Championing animal rights

[Alonzo]

Instead of spending two years in jail for cutting off a puppy’s ears to make it look fierce, a Brisbane man spent just three months in jail.

The same punishment of two years jail could have been given to another man who bludgeoned to death four kittens, but instead he was fined $1800 before being sentenced to three months imprisonment on appeal.

This is where men like Maleny-based senior counsel Graeme Page have stepped in to address what they see as a gross injustice.

Graeme is both trained and determined to remain a calm voice of reason in his job so he is, in many ways, the perfect man to take up the cause of BLEATS (Brisbane Lawyers Educating and Advocating for Tougher Sentences).

Graeme, who has been named patron of the organisation, insists he is able to stay dispassionate while campaigning for maximum penalties to be imposed for those found guilty of animal cruelty – a cause which would have most people’s blood boiling.

The lawyer has been in the news, most recently acting for the RSPCA in the case against a Caboolture man who is appealing a one-month prison sentence for kicking and killing a kitten in June 2006.

Shane Moore, who was 17 at the time of the offence, spent just five days behind bars for the crime.

Organisations like the Sunshine Coast-based 4 Paws Animal Rescue are hoping the work of BLEATS will act as a deterrent for those they believe are more likely to re-offend while the sentences for heinous acts of cruelty against animals remain unduly light.

Graeme, who has worked in the area of family law, specialising in property law since 1975, is new to prosecuting cases but is confident as a volunteer with BLEATS that he will be able to make a difference in encouraging magistrates to impose the toughest available penalties when a person is found guilty of any deliberate form of animal cruelty.

“The group BLEATS was formed to help the RSPCA, and I became involved because I was appalled at what I saw – the level of sentences and prosecutions for horrible cruelty,” Graeme said.

“Our job is to make submissions to the court as to what we think are appropriate sentences for particular crimes.

“Harsher penalties for animal cruelty cases were made possible by changes in legislation a few years ago.

"The Animal Care and Protection Act was strengthened in 2002 to provide for maximum penalties of $75,000 or two years' imprisonment for the most serious of crimes against animals and we lobby to see those imposed where suitable.”

BLEATS founding solicitor Tracy-Lynne Geysen said while there was scope to impose harsher sentences, this was not being done largely because magistrates were required to use previous sentences for offenders of similar crimes as a guideline when imposing a sentence.

“As the prior sentences handed down were low, a vicious cycle developed,” she explained on the website www.bleats.com.au.

“BLEATS members have realised that to break this cycle, they must make fellow lawyers aware of the situation and hopefully encourage them to volunteer as ‘forceful’ advocates representing the RSPCA at these trials.

“They also want to ensure that low sentences are taken on appeal. Higher sentences at the appellate level would provide magistrates with precedents for higher (and more appropriate) sentences.”

While the topic of animal cruelty lends itself to the strongest of emotions, Graeme insists that this is no “bleeding heart” cause and cold logic is what is called for.

“It is so easy to be emotional about animals because they are so helpless but we have to deal with the law,” the owner of six horses, two dogs and a donkey said. “I am not emotional about this. I just feel the relativity of the sentences to the crimes is not appropriate and the community expectations for punishing people who are cruel to animals has risen, and the legislation has been changed to reflect that.

“But there seems to be an apparent inadequacy of the sentencing. We are hell-bent on seeing the courts use the whole range of sentences available to them for an act but this is not a bleeding heart cause.

“Objectivity is something we are taught and it’s the greatest asset of a good lawyer. That is what we develop and need to keep. The last thing a magistrate wants is for us to be bleeding hearts in there.”

Graeme, who said he is both ‘pleased and eager’ to be associated with BLEATS, believes it is important to gauge what the effect of a sentence of each individual would be when calling for harsher penalties.

“What concerned me was there was very little that could be done to rehabilitate an offender who was blatantly cruel to animals as opposed to someone being careless with animals,” he said.

“They may have an inherent hatred of animals.

“So a major factor in sentencing is retributive to give a sense to others to not do those sorts of things so they know they will be punished.

“I think it will take some time to achieve the ends we see as appropriate but the magistrates are being so cooperative in talking to us and are including a segment in their conference next year on the care and treatment of animals. I think they are keen to meet community expectations while treating every case on its own merits.”

