Why Loving Animals Sometimes Means Not Having One

First of all, I'd kind of like to know your reaction to that title alone. If you wouldn't mind, tell me in the comments below along with any other reactions you have to this post. Thanks so much!

Now, moving on to what I'm actually here to say today. . .

As animal lovers, it's often very hard to say no to getting an animal. But you can't always be in the position to take a new animal in.

An obvious example would be if you live somewhere that doesn't allow pets. Taking care of an animal is not worth violating a contract. In that kind of situation, you probably can't keep it a secret for long. When it comes out, you would probably be evicted and / or fined, and you might have to give up the animal, which would be painful for you and the animal involved. This also applies to people who live at a parent's house if said parent(s) won't allow animals. Keeping an animal a secret from your parents won't work. Trust me. They're smarter than you probably give them credit for.

I had a friend who tried to keep animals multiple times when she wasn't allowed to. She had found a stray puppy, and talked her mom into keeping it while they found the owner. No one ever claimed the dog, and her mom told her they'd have to take her to a shelter where someone else could adopt her. So, my friend, who didn't have the best relationship with her mother, decided to leave home. At this point, she was 18, but still in high school, so she moved in with her boyfriend and his parents. (Which I would imagine was really awkward, but that's just me.) she later moved into an apartment that didn't allow animals, tried to sneak the dog in, and eventually had to give the dog away, and if I recall correctly, had to move again. 

Here's another thing, I don't like the term "pets" because it implies that it's something that you can pick up and put down when it's convenient, at least that's how it always seems to me. Maybe that's not the impression that the word gives you, but the impression that I get from it is an irresponsible way to think about animals. Animals require attention and regular interactions like feeding them and cleaning up after them at the minimum. If you can't do that, whether it's because you can't afford the food and supplies, don't have time to care for them, or just realistically recognize that you have too big of a lazy or forgetful streak, it's not fair to the animals to deprive them of a chance to be in a home that can and is willing to care for them properly.

I have a friend who had adopted a puppy who lived at our house until my friend moved out on his own. He could afford the food and supplies, and even paid one of my sisters to walk the dog regularly. On weekends, when he had time, he would take his dog downtown to this really cute doggy cafe and buy him treats. But once he moved out on his own, and had to move for his work, he realized pretty quickly that all by himself, he worked way too many hours to pay enough attention to his dog. So, while he could afford it, he knew his dog was getting lonely. Though it was extremely difficult for him, he gave the dog to a family that could spend more time with him.

Sometimes, you can't take in an animal because you already have several. Now, it's okay to have multiple pets if you can afford it, but sometimes one more is too many. When that happens, the animals might fight with each other because there isn't enough room for them to all have their own space. You might not even be aware that they're fighting, as it could be mainly happening while you're at work or school. It can also make clean-up overwhelming. If you have several cats, you really need multiple litter boxes. If you have fancy self-scooping litter boxes, then it's a whole lot easier. But, if you have normal litter boxes, and you don't clean them often enough, your cats are going to start using the rest of your house as a litter box. They won't want to use a filthy litter box just like you wouldn't want to use an unflushed toilet in a public restroom. With multiple dogs, it can be very difficult to make sure they're being walked enough. Some dogs can be walked together, but larger dogs are often too strong to be walked together.

This is a problem that I had once. My older sister had moved out, and taken in 3 feral kittens. She moved back in and brought them with her. At the time we already had 4 cats. (2 had been feral kittens that my sister talked my mom into adopting. 1 was a cat who we were taking care of temporarily, but the original owner abandoned with us and moving away without notice. 1 was a cat that my sister talked her boyfriend into adopting from a local animal shelter, but his family wouldn't let him keep, so we took him in, and then that particular cat adopted me.) But anyway, that is 7 cats in an average suburban house. At the time none of us kids would admit it, but that is too many cats in one place. After about a year, my sister bought her own house, and soon took her 3 cats with her (3 cats is acceptable depending on their personalities), so the problem was solved. Now, it really was too long to have that many cats at once, but she had never intended to move back in for so long. But that's exactly how things like that tend to happen, right? In a situation where too many animals have been acquired, it can be extremely hard to pick which one(s) to find new homes for. It's a whole lot easier to say no right at the outset so you are less attached to the animals that you can't take care of. You can always adopt more animals in the future when one passes away.

