Resolved: Justice requires the recogntion of animal rights.

Value: fairness is laws:  Value criterion: compassion.  The affirmative value is fairness in law.  Fairness is defined  as being in a legal or proper manner. To be fair we should have an equal or likeness in standards for how we treat all animals. Certain animals can not defend themselves, so we should stand up for them. Laws should show a state of being fair by standing up for those who cant stand up for themselves.  By providing animal rights it is are doing just that. are showing a fairness in our laws that protect not just humans but other valuable and vulnerable creatures on earth.  My criterion is compassion. Laws should show compassion for not just humans but for animals to. In time animals will understand right and wrong . They can already fell pain and tell one emotion form another. That’s why animal rights are in our laws today because it is only just to show animals protection from a brutal and inhumane death. Contention 1: Understanding of rights. Point A: understanding of right and wrong. Stated in Animal Cognitions was "According to this explanation, gorillas can copy aspects of program organization from the behavior of others and they use this ability when learning how to eat nettles, resulting in consistent styles of processing by most individuals at each different site; like other great apes, gorillas have the precursor abilities for developing culture.” This should mean in time they will be able to understand right and wrong, when giving the chance. If we don’t give them the chance then how will they ever learn the difference. If laws waited till they learn the difference then there would be so much more animal brutality in our world.   Point B: emotions my eye was caught by the striking images of Gana, an 11-year old gorilla living at Munster zoo, Germany, holding her dead baby aloft.  According to all the news stories I've read, this photo demonstrates that she is grieving - feeling the same emotions as we would in these circumstances. Which was stated by Tamsin Osborne. If they can feel emotions as strong as grief then wont they can understand the concepts of right and Wong and ethical justice. People say dogs react with there emotions comfort them when they are down, yet we say animals rights shouldn’t be held in our laws and call that justice.  They can comfort, grieve and fell pain. If that doesn’t say that its only fair for them to have rights then what dose? Some dogs have grieved until they have made themselves fatally sick and die themselves. There loyal and shouldn’t that show there right for justice. The answer is yes , yes it should. Contention 2: In laws today. Point A: It’s been working.  We  already have  many animal rights in our laws today. The laws have rights to protect animals that have been domesticated form starvation and human abuse. Those laws where put in place for a reason ,animals can feel pain. When humans beat on them ,they can feel it so to be just laws are made to put a stop to animal cruelty. When humans can call another animals pain just there has been an incredible downfall in humanity. Ever seen a animal slowly die for malnutrition or dehydration? When that’s called just there is not justice. People say justice is just for man kind but that has no basis. Man kind didn’t always understand justice themselves. Yet laws would expect others to? Our laws today don’t but if laws call it justice to not have animal rights then we unfortunately do. “Every day in countries around the world, animals are fighting for their lives. They are enslaved, beaten, and kept in chains to make them perform for humans' "entertainment"; they are mutilated and confined to tiny cages so that we can kill them and eat them; they are burned, blinded, poisoned, and cut up alive in the name of "science"; they are electrocuted, strangled, and skinned alive so that people can parade around in their coats; and worse. “  That is just what is being said by peta ( People for ethical treatment of animals) imagine how much worse it could be. That’s what laws would  call justice without animal rights. You tell me if that’s fair in your mind. Point B: The way to kill In today’s laws animals can not be beaten to death. They can not be unfairly abused. Yes, one day we will eat our food but we do not have to kill them in a brutal or unfair way. Our laws show compassion for animals by stooping unfair ways to kill them. We have animal rights today that don’t stop us from eating them but just stop it form having a harsh life and an unfair death. Why should our laws not show compassion to living creatures who can feel pain. The answer is they shouldn’t, the way the animals are killed should be humane.    

Individual's rights versus state's rights: which one is more important?

I am for the individual's rights over the state's rights, because everyone has natural rights.

Should animal abusers be registered like sex offenders on a website?

Animal Abuse Legislation in California Are animal abusers even on the plain as sex offenders?        

Rights go to the majority.

Do you believe that rights truly go to the largest group and that if you're that 49.9% or less that you're screwed. I was going to post a silly cartoon like I normally do, when I happened across this. I think it gives away my side.

Should Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be repealed?

Outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private."

Even though the fetus is human, the woman's rights come first.

I fiirrmly believe this, what say you?