Secretary of 4 Paws Beverley Parrott, who has helped to rescue hundreds of abused animals, has applauded the work of BLEATS.

“Often a light sentence is applied because the offender is ignorant of how to care for an animal,” Beverley explained.

“I believe the legal system does not place enough importance on cases of animal cruelty, while more and more people are taking on the responsibility of owning an animal without being aware of due care.

“A light sentence is not enough of a deterrent. Magistrates should be encouraged to review sentencing while it is important that the general public be better educated, starting from school-aged children, about caring for animals.”

Tracy-Lynne Geysen said the work of the RSPCA was well known.

“It is now the legal community’s turn to help stop animal cruelty before it becomes a RSPCA issue,” she said.

http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2008/may/12/championing-animal-rights/

[PostmodernProphet]

they have no rights because they aren't legal entities.....they aren't legal entities because we have not given them rights.....

[Alonzo]

Animals do have legal rights, they're just often loosely enforced.

[PatrickHenry]

they have no rights because they aren't legal entities.....they aren't legal entities because we have not given them rights.....Pretty good logic, PMP.

But how come ear clipping and tail docking are cruel?

It has been done for centuries.

And why are baby boys' genitals deformed by the Jews and others who think that it looks better that way?

Why do baby girls have their ears pierced?

Why, why, why?

Why does a story about animal rights in Australia get a thread on Democracy Forums, Alonzo?

[Alonzo]

It's an interesting article and a good example of what people should be doing.

But how come ear clipping and tail docking are cruel?

In the case being referred to the puppy was conscious and was not anesthetized .

[PatrickHenry]

OK, that makes sense.

[Wndrtch]

Animals do have legal rights, they're just often loosely enforced.

In order to HAVE rights, you have to first be able to observe rights for others.

How do animals observe rights for other animals?

Remember zo, you have "rights' because the people around choose to observe your rights. Those that don't are called criminals.

[PostmodernProphet]

Pretty good logic, PMP.



osborn liked it.....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
they have no rights because they aren't legal entities.....they aren't legal entities because we have not given them rights.....

Patrick said:
Pretty good logic, PMP.

PMP said:
osborn liked it.....

No offense, but both of you have a bit of stilted logical bias in this department... so its no wonder you agree here.....

Also, Osborn rejected it PMP, and Wndrtch has clarified why.....

Wndrtch said:
In order to HAVE rights, you have to first be able to observe rights for others.

One of many reasons fetus' and animals don't have rights.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Also, Osborn rejected it PMP, and Wndrtch has clarified why.....

Quote:
Wndrtch said:
In order to HAVE rights, you have to first be able to observe rights for others.
One of many reasons fetus' and animals don't have rights.......

except of course, that it isn't true......Alzheimer's patients and those lying on life support in comas are unable to observe rights for others......their rights are not excluded.....

[Alonzo]

In order to HAVE rights, you have to first be able to observe rights for others.

How do animals observe rights for other animals?

Remember zo, you have "rights' because the people around choose to observe your rights. Those that don't are called criminals.

Not sure where that's coming from, as even criminals have rights. Try cutting off the arm of a criminal and then using the defense of "But he's a criminal! He has no rights!".

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
except of course, that it isn't true......Alzheimer's patients and those lying on life support in comas are unable to observe rights for others......their rights are not excluded.....

Animals, nor fetus', live within the womb of a FULL RIGHTS HOLDING PERSON.

[PostmodernProphet]

Animals, nor fetus', live within the womb of a FULL RIGHTS HOLDING PERSON.

/yawn....having won this argument at least three times, I see no merit in schooling you again......give it up....

[Osborn F. Enready]

PMP said:
yawn....having won this argument at least three times, I see no merit in schooling you again......give it up....

Always a winner in your own mind, regardless of what the facts bear out in contradiction........... ROFLMAO

priceless. ;)

[Pookie]

Has anyone figured out that maybe we should treat our pets as we would ourselves?
What's wrong with you people? We need to treat pets gently and kindly, like we want to be treated. Anything else is wrong, wrong wrong!!
Hell, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out, ok?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Osborn F. Enready]

Pookie, I am a total animal lover.

My family and I have had cats, dogs, hamsters, snakes, birds, fish, etc......

All of our pets have lived good lives, were treated and fed well, and all got medical attention when it was needed at our own expense.

