I've been following the "debate" recently in the Times, and I'm rather bored right now, so I'll write my own opinion as well as inform some people that may not know a lot about the matter!
I think that animals should be treated with a level of respect similar to the level of respect that we humans want to receive yet do not always give others. I object to any form of cruelty to animals, although I have no right to complain about it. The only way I believe that I can have the right to complain is if I stop eating meat entirely; this includes dairy products and eggs, etc.
Animals are not only treated cruelly in scientific experimentation and cosmetic testing, not to mention a number of other things that I am omitting, but in the creation of food products.
As most of you probably already know, the meat just doesn't appear, it was harvested from an animal. These animals often grow up in a barn, are fed special food so they grow and mature more quickly than they normally would, and produce more meat/milk or whatever they were grown to produce. Many of these animals never see a pasture, or only for a very short time. They are kept in unclean conditions, get little or no exercise, and are so unhealthy by the time they are slaughtered that it is practically a blessing, or they sit there laying eggs and producing milk for their entire lives, in the same pen. Keeping all those animals also produces waste, both while they are living and after they die. All those cows produce significant amounts of methane gas, which is one of the main greenhouse gases and a huge contributor to global warming.
Hunting on the other hand, is not necessarily "evil", as long as it is done legally, and as long as the entire animal is used. Although that is just my opinion, what else is the Times for? I believe that killing an animal for pleasure is barbaric. I myself do not do it, but my grandpa hunts, and he is an outfitter, and all the hunters that come to him pay him money to kill an animal so they can stick it up on their wall and brag to people about it. Here is a quote from one of his hunters -- my grandma asked him why he hunted, and his reply was, "For the bragging rights." I felt like punching him right there, but then again, that wouldn't be proper, would it?
Now for something remotely positive about "cruelty to animals". The scientific experimentation part is partially good, although it is also bad; but what isn't bad if you look at it from a pessimistic point of view? Now, I believe that dissection of animals is wrong, although I understand why they teach it. There are several alternatives to it now and I think that therefore it should be let go, especially since we can do it with computers or models.
Scientific experimentation that is performed by adults is for a good cause though. It allows scientists to test their possible "cures" for major diseases, since there is a probability of horrible side-effects it would be dangerous to attempt this on human beings. (Would you really give yourself up for scientific experimentation, when there was a possibility you would die, or live a disabled life for the rest of your life? Seriously?) If you said no, then do you think others would? You cannot expect others to do things when you will not. I could be completely morbid and say that the diseases help lower our world-wide population, but that would just be wrong.
Cruelty to animals in my opinion is wrong, although in certain instances there are some benefits. People walk a thin line when arguing about this, and they should know all the facts before they argue one point or another. Thanks for reading my obscenely long article!
Bye,
Nyctohylo