Sort along the lines of having several pets already, sometimes, whether you realize you're doing it or not, you might go from animal-lover to animal-collector. The idea of having exotic or wild animals as pets can be really enticing, but keep in mind that wild animals are just that. They aren't suited for living in your house like a domestic animal would be, and your house isn't suited for them living in it either. Having a rare pet isn't going to make you cooler, and once the novelty wears off, no one is going to pay you extra attention for it, and you may even get bored with the animal, which could lead to you not caring for the animal like you should. You have to keep in mind that animals aren't decorative. People often forget that when it comes to animals like fish. People frequently buy a really fancy bowl or aquarium and put some really pretty fish in them to make a space look fancier. However, people often don't realize just how much space a fish needs to thrive, and their fish die or become bored, or fight because they lack space. Also, fish are often captured from their natural environments (there's some truth to the story of Finding Nemo, afterall. . . ) or they're bred on farms where they are frequently not cared for well, and used to make money for large corporations. (Don't buy into The Man!) Or maybe it's not exotic animals that interest you, but specific fancy breeds of animals, and you just want to have this kind of dog, or this kind of cat, and then, oh there's this other breed or other color that's just so pretty, and you have to get it, and you accidentally reenact the story Millions of Cats by Wanda Gág. Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to own a purebred anything. But if you're treating animals like collector's items, chances are, you're getting them for selfish reasons, and not just because you want to give an animal a home. With so many homeless animals in the world, it's really unfair to the animals that are euthanized in shelters every day because no one will take them in. Purebred animals rarely have trouble finding homes. If you have room in your heart and your home and your budget for an animal, rescue one! But don't just collect animals to show off what cool pets you have.

I know a girl who has several "exotic" animals, as well as several more common animals. She's also a photographer, so she's always posting pictures of them and using them in photoshoots. I'm sure she takes care of them, but it comes across as though she is just using them as props. For a while, it felt like she got a new animal every week. She has several cats, 2 snakes, a chameleon, and at least one tarantula. I'm pretty sure she has some other kind of reptile, but I can't remember. Now, to give her some credit, I don't think she's taken in any new animals recently. (I know because I've seen her posting things about having found animals, and trying to find homes for them. And she instagrams pictures of them enough that I'm sure I'd have noticed if she had gotten another one.) However, I do know that she thinks that she is better than other people who only have "normal" animals. She and some of her friends actually have "reptile parties" where they bring their reptiles over to one another's houses and take pictures and brag about how cool it is that they have such unique pets. 

Finally, not all animals are for everyone. If you ask most kids, they'll probably tell you that they'd love to have a puppy! Kids like the idea of having an animal to play with, and puppies are good at that, and they're really cute! But when the puppies grow up, and the kids grow up, not everyone can handle the responsibility of having a dog, or the energy it requires. I mentioned earlier that my family dog-sat for a while for my friend. Well, that was when I realized that I'm not really a good person to be a dog-owner. I'm definitely a cat person. Cats are pretty low-maintenance. Dogs on the other hand, need way more attention than I am capable of giving. Cats are much more individualistic than dogs are. While it's good to groom your cats every once and a while, dogs can't bathe themselves whatsoever, and dogs get pretty nasty if you don't keep them clean. But anyway, Just because you love animals, doesn't mean you have to have one. There are many ways to express your love for animals by speaking up for them and giving them a voice to ensure their well-being without necessarily living with one. It isn't hypocritical not to have an animal companion if you're an animal lover. As the saying goes, sometimes if you love someone, you have to let them go. Or to reference ABC's Once Upon a Time, you have to give them their best chance, and it isn't always with you. Putting this into practice takes a lot of maturity, because it's probably not what anyone wants to do.

Alright. This has been a really hard topic to talk about, because it is so much easier said than done. But it's a good thing to keep in mind. I hope it has been helpful. If you have any other reasons why loving animals sometimes means not having one, please tell me in the comments! I'd love to hear your thoughts on this. I'm sure I've missed several good points. Even if it's just a story you have that is a good example of one of the points I made, go ahead and share it! I'd really love to hear what you have to say about this topic.

Movie Madness: The Book of Life

I have been looking forward to seeing The Book of Life ever since I saw the trailer for it when I went to see How to Train Your Dragon 2. Not only was it as good as I hoped it would be, it was better! Now, I'm not here to ruin the movie for you. But, I wanted to talk about some of the best things about it. It's the perfect movie to watch for Halloween! SO, here is why you need to go see it.

1. It's got prominent Animal Rights undertones. Hurray! I can't really tell you much without spoiling, but believe you me, it's there. (And once you've seen it, we can freak out about it together. Hit me up in comments with a spoiler alert.)

2. It's got prominent Feminist undertones. Again, I'm not going to spoil it. But, This is some seriously crazy women's empowerment stuff. Even though it's a love story, it features very strong, independent female characters. (Voiced by very strong, independent actresses.)