I am ALL FOR treating animals well, and with respect.... HOWEVER.....

There is no comparison between human rights and animal rights, period.

[Alonzo]

What about a chimp? Some scientists argue that they are another species of human.

The latest twist in the debate over how much DNA separates humans from chimpanzees suggests we are so closely related that chimps should not only be part of the same taxonomic family, but also the same genus.

The new study found that 99.4 percent of the most critical DNA sites are identical in the corresponding human and chimp genes. With that close a relationship, the two living chimp species belong in the genus Homo, says Morris Goodman of Wayne State University in Detroit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3744-chimps-are-human-gene-study-implies.html

There's a whole host of rights no non-homosapien can have, such as voting, speech etc., but there are a bunch of rights, such as the right to not to be physically harmed, abused, neglected etc. that they could have.

There also was a court case in Europe seeking to have a chimp classified as human because only humans had the right to a legal guardian, and unless the court granted him the right to a legal guardian he risked going to a vivisection laboratory since his sanctuary was bankrupt.

On a side note though, New Zealand has granted chimps and some other primates a semi-human status.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
What about a chimp? Some scientists argue that they are another species of human.

I have nothing against chimps, but they are not able to respect, grasp or exercise individual rights, naturally. Over time and training, they can achieve quite a bit, but they are far from humans in many ways.

Alonzo said:
There's a whole host of rights no non-homosapien can have, such as voting, speech etc., but there are a bunch of rights, such as the right to not to be physically harmed, abused, neglected etc. that they could have.

What purpose would this serve Alonzo, to "grant" partial "entitlements" to chimps?
I wouldn't call them rights under any circumstance, since they are not at the level to recognize those rights, and many still have violent tendencies, which would warrant defense of humans above angry chimps.

Alonzo said:
There also was a court case in Europe seeking to have a chimp classified as human because only humans had the right to a legal guardian, and unless the court granted him the right to a legal guardian he risked going to a vivisection laboratory since his sanctuary was bankrupt.

That sounds absurd to me, all due respect.

Alonzo said:
On a side note though, New Zealand has granted chimps and some other primates a semi-human status.

And what good/bad has come of it?

[Alonzo]

I have nothing against chimps, but they are not able to respect, grasp or exercise individual rights, naturally. Over time and training, they can achieve quite a bit, but they are far from humans in many ways.

Which is irrelevant, as a mentally handicapped baby has rights, even if you were to know it would never surpass the intelligence of a typical 4 year old.

It would have even less understanding of "rights" than a chimp, yet no one is going to say the handicapped person has no rights, or should have no rights, especially if they're still alive at 40 or 50.

What purpose would this serve Alonzo, to "grant" partial "entitlements" to chimps?

Well, for example, if I had a chimp under my care, and I died, I could leave the chimp millions in my well, enough to pay for a caregiver and top quality care. But, when challenged, courts have reversed that and taken the money away and given it to other relatives. The chimp could end up euthanized, in a lab etc. even though my own will stated that the chimp be fully cared for until death.

And if the chimp lacks a guardian, such as when a sanctuary must close, they lack the right to receive gifts. So even if someone offered to pay for their care, it's up to whoever owns the chimp to decide whether to accept it, as the chimp can't receive it and the courts, which often step in for a parent less child for example, won't do anything.

There's also the right not to be neglected, abused or used in experiments, and the penalties would be significant enough that people wouldn't take them lightly, as they often do with dogs, cats etc.

I wouldn't call them rights under any circumstance, since they are not at the level to recognize those rights, and many still have violent tendencies, which would warrant defense of humans above angry chimps.

Humans are pretty violent too, and I'm sure almost all of us have been in fights before. And, even if we are arrested, we still have more rights than a chimp.


That sounds absurd to me, all due respect.

The case itself, or you don't believe me? If it's the latter then:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/01/austria.animalwelfare


And what good/bad has come of it?

Try using a chimp in a circus, experiments etc. in new zealand and you'll find out.

