I agree, my girls are not treated as property.  They get gifts, they have their own table for food an water set appropriately to their size, shoot!  Amber loves to lick the spoon when I give them canned catfood.  They sleep in my bed, preferring it over the one I tried to give them and they even have their own pillows.  Scarlette got the best care I could afford, without affecting us, when she got sick, came home to die, and was buried (ran out of money for cremation, so we did it ourselves).  Shiva runs all over the house and knocks things over and gets in trouble for it, just like one of my human sons…  Um…  Well…  They are like children.  The only difference is that they can’t clean up their messes.  Yes, I’m one of those weird humans who treats her girls (cats) like part of the family.  My older son jokingly told his friends when he was younger, my sisters are cats. 

Speaking as a vet, I can say that legally animals are defined as property and are often treated as such. Obviously, Mriana spoils her girls, but we all know she’s crazy. There are cruelty laws, but they are weak and rarely enforced. Millions of animals are killed, or simply denied relief from suffering, because their owners can’t or won’t care for them adequately, and the law allows this.

FWIW, I personally don’t find the “keeping pets is slavery” argument pursuasive at all. “Self-determination” is a concept way beyond the cognitive capacity of most companion animals. Their well-being is most usefully analyzed in terms of how well their physical and behavioral needs are met, and I think this can often be accomplished in “captivity.” The lives of dogs and cats, in particular, and generally much better and happier with our care than without it.

But the naturalistic fallacy (whatever they did in nature is optimal for them) is especially ridiculous when applied to our pets, which we have bred intensively to be very different from any creature living in a truly human-free environment. Dogs have a great need for social interaction, but we’ve “designed” them to get that need met pretty well by interaction with us. So imagining that we can or should “free” them is ridiculous.

mckenzievmd - 18 November 2008 05:33 PM

Speaking as a vet, I can say that legally animals are defined as property and are often treated as such. Obviously, Mriana spoils her girls, but we all know she’s crazy.

Yup! When it comes to my girls they are and I am.    I love them dearly though and still miss Scarlette sorely.  Legally they maybe property, but in my house they have all the rights of humans, with a few exceptions.  They aren’t allowed chocolate, can’t go outside, and other safety and health issues like that.

I think we should add that the health benefits of companion animals is a two way street, they lower our blood pressure, help relieve depression, among other things.

My Puck (he certainly lives up to his name) is our friend and an integral part of the family. He is spoiled rotten! After the family, his frisbee and tennis ball are his favorite friends and we make sure they have frequent play dates! His medical bills are higher than mine (fox tail removal, allergic reaction to food etc.)

Yes, unrelated strays will roam around in packs. In the 1980s they were a BIG problem in Oakland, Ca until the animal control department worked to control the stray dog population. They were threatening and aggressive towards people too, the people living there were afraid someone would get seriously injured, which thankfully did not happen. Oakland is a large urban city with a huge amount of undeveloped parkland running parallel to the city where they can hide during the day.

I have read one of Dawkins’ books called The God Delusion.  I find his writing excellent and his points hard to refute.  Reading Dawkins makes me a believer more and more each day that religious thought should be challenged.  If we are to find purpose in our lives, we shouldn’t make things up to make them fit our egocentric world views.  The world is not about simple answers, but about complex and fascinating questions.  Life’s finiteness makes it infinitely meaningful.

Chris Crawford - 24 October 2008 09:11 PM

You seem put out that I do not bother to refute your claims. That’s because our disagreement is at the fundamental level of assumptions. You assume that animals have rights. You offer no proof for your assumption; it’s the starting point of your discussion. I do not accept your assumption. Since we have no commonality of belief on the foundation issues, any discussion between us is futile. We just keep coming back to your assumption that animals have rights—and I don’t accept that assumption. OK?

Chris, you need help seriously. Read this aloud 10 times:

- Humans are ANIMALS too! Did you notice how BaIB has been careful by using the term “non-human” at various places?
- The Sun is a star too (just kidding, I know you already knew this)!

In today’s age, most (if not all) suffering to sentient beings can be eliminated without much compromise. I do not see why anyone would not support this cause.

I do not *need* to eat beef, so I do not kill cows (or have them killed), but very occasionally I drink milk. I do not approve of hunting at all; I do not use leather. I might have to use medicines that have been tested on clearly sentient animals.

I FEEL BAD about the things I cannot change for various reasons, and I admit selfishness is one of those reasons, but I do congratulate other people who live better lives.