3. It's got a great story-line. Just trust me on this, and go watch it. 

4. It's got extremely good cultural references. The soundtrack is wonderful. 30 Seconds to Mars was in the trailer, so trust me. It gets even better. There are also several literary references. (If you missed them, hit up the comments and I'll tell you some of the ones I noticed.)

5. The art is wonderful. 'Nuff said. (Except I really want to talk about this, so I'm going to elaborate a little.) Mexican Day of the Dead style is gorgeous, and used a lot in this movie. (That's another reason it's a good Halloween movie.) 

6. It celebrates a minority culture. This one is pretty obvious. 

7. It's a good movie for all ages. Tip: If you're stuck babysitting, or if you're a parent and you don't want your kids running around the neighborhood at night on Halloween, this is a great movie to take kids to. They'll love it, and so will you.

Alright. I'm going to stop there, or I might accidentally spoil something. But SERIOUSLY! This is a great movie. Go watch it. I'm going to buy my own copy and watch it every weekend for the rest of my life. (Okay, maybe not, but I definitely want my own copy.)

Expanding Beyond Animal Experimentation

Alright. So, as an introduction, today I will be posting a digital version of a research paper I wrote for my English 102 class last semester. I may or may not re-post it in like, a year. Reason being, this paper was turned in and revised several times, and the final time it is turned in, the teachers do not give it back for a year for some legal reasons. It didn't make sense to me, but whatever. So basically, I can't check to see what updates and revisions my teacher suggested for a while, so I might revise it when I do get the paper back. Of course, I wrote my paper about animal testing, and so I've been dying to share it with the people who care heavily about animal rights. I didn't feel like waiting that long to share it. You may remember that about 2 years ago, when I was first starting this blog, I wrote a research paper showing all the benefits of going vegan. This is a similar format to that, only it's a different side of the animal rights movement. I was honestly surprised how little my friends and classmates, even teachers knew about animal testing. I don't remember ever being that in the dark about the topic. It really opened my eyes as to how much people still have to hear about this to realize it's a big deal. I am fine with people referencing this paper, sharing it, etc. as long as I am attributed for it. Thank you.

Expanding Beyond Animal Experimentation

by

Kerry Marley

December 12, 2013 

Humanity has a long history of experimentation on animals, especially in the medical and cosmetic professions. Many people argue that humanity would not be where it is today if it were not for its reliance on animal experimentation. It is nigh unto impossible to deny that animal testing has ever been useful, although the argument could certainly be made that such a method was not always necessary. However, with advancements in medical and scientific technology, animal testing is no longer a morally defensible practice.

First, animal experimentation is an abusive method. Insufficient regulation about procedures that can be done to animals allows for abusive experiments. Abuse can be defined as excessive cruelty (willfully subjecting others to pain and suffering) or habitual violence. Abuse is allowed in research because “the only U.S. law that governs the use of animals in laboratories—the Animal Welfare Act—allows animals to be burned, shocked, poisoned, isolated, starved, forcibly restrained, addicted to drugs, and brain-damaged” (“Animal Testing is Bad Science” [1]). These methods are undeniably abusive and cruel, because the suffering is intentional. In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer, an Australian philosopher and professor on the ethics faculties of both Princeton University and University of Melbourne, alludes to British philosopher Jeremy Bentham who famously proposed that “‘the question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but Can they suffer?’” (57). Singer follows up on this question by stating that “defenders of experiments on animals do not deny that animals suffer. They cannot deny the animals’ suffering because they need to stress the similarities between humans and other animals in order to claim that their experiments may have some relevance for human purposes” (Singer, Animal Liberation 40). Singer also points out that United States military “experiments were designed so that many animals would suffer and die without any certainty that this suffering and death would save a single human life, or benefit humans in any way at all” (29). The fact that these experiments would have no benefit to humans certainly qualifies them as excessive, therefore abusive. Possibly the ultimate example of the cruelty of animal experimentation methods is that of the decompression chamber. As Singer notes, decompression chambers were researched in Nazi Germany on other humans. Sadly, later, the experiments were repeated in England on pigs. “All suffered decompression sickness, and some died from these attacks’” (Animal Liberation 83-84). This research was abusive because it caused excessive suffering. When the research has already been documented, even unethically, there is absolutely no excuse to repeat it for curiosity’s sake. As the saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Insufficient regulation about treatment of animals in testing allows for abusive handling. According to Matt Rossell, who formerly worked for Eliot Spindel, a medical researcher in the field of the effects of consumption of nicotine, pregnant monkeys were “subjected to multiple surgeries to implant nicotine pumps in their backs. . . and their babies are cut out of their wombs. . . to dissect their lungs (“Help End,” [1]). If that isn’t bad enough, Rossell continued by saying that he “‘witnessed some of the mothers post-surgery with the same signs of clinical depression that women suffer from after going through the emotional tragedy of losing a stillborn baby’" (“Help End,” [1]).  Again, willingly forcing distress and pain on another being who is capable of feeling pain is cruel. The experiments were not even intended to study maternal depression, so forcing the animal mothers to experience excessive suffering is abusive. Spindel’s experiments are just one example of cruel treatment of animals in testing. Even more generally, “no experiment, no matter how painful or trivial, is prohibited [by the US government] – and pain-killers [sic] are not even required (“Animal Testing is Bad Science” [1]). Santa Clara University published an article which states that annually “An estimated eight million [animals] are used in painful experiments. Reports show that at least ten percent of these animals do not receive painkillers” (Andre, Velasquez [2]). Ten percent of eight million is a minimum of eight hundred-thousand animals who are not given painkillers during painful experiments, which is an excessive number.