[sam]

http://www.johnclarkprose.com/commentary-mark-twain-on-families-at-war.html

MARK TWAIN ON FAMILIES AT WAR

[He wrote this essay, which reverberates today, a hundred years ago, and it was published after his death in 1910 (his daughter didn't like his comments on religion). I've edited and shortened it for clarity, impact, and to get you thinking, but please, if you have a mind, I urge you to click and download his glorious original text, provided below)]
1. Man, the human race, is one distinct species. It exhibits slight variations in color, stature, mental capacity and food preferences due to climate and environment, but it is a species by itself, and SHOULD NOT BE CONFUSED WITH ANY OTHER.

2. Warm-blooded animals (dogs, cats, horses, monkeys etc.) make up a separate distinct family, but also exhibit variations in color, size, and food preferences.

3. As for the other families (birds, fishes, insects, reptiles, etc.) they are distinct, and also links in the chain which stretches down from the HIGHER animals to Man - AT THE BOTTOM.
HOW IS THIS?
The higher animals do engage in individual fights, yes, but never in organized masses.
Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, WAR. He is the only one that gathers his friends about him and marches forth in cold blood, and with calm pulse, to exterminate his own kind.
Man is the only animal that robs others of their country, takes possession of it, and drives them out or destroys them. Man has always done this.
There is not an acre of ground on the planet that is in possession of its rightful owner. It has been taken away from owner after owner and cycle after cycle by force and bloodshed.

Too, man is the only slave, and the only animal who EN­slaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man's slave for wages and does that man's work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals (not Man) are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living.

Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, sneers at other nations, and keeps uniformed assassins on hand at heavy ex­pense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his.
And in the intervals between cam­paigns, he washes the blood off his hands and then works for the "universal brotherhood of man". With his MOUTH.

Man is the Religious animal and is the only Religious ani­mal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion, in fact several of them.
He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn't the same as his. He has made a graveyard of the planet in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven.
The higher animals have no religion, so we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. It seems questionable taste.

Man claims himself to be the Reasoning animal. But his record is the record of a maniac. He calmly sets himself up as the Head animal, whereas he is the bottom one BY HIS OWN STANDARDS.
Proof - My Scientific Experiment:
Man claims to be the reasoning animal but he is incurably foolish; he is incapable of learning simple things which all other animals easily learn.

In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit, and in the course of two more days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage, I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scottish Presbyterian from Aberdeen.
Next a Turk from Constantinople, a Greek Christian from Crete, an Armenian, a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas, a Buddhist from China, a Brahman from Benares, and finally a Salvation Army Colonel from the English suburb of Wapping.
Then I stayed away two whole days.
When I came back to note the results, the cage of my higher animals was fine, but in the other there was a chaos of gory turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh - not a specimen left alive. Why?
These Reasoning animals had disagreed on a theological detail.

One is forced to concede that in terms of true loftiness of character, Man is nowhere near even the meanest of the higher animals. It is clear that he is constitutionally incapable of ap­proaching that height, because he has a defect which makes such an approach forever impossible; it is permanent in him, indestructible, and ineradicable. What is it?

It is the MORAL SENSE, and he is the only animal that has it. It is the quality which allows and ENABLES him to do wrong, and has no other purpose. It is incapable of performing any other function, and was never intended to.

Since the Moral Sense has only one purpose, the capacity to do wrong, it is as valueless to him as is disease. In fact, it is a disease. Let's look at one.
Rabies
Rabies makes a man mad and able to do something which he could not do when in a healthy state, which is to kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite. But, of course, it makes no sense to call him a better man for having rabies.
Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one can be a better man for having the Moral Sense.
The Primal Curse
So what do we find the Primal Curse to have been in the Beginning? It was the infliction upon man of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to DO evil. For there can be no evil act without the presence of CONSCIOUSNESS of it in the doer of it.

And so my scientific conclusion is that we have descended and degenerated from some long ago ancestor insect by insect, reptile by reptile, animal by animal, till we have reached the bottom stage of development, namable as the Human Being.
Below us, nothing.

"Wild animals never kill for sport. Man is the only one to whom the torture and death of his fellow creatures is amusing in itself." -

James Anthony Fraude.

[Pookie]

Pookie, I am a total animal lover.

My family and I have had cats, dogs, hamsters, snakes, birds, fish, etc......

All of our pets have lived good lives, were treated and fed well, and all got medical attention when it was needed at our own expense.

I am ALL FOR treating animals well, and with respect.... HOWEVER.....

There is no comparison between human rights and animal rights, period.


