uninformed drivel.
In the United States, livestock agriculture accounts for about 2 percent of greenhouse gases. (EPA) That's nowhere near what transportation contributes.
There are NO animals confined to gestation crates for their entire lives. Not true. Either you're making it up, or you're trusting someone who did. Gestation = pregnancy. No hog is pregnant its entire life.
Studies have shown that there is NO difference in animal welfare between animal confinement systems and "free range" systems -- except that free range animals have a FAR higher mortality rate.
And I haven't even gotten to you unenlightened view on the value of animals in biomedical research. Are you comfortable telling every AIDS and cancer patient in the world that a cure will just have to be put on the back burner? Because "rights" for animals sure as heck includes lab animals. And that's the bedrock on which EVERY meaningful medical advancement in the last 120 years was made.
Come on, kid. Do some original thinking. Don't just spout PETA talking points. I guarantee you that you'll come to different conclusions in about 5 years when you grow up a little. Why not jump-start the process and wizen up now?
Bob
(02/06/10 2:29am)Report
It appears you, Francis, are the one who needs to "wizen" up. You are correct that livestock greenhouse gas production is overstated, but that's about where your correctness ends.
There are MANY animals confined to gestation crates their entire lives. The most common victim is chickens, who are harvested for eggs in obscene conditions. You clearly don't actually know what a gestation crate is, so I encourage you to visit a corporate farm, where there practice is most common. I've been to many, and the gestation crates are everywhere. And yes, the animals in there are kept there for life.
The man advantages of free range living have been well documented. There are a number of websites out there that discuss this, and of course there are risks involved in free range farming (predators, wandering off, cars, etc., as well as lower profits for the farmers), but the quality of the food tends to be higher, and farmers can often take on more animals as a result of the decreased workload involved.
With the exception of the PETA fringe of animal rights, almost no one, even the strongest proponents of animal rights, oppose testing MEDICAL treatments on animals, and doing MEDICAL experiments with animals (especially mice whose genetic make-up is very close to ours). I see nothing here to indicate that this author is in that PETA frings. However, animals continue to be used for experimentation with cosmetics, and other non-medical matters, and that is what the author seems to be referring to. Your talking point about the AIDS patient is the old, recycled garbage trying to reframe the issue with a strawman. This isn't about medicine, it's about unnecessary exploitation.
So please, do some research before you accuse others of not doing research, and read before you react. Or, as you put it, "wizen up"
animal lover
(02/06/10 2:57am)Report
WOW Francis. Your argument doesn't seem too intellectual. You spend a lot of time name calling and insulting this writer and not enough time quoting YOUR sources. Rather than getting nasty, make an intellectual argument. You need to do some research. Tell us why you believe factory farming is beneficial, why there should be no laws giving animals a little more standing room and why there should be no regulations when it comes to animal experimentation. You obviously believe that animals should have no protections. Where is your compassion? What will you lose if animals are given a little more dignity in their often sad and horrific lives. I am always amazed by the coldness people can show because they feel a sense of superiority. Factory farm certainly undermine this superiority. The human superiority to all creatures smaller and less powerful than themselves is always amazing. Finally, when making your argument ( not to say it again) give us some sources.
Your first argument should tell us how factory farming helps the environment. You must believe it helps the environment if you are advocating for it. 2% of greenhouse gasses? You must be kidding. "In the United States, confined farm animals produce 500 million tons of waste every year, more than 3.3 times the amount of waste created by humans. Nevertheless, the EPA does not currently require these animal factories to meet any testing, performance or emission standards under the Clean Air Act." See I will give my source: http://www.foe.org/coalition-asks-epa-regulate-greenhouse-gases-and-other-toxic-air-pollutants-factory-farms. You should take a look at the report filed. You might learn something.
Your second argument is based on a technicality. Visit a factory farm and please tell us how factory farming is humane. Please tell us how gestation crates are ethical (because they're not) instead of debating how often an animal has to stay in one. Animals in factory farms live and die in that factory farm. Your point about free range animals also conveniently has no source. Most likely because it is absurd.
And your final point touches upon the VALUE of animals to biomedical research. I find the arguments FOR animal experimentation particularly erroneous. In fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects. Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory. Medical historians have shown that improved nutrition and sanitation standards and other behavioral and environmental factors—rather than knowledge gained from animal experiments—are responsible for the decreasing number of deaths from common infectious diseases since 1900 and that medicine has had little to do with increased life expectancy. Many of the most important advances in the field of health care can be attributed to human studies, which have led to major medical breakthroughs, such as the development of anesthesia, the stethoscope, morphine, radium, penicillin, artificial respiration, x-rays, antiseptics, and CAT, MRI, and PET scans; the study of bacteriology and germ theory; the discovery of the link between cholesterol and heart disease and the link between smoking and cancer; and the isolation of the virus that causes AIDS. SO Animal testing played no role in these or many other important medical developments.
Furthermore, the choice isn’t between animals and people. There is no guarantee that drugs are safe—even if they have been tested on animals—because the physiological differences between humans and other animals prevent the results of animal tests from being accurately extrapolated to humans. Some drugs that have been approved through animal tests can cause serious and unexpected side effects for humans. A 2002 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that in the last 25 years, more than 50 FDA-approved drugs had to be taken off the market or relabeled because they caused “adverse reactions.” In 2000 alone, the prescription drugs removed from the market were the popular heartburn drug Propulsid (removed because it caused “fatal heart rhythm abnormalities”), the diabetes drug Rezulin (“removed after causing liver failure”), and the irritable-bowel-syndrome treatment Lotronex (“removed for causing fatal constipation and colitis”).