Second, animal experimentation is an ineffective method. Animal tests are inaccurate because of differences between animals and humans. According to In Defense of Animals, an organization that seeks to protect animal welfare, “in the case of nicotine's effect on infants born to smoking mothers, it is clear that such information could be mined from human clinical studies—and would have direct relevance to humans” (“Help End” [2]). Animal testing was harmful to humans by failing to discourage the active harming of unborn children. The animal tests gave mothers a false sense of security and a wrong belief that their habits were not harmful to their babies, when in fact, the truth is exactly opposite. In fact, “Animal data is so unreliable, that for decades, the tobacco industry used it to ‘prove’ that nicotine is not harmful. It was only through human studies that the link between tobacco consumption and cancer, heart disease, and other pulmonary illnesses was proved” (“Help End” [2]). The use of animal testing in this regard was unhelpful to humans because it failed to show the link between nicotine consumption and disease, thus failing to accurately warn people of potential health dangers. Sadly, these examples are not the only instance of failure of the results of animal tests to accurately translate for human biology. In fact, “The Food & Drug Administration tells us that 92% of drugs tested safe and effective in animals fail in human trials” says John J. Pippin, M.D., who is on the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. He continues with the example of Vioxx, a medicine developed for treating arthritis which “killed more Americans than died in the Vietnam War, yet it was deemed safe in eight studies using six animal species. Many drugs have had severe and even lethal effects in people after demonstrating safety in animal tests” ([1]). This lack of direct correlation is not news. According to Peter Singer, it is common knowledge “that extrapolation from one species to another is a highly risky venture. . . . As well as exposing people to harm, testing on animals may lead us to miss out on valuable products that are dangerous to animals, but not to human beings.” Singer continues to mention the examples of insulin, morphine, and penicillin (Animal Liberation 57). Pippin adds aspirin and acetaminophen to the list ([1]). In this lose-lose situation, animal experimentation is an inaccurate predictor of the effectiveness of medications. The evidence seems to suggest that any benefit from animal experimentation in this regard is marginal at best.

Animal tests are inaccurate because the testing environment skews the results. An essential part of conducting a viable experiment is to allow for only one variable. However, the testing environment is in and of itself a variable not accounted for. According to the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, “stress, routinely experienced by animals in labs, negatively influences the reliability of animal research data. Stress influences heart rate, pulse, blood pressure, muscular activity, and hormone levels and can modify the normal values of these variables significantly” (“Limitations” [1]). The research environment is therefore interfering with the animals’ normal body functions. If normality cannot be established, then a change from the normal state cannot be quantified either. Stress is not the only affected factor. “In one study, researchers discovered that not only is stress a common factor for mice in labs—just having a researcher present can alter a mouse’s behavior—but they also experience ‘sympathy pains’ for the mice surrounding them. ‘In other words, seeing another mouse in distress elevates the amount of distress the onlooker displays’” (“Limitations” [1]). The research environment makes the mice actively behave differently than they would whether they are by themselves or with other mice.  

Finally, animal experimentation is an outdated method. Much of the developed world has deemed animal testing unnecessary. For example, “a complete ban on the sale of cosmetics developed through animal testing has taken effect in the European Union. The ban applies to all new cosmetics and their ingredients sold in the EU, regardless of where in the world testing on animals was carried out. The 27 EU countries have had a ban on such tests in place since 2009. But the EU Commission is now asking the EU's trading partners to do the same” (“EU Bans” [1]). Essentially, the vast majority of Europeans deemed animal testing unnecessary and undesirable. As of yet, the ban enacted in 2009 has not hindered the continual development of Europe, and European women can still wear safe, good-quality makeup if they so choose. Transitioning from the cosmetic industry to the medical industry, “Australia, Japan, and the E.U. have already banned or limited experiments on great apes in medical research” (Biba 14). Additionally, because other methods have been deemed better, “the National Institutes of Health announced that it is phasing out experiments on chimpanzees” (Biba 14). These changes, presently limited to great apes, seem to point in the direction that the medical field will go.

Many viable alternatives to animal testing exist. Much of the world is abandoning the use of animal experimentation, but the discontinued use of this method of research and testing will not leave the medical and scientific realm without ways to discover new data or verify data and safety of products. “Effective, affordable, and humane research methods include sophisticated in vitro, genomic, and computer-modeling techniques as well as studies of human populations, volunteers, and patients“ (“Alternatives” [1]). According to Popular Science article “From Chimp to Chip,” by Erin Biba, institutions have created, or are developing, tissue and organ models on chips that effectively model human reactions (14). Additionally, alternative methods of research tend to be cheaper than animal experimentation because they don’t require purchasing, housing, feeding, and maintaining living creatures. The existence of these methods makes any need for animal testing obsolete.

As Bishop Desmond Tutu once famously said, "There's nothing more difficult than waking someone who is only pretending to be asleep." Although the world is still only beginning to realize the moral indefensibility of animal testing, some simply do not want to know. As has been evidenced, ignorance is certainly not bliss, especially for the animals being researched on. There is however, a brighter, more ethical future in sight for research and discovery. Because animal experimentation is clearly unnecessary, it is no longer morally justified.

Works Cited

Andre, Claire and Manuel Velasquez. “Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small.” Issues in Ethics. V. 1, N. 3 (1988) Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

“Alternatives to Animal Testing.” PETA. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint.” PETA. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

Biba, Erin. “From Chimp to Chip.” Popular Science Dec. 2013: 14, Print.

“EU Bans Sale of All Animal-tested Cosmetics.” BBC News. 11 March 2013. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

“Help End Nicotine Experiments on Monkeys at OHSU.” Vivisectioninfo.org. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

“Limitations and Dangers.” NEAVS. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

Pippin, John. “Put Animal Testing to Sleep: Pro: Misleading Conclusions, Wasted Money.” Bloomberg Business Week. Web. 10 Nov. 2013.

Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. 1975. New York: HarperCollins, 2009. Print.

---. Practical Ethics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge UP. 1993. Print.

It is a Question of Suffering

Before anyone jumps on my case about saying that animals are dumb, let me give you a vocabulary lesson. The word 'dumb' technically means mute, or unable to speak. So, Anna Sewell has got this totally right. People insult animals when they're upset. Verbal abuse hurts animals as well because they can tell intuitively when people are angry,which can often leads to physical abuse, such as kicking, swatting, etc. that can leave permanent physical and psychological damage to animals who can't speak up for themselves. We should be ashamed of ourselves for picking on the weaker man, so to speak. Basically, I think this is a brilliant quote, and paired with this photo, it is absolutely heart-melting. I hope you like this image as much as I did!

Rambling about Ethics

 

I've posted photos with quotes like these before, but it never stops hitting home. A great part of morals and ethics is compassionate treatment of others. This certainly includes compassion towards animals. Few people will dispute that Gandhi was a great ethical teacher, specifically in the area of basic human rights. If he's right about one thing, what's to say he isn't right about another? When you look at nations in the past that were infamous for their treatment of the common people, were people the only ones poorly treated? No. If they're going to abuse their fellow humans, leaders often allow poor treatment of animals. Even in the present, the most highly civilized areas have implemented humane regulations for animal treatment and slaughter. While ideally, the consumption of animals for food would be eradicated, at least reducing the amount that animals suffer makes nations morally praiseworthy.

"Hippie" Freebies

Now, before you start thinking about all the stereotypes associated with hippies, let me tell you that this post is not about hippies. Not really. What I'm actually talking about is a web page full of links that was created by a self-proclaimed "Modern Hippie" for the purpose of connecting young activists with campaign materials that fit into their price range. Everything on the link page is free. Are you interested now? At Hippie Freebies, you can find materials such as Vegan and Vegetarian Starter kits with helpful information and recipes, Animal Rights campaign materials and stickers, Human Rights and Equality stickers, Environmentalism buttons and clings, and much more. Most of these links help connect you to various organizations that send out newsletters, online petitions, forms for letters to congressmen, etc, and give you free items as a token of appreciation. There is also a page that has links to many more organizations. Most of these organizations and freebies only operate in North America or the UK, but several work worldwide. Maybe not all of them will interest you, but chances are, you'll find something you'd like to find out more about.