Excellent!! And boy I am a monster when it comes to animals. Can't help it. But children and old folks.........that's another issue, best visited on another topic, ok?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
Which is irrelevant, as a mentally handicapped baby has rights, even if you were to know it would never surpass the intelligence of a typical 4 year old.

It would have even less understanding of "rights" than a chimp, yet no one is going to say the handicapped person has no rights, or should have no rights, especially if they're still alive at 40 or 50.

Alonzo, you are veering toward irrational.

American Individual Rights are a man made, legal construct, to recognize the equality of human beings in regards to their natural station on earth. Even the most deformed, disfigured and handicapped American BORN PERSON is STILL a human being that has legal rights, legal citizenship, legal recognition under our laws.

No animal meets the requirements, nor does any fetus, and the arguments to equalize them are irrational in many ways, and would come at the EXPENSE of others individual rights, meaning government would be acting as an agent of DISENFRANCHISMENT as opposed to an agent of empowerment.

Alonzo said:
Well, for example, if I had a chimp under my care, and I died, I could leave the chimp millions in my well, enough to pay for a caregiver and top quality care. But, when challenged, courts have reversed that and taken the money away and given it to other relatives.

Any you dispute this should be done?
Is it not obvious that a chimp has no rights, therefore, it would be INCUMBENT on YOU to leave the funds to a caregivers YOU CHOOSE, TRUST AND SELECT to take care of that animal?

I don't understand the problem here? What is it?

Alonzo said:
The chimp could end up euthanized, in a lab etc. even though my own will stated that the chimp be fully cared for until death.

If you want the chimp fully cared for, it is YOUR responsibility and he is YOUR animal, so it is YOUR obligation to provide that funding to a LEGAL PERSON who would act as a caregiver for your PET.

Chimps are not equal to humans, nor do they have rights as humans, economies as humans, etc....

Alonzo said:
And if the chimp lacks a guardian, such as when a sanctuary must close, they lack the right to receive gifts.

So stop sending gifts and adopt them...... DOH!

Alonzo said:
So even if someone offered to pay for their care, it's up to whoever owns the chimp to decide whether to accept it, as the chimp can't receive it and the courts, which often step in for a parent less child for example, won't do anything.

You said it....its up to WHOMEVER OWNS THE CHIMP.

Alonzo said:
There's also the right not to be neglected, abused or used in experiments, and the penalties would be significant enough that people wouldn't take them lightly, as they often do with dogs, cats etc.

What would make it so different between chimps and other pets?
Under what pretense of logic would animal rights come at the expense of human rights?

I could see if chimps set up their own government, legal system, economics system, trade system, and then they held humans to a lower level on their own findings..... but that is quite far from what we are talking about then, isn't it? We are talking about WILD ANIMALS, who are sometimes tamed and caged and in some cases, taught and cared for as humans, by voluntary choice of those humans.....

Alonzo said:
Humans are pretty violent too, and I'm sure almost all of us have been in fights before. And, even if we are arrested, we still have more rights than a chimp.

What is your point here? Not all violence is bad, it depends on the REASON for the violence.......most chimps lack the ability for REASON as compared to humans, who can fully understand the social compact and be held responsible individually for their actions.


Alonzo said:
The case itself, or you don't believe me? If it's the latter then:

The idea behind the case itself is what sounds absurd..... a court attempting to grant human rights to a chimp..... as a chimp is not a HUMAN!

Alonzo said:
Try using a chimp in a circus, experiments etc. in new zealand and you'll find out.

Thankfully I don't live in a place where people would have to suffer at the expense of chimps.

Love it or hate it, man is the pinnacle of life on earth in all respects to reason, ability and natural selection.

[Alonzo]

I'm not sure if you're using that as evidence for something sam, but from the very first line:

The higher animals do engage in individual fights, yes, but never in organized masses.

you're wrong. Animals engage in organized fights all the time, and at least chimps engage in what, in any human, would be considered war. Jane Goodall has observed that multiple time. They engage in long, drawn out conflicts.

Through the years her work continued to yield surprising insights, such as the unsettling discovery that chimpanzees engage in a primitive form of brutal “warfare.” In early 1974, a "four-year war" began at Gombe, the first record of long-term warfare in nonhuman primates. Members of the Kasakela group systematically annihilated members of the "Kahama" splinter group.

http://www.janegoodall.org/jane/default.asp

[Alonzo]

Alonzo, you are veering toward irrational.

