Is it recommended to not be a part of any kind of animal rights groups if you are considering vet school? I have heard that before but noticed that the pres. of our pre-vet club is also pres of animals rights club. Thoughts on this...?
Pre-Vet & Animal Rights Groups
- Thread starter KD77
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
Animal rights is a topic that people generally shy away from. Unfortunately, PETA has taken over the term. At its core is an animal's right to life, which is actually the ultimate irony because PETA kills over 95% of animals that enter its shelter in Virginia.
PETA, in the public's eye = animal rights.
However, they are not a group that promotes "animal rights," and actually takes away that life by euthanizing a couple of thousand of animals each year.
Whether or not the group on your campus is PETA-based or actually animal-rights based, I don't know. I would be very cautious in aligning yourself with groups that people find synonymous with PETA (which, as I've stated before), does not hold values important to the actual animal rights movement.
Animal welfare is a safer option and does not cause so many knee-jerk reactions.
PETA, in the public's eye = animal rights.
However, they are not a group that promotes "animal rights," and actually takes away that life by euthanizing a couple of thousand of animals each year.
Whether or not the group on your campus is PETA-based or actually animal-rights based, I don't know. I would be very cautious in aligning yourself with groups that people find synonymous with PETA (which, as I've stated before), does not hold values important to the actual animal rights movement.
Animal welfare is a safer option and does not cause so many knee-jerk reactions.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 0
Animal rights groups and animal welfare groups are two different things (I know you said nothing about animal welfare groups, but roll with me
). Animal rights groups, such as PETA, are extremely controversial. Many people don't agree with their extreme nature. Animal welfare groups, such as the ASPCA, is less controversial. I haven't read the whole site, but this explains a little better at the top of the page: Rights vs. Welfare (again, I'm just giving info as if you were a random person on the street that doesnt know the difference, you may very well know all that stuff). That being said, I know many vets (some are professors) who are completely against animal rights groups. I dont know if that helps, but it might be a good idea to make sure what kind of beliefs the group has before getting involved in it
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,378
- Reaction score
- 18
That being said, at Iowa, Ohio, and A&M I was asked to differentiate animal rights from animal welfare, which is interesting because I didn't have animal rights (nor welfare, I don't think) anywhere in my application.
But yes, animal rights = bad thing. Animal welfare is what you should be interested in. Less crazy.
But yes, animal rights = bad thing. Animal welfare is what you should be interested in. Less crazy.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
Kansas also asked many people to differentiate between rights and welfare and then followed up with, "Which do you associate yourself with and why?" So vet schools definitely do care on some level.
The problem is that so many people do not understand what animal rights activists actually want. They hear animal rights and think it's like human rights. "I like animals. I want animals to be safe and treated kindly. I'm all for animal rights!" But animal rights are way different. [Most] animal rights activists want to end pet ownership, the existence of zoos/aquariums/etc. They want to end the use of animals for meat or fur or by-products. Essentially, at least from my own knowledge, animal rights in its truest form is a movement which pushes towards a complete separation and cease of interaction between animals and humans. Animal rights activists believe that animals are equal to humans, and humans therefore have no right to use animals in any way.
Then there's the whole sub-sect of animal rights called animal liberation, which is just a completely different topic. But animal liberation activists are almost always also animal rights activists, so the vet schools are looking for that, too.
Last edited:
It IS. That's exactly what animal rights is about - it's not about animal welfare, but about giving animals the same "rights" as humans. That's what the complete separation from and no interaction with humans part means. Animals are to have equal legal rights with a human being - therefore you cannot own them, eat them, raise them, keep them, do ANYTHING with them.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 222
- Reaction score
- 1
Yes, I would definitely agree that those applying should research the differences between animal rights and animal welfare and know where you stand on the issue. I was asked this question in two of my interviews, so be prepared. To the OP, I also say do some research. Maybe go to a few meetings and see how much the president's personal views affect the club. If you don't like it, don't join the club or go to any more meetings. Or run for president yourself next election
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2010
- Messages
- 114
- Reaction score
- 0
True. I meant more that people don't think of animal rights as being EQUIVALENT to human rights, but that they hear animal rights and think of it as a humanitarian-like effort to improve the lives of animals as opposed to what it really is.
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
I beg to differ, but you're welcome to your opinion! I've done my own research on the subject
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2009
- Messages
- 54
- Reaction score
- 0
I would recommend shying away from the animal rights groups, personally - unless you feel strongly about their positions. Even if the group is nothing like what many of us think about when we hear "animal rights" - the negative response of so many admissions committees could really hurt your chances.
If you do get involved - and put it in your application, I would def STRESS why you were a part of it - and how it still gels with the veterinary profession. Adcoms have to move through so many applications - the last thing you want is misunderstandings or assumptions getting your application tossed aside. While people may disagree on the definition of animal rights (which is new to me - I've only heard of one definition, just varying degrees of fanaticism) - the fact is that many interviewers ask about the dif between rights and welfare. That fact alone tells you that it is an important topic. They are trying to make sure that you both have a solid understanding - and have views and values that will not contradict the profession.
I just want to say that on the flip side, a rabid hate of anyone who may express animal rights opinions is not beneficial either. In fact, during orientation at vet school, some people launched into a PETA bashing tirade in the middle of a class discussion. One of the vets leading orientation was careful enough to stop it and point out that while many of us may disagree with animal rights supporters' beliefs and tactics, it is still important to respect everyone's opinions and be able to cooperate and have civil discussions/relations. He also pointed out that pressure from animal rights groups has for example contributed significantly to the dramatic advances in lab animal welfare that we have seen in the last 30 years.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 1
I would need to see proof before I bought this sentence. How much is significant? We have been studying the effects of captivity of animal welfare since before the 1970's. How much did animal welfare research change our standards in lab animals compared to the pressures of animal rights groups? Were they animal rights groups or animal welfare groups? Etc.
I don't know the answers to these questions, but the statement by your professor demands they be asked before I accept the statement. Remember: we all must think critically, whether it is evaluating the latest research on a drug or statements like the one your professor made. Demand proof! ... or at least research it yourself.
As to the question by the original poster... In multiple interviews, I have been asked about the differences between animal welfare and animal rights. If you want to join an animal rights group, just be sure you will be able to defend your choice (do your research... maybe that animal rights group isn't really that great of a group...). I, personally, cannot imagine a veterinarian(nor have I met one) advocating for the end of pets, livestock, etc.
Last edited:
Thank you!
I get so tired of seeing the same statements being made claiming that supporting animal rights in any way is incompatible with the veterinary profession. It disappoints me to see vet students saying that animal rights is "crazy". To me that's just ignorance. If you actually take the time to research animal rights movements (and not just PETA) you'll see the logic behind it. If there was no animal ownership in any way, there would be no possibility of animal cruelty. To me that would be an ideal world, where we were completely separate from animals, because I believe that is the most compassionate way a society can treat non-human animals, respecting them by enjoying them from a distance. But as a veterinary student I know that the biggest difference I can make is to improve animal welfare through my education and the education of others.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2008
- Messages
- 18,953
- Reaction score
- 11,356
So animals with no owners can't be abused? What about the stray cat that was set on fire? It seems like owned animals may very well suffer LESS abuse than the random ones running the streets.
Unless that's not what you meant, but I don't understand...
And how would we enjoy cats and dogs "from a distance" anyway? Without us feeding them, caring for them... how would that population even... I mean, they would all be strays...
WHAT WOULD VETERINARIANS EVEN DO IF ALL ANIMALS WERE ...
Nevermind, my brain just exploded.
I think that hardcore animal rights beliefs are generally incompatible with veterinary medicine, but in action, animal rights groups sometimes do positive things for animal welfare. Where I live, a local animal rights group was responsible for getting PetLand (if you're not familiar, they sell milled puppies) out of my city and helping push through certain local legislation that makes it harder for people to sell puppies without spay/neuter contracts. They're an animal rights group and I don't believe in everything they stand for, but they're having a positive effect on animal welfare as well.
I'm sure with some digging we could find examples of things PETA or HSUS has done that benefit animal welfare. I'm not going to write them a check because I don't agree with their core values, but groups like this do sometimes do good for animals. At the very least, animal rights activists can help us not become complacent about issues of animal welfare, because they bring issues to light that make those of us who work with animals take a step back for a minute and give some thought to our standards of care.