I'd like to thank the wonderful Salena for creating this list of links. Also, check out her blog, because she has reviews of some pretty awesome products like eco-friendly clothing etc.

Hope you all find everything helpful!

Animal Testing Poetry Reading

So, earlier, I posted the poem I had written about animal testing, "For the Sake of Progress." Well, I decided to do a video reading of it for an I Am Peta2 video for street team points. (By the way, if you haven't joined the Peta2 Street Team, you should. Its a great way to get active for animal, and you can earn free stuff!) Anyway, I decided to share my video here. Even if you're not the biggest fan of poetry, it would mean a lot to me if you all watch it anyways! Just think of it as me telling you a story that happens to rhyme and have meter. ;) Give the video a "thumbs up" if you like it, and feel free to share it on whatever social networks you use. (I think you have to go to the video's page on YouTube to share it.) The goal here is to expose people to the negative side of animal testing, and to get some traffic to the Peta2 website where people can learn more about animal rights. Thanks!

In Your Own Words

It is absolutely ridiculous how much fun I had making these Anti-Cruelty signs. I was laughing maniacally under my breath while I was coming up with little phrases to type into Peta2's clever little generators. It actually impressed me how realistic these signs look. While I am more involved with the McCruelty campaign, mostly because there are more McDonald's restaurants in my area, the Kentucky Fried Cruelty Generator signs looked more like an actual photo to me. Maybe that's because there were cars in most of the images. I don't know. That is not to say that the McCruelty Sign Generator designers didn't do a good job, because they certainly did.

Now, if you click the links to the generators, you can type in up to 3 lines of text to display in the store sign. If you want to save and share your pictures on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, or whatever, you'll need to use a screenshot. Just in case you aren't sure how to do that, I'll explain.

Step 1. Using the scroll wheel on your mouse, or the scroll buttons on the side of your browser, adjust the screen so that your Anti-Cruelty image is clearly in view. It is best to leave a visible margin of the webpage around your image.

Step 2. Locate the Print Screen button on your keyboard. It is usually toward the upper right-hand corner. It might be abbreviated to something like "PrtSc" depending on the maker.

Step 3. Push the Print Screen button.

Step 4. Open a new project in Paint, which comes pre-installed on most computers.

Step 5. In Paint, click the button says "Select" on it, and displays a dotted-lined rectangle.

Step 6. Using the select tool, right click anywhere in the empty project. A screenshot of the page with your Anti-Cruelty sign will appear.

Step 7. Left click on the selected screenshot, and drag it toward the upper left-hand corner of your project until only the Anti-Cruelty sign is in view in that corner.

Step 8. Left click anywhere within the image, but outside the the selected screenshot to deselect it.

Step 9. Using the scroll bars, scroll to the bottom right-hand corner of the image.

Step 10. Click and drag the small white box in the corner up and to the left until only your Anti-Cruelty sign is visible. Make sure that the borders are even.

Step 11. Click the "Save As" button, and save your image, preferable as a PNG. This will keep your image quality nice so that everyone will be able to clearly read your Anti-Cruelty message!

Step 12. Upload your image to all your favorite social networks, or email your image to share it with all your friends! Make sure you include a link to the McCruelty or Kentucky Fried Cruelty websites so your friends can get more information and make their own Anti-Cruelty Signs.

Alright. I hope that little tutorial was helpful, and that you have as much fun making your Anti-Cruelty signs as I did! For any of you who are members of the Peta2 Street Team, make sure you go to the "Take Action" page, and turn in a screenshot of the website where you shared your sign for Street Team Points!

"For the Sake of Progress"

A certain man, in sterile robes,
His prisoners to seek,
Comes strolling down the dingy halls,
That, nauseating, reek.

Their eyes reveal such grievous hurt.
Infection crusts each tear.
Corrosive burns are all they know,
Save tormentors they fear.

Now, here is a sedated one—
Electrodes watch his brain.
No drugs will he receive for his
Excruciating pain.

Experimental surgeries
For those who need them not,
But who cares should they live or die?
They're all just left to rot.

These needles inject certain death—
The cancers men abhor—
So maybe victims can be forced
To outlive those before.

What were the crimes that brought them here
To clasp these metal bars
With hands that bleed in ill-repair
And stiffen with their scars?

These countless, captive creatures lie
So brutalized and weak.
They cannot really save themselves,
Since they can't even speak.