And regardless of what I say, it's going to end up with you going on about some supposedly objective abstract rights to take away the rights of animals, and me being (as is everyone who disagrees with you) irrational and illogical. I don't think I want to have this debate again.

So before I veer any further towards "irrational" I'm going to just stop debating you now.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Your choice Alonzo.

I don't throw around accusations without putting something behind them.

[brien]

Since the rights of US citizens are defined first in the Declaration of Independence, and then expanded and explained in the Constitution and BOR, and since the FF never mentioned their cows, chickens, or horses, we must assume they meant what they wrote...."that all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..." I only see the word "men" and then later extended to all men and women.

When the cows, and the chickens, and the sheep, and the horses, all get together and write their Declaration of Independence, I think then, we would have government protect those rights. Until then, it is up to the responsibility of each animal caretaker to be humane and loving to each and every animal they care for in life.

When we find this to not be the case, the perpetrator should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but by no means do wild or domesticated animals have "rights" as defined in the founding documents.

I find it extremely hypocritical that some of the same people who will kill babies before they are born, would go to the ends of the earth to protect their precious little pets from any dangers, real or perceived in their lives. Hypocrites to the Nth degree or they merely love their pets more than they love their babies.

[Alonzo]

brien, there's a little thing called birth that separates the two. I don't have a problem with abortion, regardless of the organism.

[brien]

brien, there's a little thing called birth that separates the two. I don't have a problem with abortion, regardless of the organism.

I see it as having people make their own decision. But my point still stands, some people who become outraged over "animal rights" and the treatment of animals, are the same people who would willing kill a baby in the third term of pregnancy. If that "ain't" hypocritical, I don't know what is in life.

Birth or no birth, preemies as young as 13 weeks can survive "ex utero", yet that not withstanding, a baby almost full term, can be snuffed as if they were a meaningless piece of biological matter no different than what we flush down the toilet everyday. If this isn't more meaningful than "animal rights", then we as a civilization and a species are done for and deserve extinction.

Those who put "animal rights" above human life to me are hypocritical lowlifes ,who probably by the luck of the draw, weren't aborted themselves. That said, I still agree that abortion is an individual decision that shouldn't be entered into lightly. Every woman who considers abortion should enter counselling for at least one week in order to carefully consider all of the ramifications of that life and death decision. I have a feeling if this were the case, we would see a dramatic decline in abortions.

No hyjack here,sorry.

[Alonzo]

Birth or no birth, preemies as young as 13 weeks can survive "ex utero",

No they can't:

James Elgin Gill (born on 20 May 1987 in Ottawa, Canada) was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature (21 weeks and 5 days gestation) and weighed 1 lb. 6 oz. (624 g). He survived and is quite healthy.[32][33]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth#Records

are the same people who would willing kill a baby in the third term of pregnancy. If that "ain't" hypocritical, I don't know what is in life.


Because the mother is required to carry it inside her otherwise. There is no requirement, once something is born, for a person to care for it, as another individual can take up that role. No one is dictating to an adult what they can or can't do with their body in that case.

If this isn't more meaningful than "animal rights", then we as a civilization and a species are done for and deserve extinction.


As a species, considering our level of overpopulation, what benefit does that provide to us, as a species, to increase births by restricting abortion? Same goes for dogs, what benefit, as a species, is there for increasing births?


Those who put "animal rights" above human life to me are hypocritical lowlifes ,who probably by the luck of the draw, weren't aborted themselves. That said, I still agree that abortion is an individual decision that shouldn't be entered into lightly. Every woman who considers abortion should enter counselling for at least one week in order to carefully consider all of the ramifications of that life and death decision. I have a feeling if this were the case, we would see a dramatic decline in abortions.

But you'd see an increase in abused, neglected children, high school dropouts, college dropouts etc. search for "Pro abortion" on this forum and you'll find a thread I made showing the statistical outcomes, for the mother, of teen pregnancy. It ain't pretty.

Many animals have far more intelligence than any fetus, regardless of the age. Practically all birthed animals are of greater intelligence than a human fetus at some point, the exception would be coral and other things which probably have zero of what we'd class as intelligence. Those would, at worst, be equal to embryo's and young fetus' intelligence.