Are our 'rights' really just over glorified 'privileges'?

We call these things rights, but the government can take them away at any second, for whatever reason they justify. What makes them rights? because the government says it, because we should be aloud it as humans? We should be aloud to kill anyone who is threatening us but we need more that probable cause to get away with it. Thumbs up for the proper usage of 'are' and 'our' in the Debate Title.

Should there be an Animal Medicare plan?

Should the government pay a portion or all of the medical bills for animals??

Miranda rights are bad

 

Should Justin Bieber have rights as a human?

Justin Bieber shouldn’t have right. I personally believe that Justin Bieber shouldn’t have rights due to the facts that he is a demon spawn from the depths of the earth. I have reasons to believe that he was a demon seed planted in his so called mother by a satanic figure on the first of March 1994. I also believe that Justin Bieber is a mutated beast from plum island; as a baby Justin was so hideous that the residents of Stratford Canada deported him to New York where the scientists of Plum Island hid him until they made his freakishly body was altered enough to be accepted into society in Canada. After 14 years of hiding away in his house he decided to show his talents to his grandmother by singing into the camera on YouTube and people noticed his singing and loved it, he was getting popular throughout the YouTube community. As he got more popular I had noticed that his music has subliminal messages. This is an extract from one of Justin Biebers songs, You know you love me, I know you careJust shout whenever, and I'll be thereYou are my love, you are my heartAnd we will never, ever, ever be apartVerse 1: I know that this is a paragraph confessing his love to someone in his previous life.   Are we an item? Girl, quit playin'"We're just friends," what are you sayin'?Said "there's another," and looked right in my eyesMy first love broke my heart for the first time Verse 2: The first sentence “Are we an item?” I know that this could mean when he was a small satanic child the figure that he was attached to broke his heart by sending him to Plum Island, he is pleading to not be sent off and describing how  he doesn’t want to go and how he knows what happens there.     This is a fact and if anybody see’s Justin Bieber you should shoot him with a silver bullet, drive a stake through his heart, splash holy water on him or burn him. Justin Bieber if you are reading this could you please hold your head under water for 45 minutes or so, thanks.  

Do mens rights get overlooked due to feminist movements?

There is a large amount of publicity behind feminism, however, I see little about where a man fits within the world.  In the rush for equality, have we left men behind?

Do we have rights?

Do you think we actualy have rights?

Are any rights really Inalienable?

An inalienable right is one that cannot be abridged or suspended.

There is a limit to states rights.

The staes are themselves bound by Constitutional Law. The states do not have the right to violate anyone's rights. Yes, states rights are important, but they are outweighed by the right of the individual.  

Do you use your rights?

Well do you?

Equal Rights Amendment

Should the U.S. adopt a Constitutional Amendment like the ERA: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

FDR's Second Bill of Rights: Necessary or Madness??

-Employment, with a living wage -Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies -Housing -Medical care -Education -Social Security Sounds like the second part of that 'S' word...  

Should Gay couples be given the same marital rights, just under a different title?

Do terror suspects deserve the same rights as American citizens?

LGBT marriage,adoption,and rights

So,this is obviously an issue that's been going on ever since the sexual revolution in the 1960's and 1970's.  Of course,back then things were slightly different than they are now.  Regardless,this is an issue that has continued on for many years and I was just curious as to what some of you think about this.  My personal opinion is that LGBT rights should be allowed,why not?  They're still people,they are more than capable of taking care of children,and marriage is something that anyone should be allowed.  That right should come naturally with being an American.   So post your thoughts and opinions on here about this issue without being TOO offensive.   Thank you,and I look forward to everyone's feelings about this issue 

Why is the Bill of Rights so broad and indirect?

For instance, why do we need to have the Supreme Court "interpret" the Bill of Rights? Shouldn't the ammendment's be self-explanitory?

Bringing gun rights to Australia

Some believe that allowing guns in Australia will decrease crime rates as currently the only ones in access to guns are the criminals themselves, and thus civilians would be safer wielding weapons.

When should the human fetus have rights? Tell me your belief.

I say at 20 weeks after conception, because he or she cannot survive earlier.

One cannot logically support abortion rights while opposing capital punishment

And vice versa.  You must oppose both or support both, as they function under the same principle and anything otherwise would be deeply hypocritical.