• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should animals be granted personhood?

Which ones are people?

  • Total voters
    19
digsbe said:
I wonder what PETA's stance on abortion is...
Click to expand...

Well, they do kill a lot of animals. Look up Penn & Teller's show Bull**** about PETA.
 
tessaesque said:
As long as you don't wear the fetus afterwards they're leniant.


(bad joke, I know)
Click to expand...

Hehe... I have a dark sense of humor and I did chuckle.
Thorgasm said:
Well, they do kill a lot of animals. Look up Penn & Teller's show Bull**** about PETA.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I would see it as hypocritical for them to support abortion and deny unborn humans personhood while demanding we extend that right to some animals.
 
digsbe said:
Hehe... I have a dark sense of humor and I did chuckle.


Maybe so, but I would see it as hypocritical for them to support abortion and deny unborn humans personhood while demanding we extend that right to some animals.
Click to expand...

I wonder if PETA supports spaying and neutering people. :lol:
 
I'm undecided, but leaning towards personhood. I haven't really heard many persuasive arguments against animal rights, but I'd really like to.

On the flip side, though, I really don't understand why the PETA folks believe that animal cruelty laws need to be in place, but it's fine for people to own pets. As far as I'm concerned, either chimpanzees should have equal rights or they should have all the legal protection of an inanimate object. In terms of the historical slavery debate, I don't get this position of "yeah, it's okay to own a (N-word) as long as you treat him nicely". I'm interested in hearing someone justify it, though.
 
I think personhood is kind of a bunk argument in the first place because humans apply it so inconsistently to themselves.

I would rather say that animals should be spared undue cruelty under law. Just because some of them are livestock, does not mean they should endure abuse, displacement, or be threatened with extinction because of our selfish ways.

Dolphins are incredibly intelligent to the point of sentience. I would not want to see them suffer.
 
Animals are not people.So the answer is none of the above.
 
None of them.
In other news, fertilized human eggs aren't people either.
 
pbrauer said:
None of them.
In other news, fertilized human eggs aren't people either.
Click to expand...

There should really be a name for highjacking a generic rights thread and turning it into an abortion-rights thread. Kind of like the whole "godwin"/hitler thing.
 
Temporal said:
Dolphins are incredibly intelligent to the point of sentience. I would not want to see them suffer.
Click to expand...

If they're so smart, why do they keep getting caught in tuna nets?
 
I say that animals should legally be assured that humans will not unnecessarily treat them cruelly, but just like with humans, this is still going to take compromise and debate and most likely a whole lot more court cases and laws to establish lines as to what "cruel treatment" entails, unfortunately.

FYI, for those who didn't know already, orcas (killer whales) are really the largest dolphins. Although all dolphins are considered "toothed whales", along with porpoises and a couple of actual whales.

Granting personhood based on intelligence level or presumed intelligence level though seems to be a very bad premise to set. Sticking with humans are people and granting/ensuring certain protections of other species is probably a better thing to do. Now, I don't think that having varying protection levels based on the intelligence or presumed intelligence of a species would be bad.
 
spud_meister said:
Going on from the PETA thread, the argument is that smart animals should be granted personhood, and/or special legal protection, so after doing a few seconds of research, I found a list of the top 10 smartest animals. Should you agree that some animals should be granted personhood, which of the animals would you like to see as people?
Click to expand...

I think that any animal that can provide willing consent to pornography is entitled to rights of personhood.
 
Animals as property. I wonder what Americans will think about that 150 years from now.
 
Woot! Rats are in the lead!

129165109835738377.jpg
 
Is Cass Sunstein in on this nonsense as well? Didn't he advocate that trees/animals should have lawyers?
 
tessaesque said:
There should really be a name for highjacking a generic rights thread and turning it into an abortion-rights thread. Kind of like the whole "godwin"/hitler thing.
Click to expand...

Digsbe started it. ;)

I've never looked it up but from the name, PETA don't seek personhood for animals, just that we treat them ethically. What's so bad about that?
Don't factory farm, let animals live as decent a life as we can, with food, shelter, and access to the open air before we humanely kill, and eat them.

Taking Killer Whales (actually dolphins) from the wild to live an unnatural insanity-causing life for our "entertainment" isn't ethical.
 
If pigs are granted personhood we will not have pork. NO BACON.

It will never happen.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Digsbe started it. ;)

I've never looked it up but from the name, PETA don't seek personhood for animals, just that we treat them ethically. What's so bad about that?
Don't factory farm, let animals live as decent a life as we can, with food, shelter, and access to the open air before we humanely kill, and eat them.
Click to expand...

No, they don't, they want everyone to go vegan, and all animals to run free and wild, except dogs, which they kill.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Digsbe started it. ;)

I've never looked it up but from the name, PETA don't seek personhood for animals, just that we treat them ethically. What's so bad about that?
Don't factory farm, let animals live as decent a life as we can, with food, shelter, and access to the open air before we humanely kill, and eat them.

Taking Killer Whales (actually dolphins) from the wild to live an unnatural insanity-causing life for our "entertainment" isn't ethical.
Click to expand...

That I can agree with.
 
spud_meister said:
Going on from the PETA thread, the argument is that smart animals should be granted personhood, and/or special legal protection, so after doing a few seconds of research, I found a list of the top 10 smartest animals. Should you agree that some animals should be granted personhood, which of the animals would you like to see as people?
Click to expand...

All of them. Judging by some of the posters on this forum, I've met gerbils with more intelligence. :)
 
no animals should be granted "personhood".

but we should increase our regulations protecting the rights of animals.
 
smartest animal for me remain dolphin.

Dolphin's intelligence is consider almost same with Chimpanzee. The advantage of Chimpanzee is that they got hands and legs and express their intelligence often and widely.
 
Wake said:
Is Cass Sunstein in on this nonsense as well? Didn't he advocate that trees/animals should have lawyers?
Click to expand...

Yeah he's a moonbat of the most lunar extreme
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom