View Full Version : Issue: Life: Animal Rights?
07-08-2007, 10:53 AM
I can't find any information about where Ron Paul stands on animal rights... does anyone know where I can find this information
I'm not sure if he has ever talked about that issue.
They have all his articles and books archived. :)
07-08-2007, 11:00 AM
What sort of animal rights are we talking about? The kind where they are lobbying to give chimpanzees human rights? Or just to make sure animals are not abused and mistreated? If the former, i highly doubt a Ron Paul presidency would do much to change anything... it seems to me like animals, at least pets, are treated fine these days, as people have enough general common sense on the matter. The only thing i can see being potentially unethical is the methods of slaughtering cattle - i.e painful, slower deaths. As far as Paul actually having a position? Well.. not sure abou tthat one. One things for certain: he wouldnt take any action on a federal level (So no Fair Slaughter Act or anything like that..)
07-08-2007, 11:01 AM
I do not think Ron would not take any action on this. It is not a Federal issue.
07-08-2007, 11:05 AM
For a second there I thought this was that "cruelty to animals" spammer again.
07-20-2007, 12:33 AM
Just finished reading "Crunchy Cons" and believe that Ron Paul could attract many by making a statement concerning the need for conservation and respect for animals and the earth. As Christians, we have a greater responsibility to respect and defend all life, begin with the unborn and continuing on to our fine feathered and leathered friends.
I am pretty committed to supporting small family farms and try to buy our food locally, at least within a five state area if possible. We come in contact with many people who think the same way Ron does about the war and cutting the budget, etc., and I think if he would talk about some of these "grass root" issues, he'd go a long long way. Many of these people vote Democrat because of Global Warming and Environmentism, but we need to come together and agree that we all need to be better stewards.
07-21-2007, 03:39 PM
Ron Paul advocates leaving most things up to the States and free-markets.
Right now, we have government subsidizing the large corporations and making regulations that hinder the smaller farmers. It's the large corporations that are more cruel to animals when they are being raised, as you might have seen from the Peta videos. In a free market, the smaller farmers would probably be able to better compete and give us, the consumers more choices.
Animal rights activists would probably like this situation as it would give them more possibilities over affecting this issue in their own community, by educating the consumer about their choices and in affecting any local regulations.
07-21-2007, 11:07 PM
If you want to find family farms or farms that are not CAFOs and the like, try this locater.
Instead of eating meat from cows that are fed grain and pumped full of antibiotics, why not eat meat from cows that are fed grass? Instead of eating meat from hogs that can barely walk, eat meat from hogs that roam freely and are healthy?
And here's another:
07-24-2007, 12:46 PM
There are probably three kinds of animal which I feel deserve any rights. Monkeys, dolphins, and otters - and not all subspecies of each group. Save the tigers (and similar causes for species that are attractive and little else) doesn't really do it for me because when you get right down to it, there's not all that much intellect in a tiger. The three species I just mentioned are the closest things to a human intelligence and will existent in the animal kingdom outside of humans themselves. Therefore, they're the closest thing to animals deserving rights.
As for the basis of this argument, I assert that if men weren't intelligent, we wouldn't deserve rights. This is even enshrined into law now and throughout history. Through greater and lesser stupidities, there are hundreds of ways for humans to lose their rights. Only an anarchist society lacks the possibility of losing rights - though of course a totalitarian society is totalitarian because it has far too many possibilities that are of too great a severity. Even a minarchist government would limit the rights of criminals in accord with the nature and frequency of their crimes, operating as it would on the principle of offering maximum possible responsibility consistent with maintaining a minimum of order.
07-24-2007, 12:58 PM
What about companies testing on animals?
Man from La Mancha
07-24-2007, 01:54 PM
I can't find any specifics on animal rights by Ron. I know this might seem dumb to many but but I would support an amendment to the bill of rights to protect animals from abuse and mistreatment, especially in factory farms. All animals should be raised as nature intended them. It would be better for them and produce better food for us. If I can get over my addiction given to me since childhood I would give up meat entirely, I have several times for up to 9 months just eating raw uncooked food. And I felt great health wise doing it. This included occasional raw eggs and milk products. No you don't get sick from clean certified raw organic dairy products.
My personal pet peeve is people condemning some cultures of eating cats or dogs when they are eating any meat at all. Seems extremely hypercritical. A cow can be as loving as any dog or cat.
07-24-2007, 04:43 PM
Such matters are best left to the states. If we want animals to be grown as nature intended them we'll have to return to hunting and gathering (using unsharpened sticks). :) I'm in favor of hunting, but it isn't very practical on a large scale to feed the populace.
Without having to support the leviathan which consumes 50% of the produce of the people of this country I would imagine that more people could afford to pay for the luxury of higher quality meats (free range, etc) and the market would be happy to fill that desire, should it be large enough.
I have a friend who does this very thing.
Man from La Mancha
07-24-2007, 04:59 PM
You know what I meant free range.:)
Can't an admendment be what ever the people decide it should be.
Can't certain unalienable rights to a smaller degree be afforded to others of God creatures? By seeing our pets we know other animals feel. Just some thoughts.
07-24-2007, 05:34 PM
"Can't an admendment be what ever the people decide it should be."
Sure, they outlawed alcohol by amendment as well, so you can see that they've done lots of nutty things which are "good ideas" before.
Tyson doesn't factory farm because they are sadists, but because consumers are very price sensitive. Convince people to pay a bit more for produce treated better. I can support you with that.
Think about what is involved with making something illegal, and all of the things which fall out from that. Will you buy all of the poor people free range chicken when the price doubles and now they can only afford cheap white bread?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.