Please if you are going to make an argument, make an argument. Don't tell us EVERY notable medical advance is the result of animal testing when it is just NOT true. You really need education on the issue it seems. There will always be an excuse for exploitation. Where is the courage to find a solution without abusing, exploiting and killing innocent creatures. Animals have the right to be treated as beings of value in themselves, not as the means to human ends. To infect monkeys with the AIDS virus or to expose rodents to toxic chemicals and radiation is simply not acceptable, whatever the supposed benefits. You might further learn something from viewing the movie Avatar. It might teach you a bit about human exploitation.
When people have no base to their argument, they often spend their time telling others to grow up. I would say to you...Wisen Up. In five years animals will hopefully have more rights and people like you will understand the need for compassion and humanity.
Finally, I would like to say to the writer, that I believe this article is very well argued and shows very original thinking. Great job! There is a need for this debate and for further discussion on animal rights.
Lisa
(02/06/10 2:38pm)Report
Did someone say RIGHTS?
http://www.abortionno.org/
Going on every week right here at UVA medical center.
animal lover
(02/06/10 3:59pm)Report
Lisa, animal rights and abortion are completely separate issues. this article has nothing to do with abortion so PLEASE take your abortion debate elsewhere. There are very serious problems in the world that deserve our attention, and cruelty to animals is one of them. We should try to alleviate suffering wherever we can. Helping animals is not any more or less important than helping human beings—they are both important. Animal suffering and human suffering are interconnected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECspj0daAlE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UW4cp0AvC4w&feature=channel
Lisa
(02/07/10 5:18pm)Report
It is a sick world we live in where some people are AOK with beheadings in utero - but get all worked up by an elephant getting slapped. I do not eat veal or lamb, for what it's worth. I agree that cruelty and suffering are bad even for animals. But the human rights debate now is not going anywhere any faster than the slavery debate did. Trying to fill in the gap in your opposition to human rights with animal rights is just a trick you are playing on yourself. Killing an entirely innocent and defenseless child is at least tied for the most cruel and selfish thing anyone can do.
So this little piggy has rights, but that little infant has somehow earned the fate of getting her head ripped off and be ground down into the sewer system because - uh - the little bastard might interfere with your spring break plans?
This actually makes sense to you on some level? Really? You didn't make it through the whole video, did you? You seem to be a caring person. Problem is, there is this huge, gaping hole in your philosophy of lessening suffering. There is a lot of cruelty and suffering going on right here, right now. You just don't want to look at it, even though our university is in the business. But that does not mean it is not there, or that human rights are revocable because you might find them convenient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOC7a2Tw_8o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=846obU0lXbg
jamie
(02/07/10 8:27pm)Report
great article ashley!!
online
(02/07/10 9:19pm)Report
While the Cavalier Daily does enjoy spirited discussion, I would like to remind you that the subject of this article is about animal rights and that the comments should be related to the article itself. Please be civil in your discussions and respectful of the views of others and of the author on this site. Thanks!
animal lover
(02/08/10 2:00am)Report
dear lisa, animal rights and abortion are completely separate issues...you know it and i know it....take your abortion debate elsewhere...
peace
(02/08/10 2:40am)Report
lisa it seems strange you bring up abortion for an article about animal rights. do you realize that many proponent of animal rights stand on both sides of the abortion debate? Many animal rights activists are anti-abortion. In politics, the abortion issue and animal rights are not mutually exclusive. One will not come at the expense of the other. You seem to be arguing against extending rights to animals and your argument seems to be that if fetuses cant have rights, animals can't either. Why not seek to improve the law on all fronts and whenever possible. Remember, it is not the innocent animals who are causing the abortions. In fact, animals have had nothing to do with the abortion debate. It is sad that you take your anger out on innocent elephants and people who attempt to seek justice for animals. There are many different causes in this world and all causes need advocates. You should not be so condescending and harsh on those who advocate for the animal rights cause. Especially, when you can not possibly know their views on abortion. Do you automatically assume that someone who is pro animal rights is pro-abortion/pro-choice. If this is the assumption you make, you are quite wrong.
You are lucky that there are many who speak out against abortion like you do. Unfortunately, there are even fewer people speaking out against animal abuse and exploitation. It seems hypocritical to argue so vehemently for the rights of a fetus and to find the suffering of animals so trite. Is it impossible to be anti-abortion and pro animal rights? I think not. This article in fact does not at any point indicate the author's opinion on abortion nor does it say that there are not other important issues in this world. But to argue that animals should not have rights because fetuses don't is hypocritical and flawed. The only beings you are punishing by this argument are the animals, and they are not responsible for abortion.
Sean
(02/09/10 4:18pm)Report
The article is about rights, about suffering, and about cruelty. Are we seriously suggesting that we as live animals with a nervous system do not count - but only non human animals do? WE are the only mammals whose rights do NOT matter?
I am also on board regarding not torturing animals and such. But I do not put them as equals in rights to humans - no. If that were the case, all the animal rights people would have to never get in a motorized vehicle ever again, all be vegans, and never step on an ant, worm, or mouse either. What do PETA folks do when their house gets infested with rats anyway?
I am NOT saying animal cruelty is cool or even ACCEPTABLE. They feel pain like we do. But I think a picture can say it better than I can. I am not trying to change the subject - it is a valid one - only expand it to include us animals who actually have human DNA also.
Someone explain this to me...
http://www.abortionno.org/Store/Posters/05.html