So history has taught us: do
Because you simply can.
But why would you test man's best friends
To see what works for man?

I wrote this ballad for my Senior English class. If you couldn't tell, it is an anti-animal testing poem. When My teacher read it, he said that he thought it was about a WWII concentration camp until the last 2 lines. Ballads are supposed to have twist endings, and my teacher said that he was so surprised by the ending that he actually jumped out of his chair! Needless to say, I got a perfect score on the poem.

A Wise Man Once Said:

There have been many people that have said that a variety of things allow us to judge people, (and not in the negative sense necessarily,) from the way he eats gummy bears, to well, lots of things. Besides the fact that this picture is absolutely adorable, I think that the quote from Kant here is actually one of these statements that holds the most truth. You often hear how, according to the FBI, most serial killers and rapists started out with abusing and killing animals. Stories with a villain often tell you things about their past like they liked hurting puppies as a child. It is in fact, very revealing of one's character. Once you have developed a callous towards the suffering and treatment of animals, it is not hard to develop one towards that of humans. So, think about it, and notice people.

Animal Rights

I decided to take debate class this year, and so far, it has been one of the best classes I have ever taken. As a veg*n, you can't even imagine how happy I was when I learned that the first National Forensics League Lincoln-Douglas Debate topic was about animal rights! (At the time, I was just a very strict vegetarian, but switched to full veganism not long after.) I had always lucidly believed in animal rights, but it wasn't until studying that topic that I really became an animal rights activist. I really found it was something that I was incredibly passionate about. I think that the passion I felt with that topic was part of what kicked off a really successful competitive debate career for me. I have honestly lost track of the amount of 1st place trophies that I took at tournaments, particularly with the animal rights topic. I'm not trying to brag, because I really think that the name I made for myself was all due to the fire I had for animal rights, which paved the way to future success. So without further adieu, I present to you, my Affirmative Animal Rights Case (left in debabte format, and original length for debate time regulations.)

“Intelligence is irrelevant on deciding rights. And what’s more relevant is whether these animals are sentient, whether they feel pain. For example, if you—I’ve heard this before, if you punch someone in the stomach, the fact that they are very intelligent doesn’t mean anything. It’s still going to hurt.”

Because I agree with David Blatte’s statement from “Peace Kingdom: Animal Rights,” I am resolved: Morality demands equal recognition of animal rights.

Because justice is “the administering of deserved punishment or reward” (Dictionary.com) and morality is “a social set of standards for good or bad behavior and character” (Cambridge Dictionary Online), my value premise is morality. This value is important to the resolution of animal rights because the majority of our society accepts morality to be a good overarching standard.

My value criterion is equality. Ever since the American and French revolutions, equality has been part of our society’s morés which being a subset of morality is a good criterion for the evaluation thereof.

Definitions:
Demands: to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary (Dictionary.com)
Equal: like or alike in quantity, degree, value; of the same rank, ability, merit. (Dictionary.com)
Recognition: the acknowledgment of something as valid or as entitled to (Dictionary.com)
Animal Rights: the rights to humane treatment claimed on behalf of animals, especially the right not to be exploited for human purposes (American Heritage Dictionary)

I will first show that causing suffering in another sentient being is immoral. Second, Discriminating against animal rights is morally wrong by two arguments: 1. Denying animals rights because they don’t have all the same qualities as humans is speciesist. 2. The existence of marginal humans requires that we acknowledge animal rights.

Contention I: Intentionally causing suffering in another sentient being is immoral. Because animals are sentient they deserve the right not to suffer. We know by observation that an animal being abused will try to move away from the abuser. Animals will also avoid things that caused pain in the past.

As Doris Lin wrote in Basic Tenets of Animal Rights (2011), “Sentience is the ability to suffer. As philosopher Jeremy Bentham wrote, ‘the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but Can they suffer?’ Because a dog is capable of suffering, a dog is worthy of our moral consideration. A table, on the other hand, is incapable of suffering, and is therefore not worthy of our moral consideration. Although harming the table may be morally objectionable if it compromises the economic, esthetic or utilitarian value of the table to the person who owns or uses it, we have no moral duty to the table itself.”

Lin claims that sentience is the ability to suffer. The impact is that if an entity is capable of suffering, it is worth our moral consideration. The warrant can be inferred to be that the treatment of sentient beings deserves moral consideration.

Animal mistreatment leads to violence against humans.

“Statistics show that those with a history of cruelty to animals are more inclined to abuse their families and commit violent crimes against strangers,” Jennifer Copely says in her article “Animal Cruelty Linked to Violence Against People” (2008) as she cites statistics from the FBI.