So when you're saying it's hypocritical to support abortion rights and animal rights, I say that's nonsense. If I have a chimp, an animal that is as intelligent as a 5 or 6 year old, and I have a fetus, on what criteria should I choose to protect the fetus over the chimp? Certainly not intelligence, cognition, or anything else that we use to defend the argument that humans are "special". Unless you want to argue based on religious beliefs, or protecting our own, there is no real justification, that I know of, to justify protecting a fetus over an adult chimp, elephant, dog or any other animal that is far more intelligent and aware than a fetus, especially when the latter is alive only because it is attached to the body of another.

[brien]

No they can't:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_birth#Records

Because the mother is required to carry it inside her otherwise. There is no requirement, once something is born, for a person to care for it, as another individual can take up that role. No one is dictating to an adult what they can or can't do with their body in that case.

As a species, considering our level of overpopulation, what benefit does that provide to us, as a species, to increase births by restricting abortion? Same goes for dogs, what benefit, as a species, is there for increasing births?

But you'd see an increase in abused, neglected children, high school dropouts, college dropouts etc. search for "Pro abortion" on this forum and you'll find a thread I made showing the statistical outcomes, for the mother, of teen pregnancy. It ain't pretty.

Many animals have far more intelligence than any fetus, regardless of the age. Practically all birthed animals are of greater intelligence than a human fetus at some point, the exception would be coral and other things which probably have zero of what we'd class as intelligence. Those would, at worst, be equal to embryo's and young fetus' intelligence.

So when you're saying it's hypocritical to support abortion rights and animal rights, I say that's nonsense. If I have a chimp, an animal that is as intelligent as a 5 or 6 year old, and I have a fetus, on what criteria should I choose to protect the fetus over the chimp? Certainly not intelligence, cognition, or anything else that we use to defend the argument that humans are "special". Unless you want to argue based on religious beliefs, or protecting our own, there is no real justification, that I know of, to justify protecting a fetus over an adult chimp, elephant, dog or any other animal that is far more intelligent and aware than a fetus, especially when the latter is alive only because it is attached to the body of another.

Look, I am not for restricting abortion on a legal basis. All I am saying is that I agree it is up to the individual woman to decide on abortion, but the same people who would abort a human being growing inside a woman, would protect an animal who, if they met it in the wild, would probably kill them. To me it is hypocrisy to the Nth degree. ie, they see the life of a wild animal more important than the life of a human being.

You can write about how many low quality lives are born into this society from your data in a previous thread all you want, but they are still human beings. I don't care how they turn out because this is a function of how they are raised and how society deals with them. You may as well start your extermination camps today if you want to restrict human lifeforms on earth. Oh wait, they are already started, only we call them "clinics."

As far as your chimp analogy, I would kill the chimp in every instance to save a human life. A fetus is a human being and a chimp is not a human being. I wouldn't like to have to make the choice but let me ask you this: If you wife was of childbearing age, and you could sacrifice a chimp in order to save your child in your wife's uterous, or you could abort it, and save the chimp, which would you do?

But of course if one doesn't consider a third term baby a human being, then there is probably something lacking in their education which is why I recommend that every candidate for an abortion be counselled and wait at least a week before making the decision to abort. Hell, we give consumers a week to return a car, or three days to change their mind on a bank loan, can't we extend the same courtesy to the unborn?

And as far as increasing the population, there are thousands of people who would love to adopt motherless children. Today in the US, people who want to adopt are forced to go to foreign countries to adopt children, when if there were waiting periods and counselling before abortion, there probably would be more children right here in the US to adopt. And given the choice of adoption here in the US, as opposed to travelling abroad, I am certain most would opt to adopt here in the US.

No matter though. If one doesn't see the hypocrisy in the comparison of supporting abortion to the protection of "animals" and how they are inherently incongruent in their phihlosophy, I will never change their opinion. Furthermore, if someone looks at a third term en utero baby, and can deny that little "fetus" is indeed a human being, then I definitely say there is something wrong with that person's perception. So, when a woman chooses a third term abortion, if it makes their conscience feel better to support animal rights while they are snuffing out a human being, that's the quality of the life they lead and they deserve everything they get that goes along with it.

Once again, I support the people's right to choose, but it seems to me some aren't making very informed decisions.

