Animal Rights and Abuse

Based on the information available, it does appear that the company that makes Lakme lotions previously tested their products on animals. Lakme is based in India, which has now banned animal testing for cosmetic products.

All animals are harmful in anyway... for example a bunny has sharp teeth(i should know...ouch)

Eating dogs should be considered natural of men, like eating other animals. The question of illegality is raised because many peoples (the English for example) considered dogs man's best friends, so it is inhuman to eat... your friends. In some countries, this eating act is illegal, and in some others this is legal. Eating dogs is only illegal in a country that bans this act. That statement is not universally accepted.

Animal Rights, and the movement involved, is a philosophy based off of the fact that all animals are sentient beings. Because animals can feel pain that is both physical and psychological, many feel that their rights to life should be equal to that of humankind.

This means that animals should not be used for food, clothing, testing, or entertainment.

Companion animals, or 'pets', are still a grey area in the movement itself, however most activists agree that breeding should cease to exist, and that animals should be adopted into homes much like children. -where their care should be guaranteed.

Depending on the degree of their belief, animal rights activists or animal welfare activists.

Depends on how bad the abuse is, and if the person abusing them wants to kill them. If really bad and yes (and if they are raping them), then quite a few.

Although it is what my question is no one really knows how much because somewhere in the world animal abuse is happening so its hard to make it into a percent.

Well first it isn't complerely illegal like when vets need to put an animal down....But its only legal if theyre suffering and its a professional but if u make it suffer and u do it urself then that's illegal

Of course! Children and teenagers around the world, of ALL ages are being adopted every day.

Some of the animals could die an awful painful death and that is pretty sad to see people experiment on innocent animals.

What happens to animals in medical experiments will depend totally on who is controlling the experiments. It's true that some could die a painful death, but one would have to do extensive, non-biased research to determine how the animals are treated during experimentation and if any die such deaths as described above. It's best not to take everything you read or hear about any animal issues as the total truth as some are totally biased against any type of experimentation on animals of any type.

No matter what animal scientists experiment on, they do it in a vile and brutal way. Sometimes, scientists cut out the top of an animal's skull and put an electrical chip in there. You would be surprised how many animals suffer this kind of treatment a year - millions.

The type of experiments really depends on what happens to the animal. In most cases, the experiments involve invasive procedures, one of which is called vivisection. Animal experimentation is not necessary as all though non-human animals have similar bodies to humans, they are not identical, and the desired results are seldom produced. There are alternatives to animal experimentation, such as voluntary human dosing, but because it is cheaper to continue to torture involuntary individuals who have no rights under the current law, animal experimentation continues.

There is no justification for cruelty.

Horse slaughter is currently legal in the USA

On average a female mink coat has about forty-five to fifty skins, and a male mink coat about thirty-six to thirty-nine skins. It takes about 30 - 40 minks to make a mink fur coat.

In most cases (depending on where you live and whether or not they have animal laws there) you will be sent to jail, the longest I've heard was a sentence of 1 year with a bail of about twenty thousand USD but that was because the guy fired a .22-caliber riffle within city limits without proper authority.

it willdie or explode

Yes. People should get punished because they are very sensitive and need care and if we can't hurt people, we can't hurt animals. That is not right. So yes they should get punished for animal cruelty. They need care and it is your responsibility to take care of them and treat them right.

It is only good in the sense of our (humanity) survival. Otherwise, it is bad just to kill an animal for their fur because we already have clothing made from cotton and other materials, therefore humans do not need fur coats or apparel. We only need to kill animals for food, not for fur. It is bad to kill for fur, but good for humanity to kill for food.

Debarking, or devocalization, is a controversial surgical procedure in dogs that permanently stops a dog from barking through surgery. Debarking reduces the volume and pitch of a dog's bark making it sound more as if the dog is hoarse or whispering. This is done in response to problematic amounts of barking. Up to 35% of dog owners report problems with barking, which can cause disputes and legal problems that are often considered more important than the individual canines themselves.

The controversial surgical procedure known as 'de-barking' is a veterinary procedure for modifying the voice box so that a barking dog will make a significantly reduced noise. Animal rights organizations have strongly opposed debarking. Those who have the procedure done claim their dogs are non-responsive to other therapies. Imagine for a moment that someone forces you into surgery and takes away your ability to communicate and verbally express yourself. This is what debarking is for a dog. Puppy mills have utilized a particularly cruel and crude method of debarking dogs. ramming a metal pipe down dog`s throats. Animal rights activists have been trying to educate the public about this terrible practice. ***************************************************************

I'm supplying this edit in argument to the aforesaid information, as I have problems with the accuracy of the stated information. Hearing is the least important sense to a dog, so losing the ability to bark loudly won't impact communication. Dogs rely heavily on body language, and even deaf dogs who never learn to bark do very well in multiple dog households. Debarking a dog usually still allows them to bark, it just reduces how loud the barks are and how far the barks carry.

This surgery can literally be a life saver for someone whose dog barks so much that the neighbors are complaining. Owners can face fines, confiscation and euthanasia of the dog if the barking can't be brought under control by other means. Many dogs are problem barkers, and no amount of training, medications or bark collars will stop them, especially if its due to anxiety.

The animal rights activists want to outlaw debarking, but they don't present a solution to the problem presented by the many dogs that will be killed when their desperate, loving owners have run out of other options. This surgery can be a life saver! ----------- I edited both questions in order to reduce the invective that had nothing whatsoever to do with the answer or the objective facts supplied. I think it's fair on the one hand to say that any intrusive surgery should only be performed when medically necessary, as any surgery creates a health risk to the subject. Surgery without good clinical cause is unethical. That said, we live in a world where well-meaning dog owners may be presented with the options of giving up a barking dog or facing legal repercussions that can be quite extensive, and may well force the issue. Putting a barking dog out on the street, admitting it to Animal Control, either voluntarily or seeing the animal seized under court order, or putting the dog down in order to comply with a court order can be the other side of de-barking. I would suggest that, in the case of a choice between debarking an animal, or putting it down, de-barking has met the criterion for medical necessity. In this case, I leave it to the reader to determine which is the greater kindness. ----------------------------------------- i got a better opinion of what to do in this situation. instead of debarking your dog or putting it to sleep because of the barking and the neighbors getting bothered an all... how about you just dont get a dog at all. if you own a pet and you cant control it, best option would be to be petless and that would pretty much keep dogs from being put to "sleep" or being "debarked".

the number is so big it's unbelievable how cruel people can be....get ready for it....more than 250 animals are abused each second. it's just sad what people can do to animals!

First off, don't try it.

The same thing would happen to a cat that happens to everything else. It's molecules would be agitated; with the effect that it would start cooking from the inside. Eventually of course it would die, just as it would in a conventional oven, and from essentially the same causes. How quickly would depend on the power of the micorwave and how high it was set.

Once again, don't try it.

For the against side I would say that it is cruel to test animals. They actually take the mascara wands and jab the poor little animal in the eye with it to see if it hurts. Many of the animals end up dying because of this treatment. And for the

for side I would say it is good because if we don't test things first, then

we might be in danger of the same things that we are putting the animals in: cancer risk, pain, etc etc etc.

There is really no way to answer this since the total per year is in constant fluctuation.