Because animals are sentient and can feel pain just as humans do, they deserve equal treatment and rights equivalent to those of humans. Causing pain or failing to alleviate pain is usually considered immoral in most cultures.

Doris Lin later says, (Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, 2011)

“Most people recognize that we should not engage in activities that cause pain and suffering to other people. Inherent in that recognition is the knowledge that other people are capable of pain and suffering. If an activity causes undue suffering to someone, the activity is morally unacceptable. If we accept that animals are capable of suffering, it is therefore morally unacceptable to cause them undue suffering.”

Unless we are willing to allow humans to be abused or endure suffering of this magnitude, equality demands that animals are not treated in such a way either.

Contention II: Discriminating against animal rights is morally wrong.

Sub-Argument 1: Denying animals rights because they don’t have all the same qualities as humans is speciesist.

Speciesism is discriminating against animals and failure to recognize the rights of non-humans. Our societies morés have evolved such that discriminating against the rights of women or those of different ethnic backgrounds is wrong. Tom Regan’s Philosophy of Animal Rights reminds us that:

“The same is true of speciesism – the view that members of the species Homo sapiens are superior to members of every other species simply because human beings belong to one’s own (the “superior”) species. For there is no “superior” species. To think otherwise is to be no less prejudiced than racists or sexists.”

Regan is saying that speciesism is just the same as any other form of biased discrimination.

Doris Lin, in Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, (2011) gives us a definition of speciesism.
“To treat animal suffering differently than human suffering is speciesist.”

Denying similar treatment between two beings based on the beings’ inherent qualities is a form of inequality. As Ingemar Nordin so aptly summarizes in “Animals Don’t Have Rights: A Philosophical Study,”

“Just as society’s moral view of rights has widened to include poor people, slaves and women, it is now time to widen it further to include the right of the animals. The animals, he thinks, also have an inviolable right to life. It is now only a question of recognizing this fact, and of really starting to respect their rights. We, humans as well as animals, all have a consciousness and a psychological identity over time. That makes us all a ‘subject-of-life,’ as Tom Regan calls it. And to be such a subject-of-a-life gives us an intrinsic value that demands unconditional respect.”

Nordin claims that Animals should have their rights recognized. The impact is that those who are subject of a life should be given respect. Saying that animals are subject to life warrants this claim. Failure to discourage discrimination between animal rights and human rights would make discouraging sexism and racism hypocritical because they are all essentially the same concept. Discrimination in any form, particularly speciesism, is denying equal treatment. Just as it is immoral to treat someone of the opposite sex or ethnicity unequally, it is wrong to deny rights based on species.

Sub-Argument 2: The existence of marginal humans requires that we acknowledge animal rights. As James Linemann Nelson said in “Animals, handicapped children and the tragedy of marginal cases,”

“There are human beings whose psychological capacities are rivaled or exceeded by many non-human animals; such humans are often referred to as ‘marginal cases.’ R. G. Frey has argued that there is no secure, non-arbitrary way of morally distinguishing between marginal humans and non-human animals.”

A marginal case is either a severely handicapped person such as someone with extreme mental disability or a person in an extended comatose or vegetative state. Scientific ethics find it hard to discriminate between marginal human cases and more “intelligent” animals because the cognitive abilities of said animals often exceed those of marginal cases. In Basic Tenets of Animal Rights, Doris Lin affirms that,

“Animal rights is based on the belief that treating a non-human animal differently just because the animal belongs to a different species is arbitrary and morally wrong. Of course there are differences between human and non-human animals, but those differences are not morally relevant. For example, many believe that humans have some cognitive abilities that are different from or higher than other animals, but cognitive ability is not morally relevant. If it were, the smartest humans would have more moral and legal rights than other humans who were deemed intellectually inferior. Even if this difference were morally relevant, this trait does not apply to all humans. A person who is profoundly mentally retarded does not have the reasoning capabilities of an adult dog, so cognitive ability cannot be used to defend speciesism.”

Lin claims here that cognitive ability is not morally relevant. If it were, the impact would be varying rights even between people of different intelligence levels. Warranting the claim: The differences between animals and humans are not morally relevant. If we are not willing to recognize animal rights, then we have no moral reason not to euthanize mentally handicapped persons. So long as we say that euthanasia or mistreatment of the mentally handicapped is immoral, the higher cognitive abilities of more advanced animals demand that abuse or unnecessary killing of animals is also immoral. Because the cognitive differences between marginal humans and more intelligent animals are clouded at best, equality is the only logical choice. Therefore, I urge the judge to vote Affirmative.