[Alonzo]

You can write about how many low quality lives are born into this society from your data in a previous thread all you want, but they are still human beings. I don't care how they turn out because this is a function of how they are raised and how society deals with them.

And, knowing that, and knowing that society won't magically change upon their birth, what difference does the cause make? You're not going to take a 15 year old high school dropout and crack addict, who was neglected since birth, and say "At least he can blame society". That doesn't make it any better. And while that's extreme, there are various shades before that that are still very sad.


As far as your chimp analogy, I would kill the chimp in every instance to save a human life. A fetus is a human being and a chimp is not a human being. I wouldn't like to have to make the choice but let me ask you this: If you wife was of childbearing age, and you could sacrifice a chimp in order to save your child in your wife's uterous, or you could abort it, and save the chimp, which would you do?

You're asking an emotional question that one cannot answer unless they're in that position, and it still would be based on emotions and should not be implemented into law or moral code. There's a lot of things emotions can lead you to do. If your wife was raped, would you want the man who did it to die a horrible death? Probably. I can think of many different methods of torture I would want to impose upon him. But should you legally be able to do it? No. That's because emotions shouldn't can't be allowed to dictate morality and law. At best they are mitigating factors once the boundary into illegal and immoral acts have been crossed, they're not enough to make something immoral or illegal.

But, seeing as I lack that experience, morally you should save the chimp. The fetus lacks practically everything the chimp has. And a fetus is potential, you can have another fetus or you can adopt if something happened to make that not an option.

And as far as increasing the population, there are thousands of people who would love to adopt motherless children. Today in the US, people who want to adopt are forced to go to foreign countries to adopt children, when if there were waiting periods and counselling before abortion, there probably would be more children right here in the US to adopt. And given the choice of adoption here in the US, as opposed to travelling abroad, I am certain most would opt to adopt here in the US.

There is no need to go abroad for adoption. Adding more children into the american adoption system is a horrible idea, as there are hundreds of thousands of children waiting for adoption.

If you go to a dog shelter and you want to adopt a puppy, you may need to be put on a waiting list. But no one would ever say that there are no dogs to adopt, there's plenty, you just don't want them.

the average child who was adopted from foster care in the United States was 7 years old. Most of the children (80 percent) were in foster care for more than 11 months before they were adopted...

For example, according to national statistics released by the Children's Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services, in fiscal year 2002, 302,000 children entered foster care, up from 295,000 children entering the system in 2001. An estimated 126,000 foster children nationwide were ready and waiting to be adopted, but less than half (51,000 kids) were adopted.

http://life.familyeducation.com/adoption/foster-care/45767.html

People want puppies, they don't want the thousands of kids who would love to have loving, stable homes.

But of course if one doesn't consider a third term baby a human being, then there is probably something lacking in their education which is why I recommend that every candidate for an abortion be counselled and wait at least a week before making the decision to abort.

Third trimester abortions are an incredibly small proportion of abortions in the first place. But second, you are placing a system in place that will increase the chance of mothers making decisions based on social pressure. Having the therapist trying to talk them out of it, and giving another week for the family to do so, would result in an increase in mothers who have a baby for the wrong reason, not because they are prepared to care for it but because they felt guilty about doing anything else. That, on a large scale (not each individual case) is disastrous for children, and for society when they become adults.

Many abortion providers require some sort of immediate counseling, to ensure the woman really wants the abortion. That's a good thing, as the counseling is exploratory, not designed to convince her one way or the other but to ensure the decision she's making is consistent with what she really wants. Your suggestion, of some sort of "education" and time to get her to reverse the decision, won't serve that purpose.

Though considering that educated people are more likely to support liberal policies such as abortion rights, I find that comment with regards to education to be bizarre, especially since there is nothing you'd learn, when being educated, that would make a fetus a full human being.

Hell, we give consumers a week to return a car, or three days to change their mind on a bank loan, can't we extend the same courtesy to the unborn?

The former is designed to protect the customer from being taken advantage of or being given a bad product. You are suggesting something that works against the customer and their interests.

But you do realize that, unlike animals, a fetus, of any age, does not meet the criteria I used to determine what does and does not have rights. And, the criteria I use to decide what is a full human, or dog, or chimp, is not met by a fetus of any organism.