I don't support animal rights, but I think there's a place for animal rights activists in the world.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 1
True... but at the same time, if some of their core values and methods are against your values, then working together might not be right. Extreme example: the republican party wants to control immigration more strickly... so do neo-nazis... I am quite sure that many, if not most, republicans do not agree with a few of the neo-nazis' ideals... Does that mean republicans should consider working cooperatively with the neo-nazis to enact a change in immigration policy? Or does inviting extremist into the debate open up potential problems?
I know that is an extreme example, but it gets my point out there; if there are values of a group you are working with that you oppose, it is understandable not to work cooperatively with them.
1
168135
I was involved with an animal welfare organization in high school, but I really don't think I can make it sound good on paper. I...
Held monthly demonstrations in school on topics such as vegetarianism, importance of spay/neuter, and the seal hunt and had weekly disussions on the above topics
Attended an information session titled Animals and the Law
Attended seal hunt and fur protests organized by the humane society
Makes it sound like I'm a PETA member, but I'm really not. Only two of our members were vegetarian. Two others were pre-vet (now vet students) who were more interested in educating students on the importance of spay/neuter and pet welfare.
I should ask them if they included this group on their applications.
Held monthly demonstrations in school on topics such as vegetarianism, importance of spay/neuter, and the seal hunt and had weekly disussions on the above topics
Attended an information session titled Animals and the Law
Attended seal hunt and fur protests organized by the humane society
Makes it sound like I'm a PETA member, but I'm really not. Only two of our members were vegetarian. Two others were pre-vet (now vet students) who were more interested in educating students on the importance of spay/neuter and pet welfare.
I should ask them if they included this group on their applications.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,331
- Reaction score
- 17
I was having the same reaction....so if all animals are only to be experienced from a distance...then what is a vet suppose to do career wise? watch animals from a distance for free (remember, no owners) and not treat anything? maybe I am confused with the compatability issue.....
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 2,155
- Reaction score
- 39
I think mine did, too. Anyway, as far as "an ideal world, where we were completely separate from animals"... the only way to achieve that would be to extricate ourselves from the planet. Or relocate all of humanity into force-fielded bubbles and eradicate/remove all the animals that happen to find themselves in said bubbles. How do you tell an elephant to stay out of your garden so you can respect him from a distance?
TLDR; I wouldn't want to exist in a world where I couldn't interact with animals.
I'm not sure I agree... if hardcore animal rights' groups benefit animal welfare they gain further credibility in the public eye ("They just don't want animals to suffer! Why would you think they want to end pet ownership??!"), which takes them one step further toward implementing their core values. Why work with such groups when individually (or better yet, as a profession) we can grab the bull by the horns and advocate for our patients and their welfare? And how do stunts like "sea kittens" and breaking into research labs make us rethink our standards of care?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,331
- Reaction score
- 17
Sorry, but I had to respond to this.
Now, I am in zoo med, so maybe I see the idea of 'animal' a little bit differently, but in my corner of the world animals include things like jellyfish, worms, centipedes, tarantulas, etc. So, based on that, I would say things like insects, arachnids, and worms are animals.
So, if I believe (which I don't, but that is beside the point) that animal rights is all about an animal's right to life, then that means insects (fleas), arachnids (ticks) and worms (heartworms) have a right to life as well. So when a flea and tick infested dog with hookworms comes into the shelter, I can't actually treat with a dewormer, remove the ticks, or shampoo off the fleas; I would end the life an animal has a right to. I would need to stop using Ivermectin because it kills microfilia, which are living animals. Now, to be honest, I value my dog more than I do the aggressive dog who attacked the kid down the street and I value my dog more than the heartworm microfilia in the mosquitos in my yard.
I really do not see how the 'right to life' is compatable with veterinary medicine and standards of care. I disagree that 'right to life' is at the heart of animal rights, but we can disagree on that without it impacting the above synopsis.
I also believe the vast majority of individuals who are proponents of 'animal rights' fail to do the absolute utmost in their actions to protect all animals at all times (ie they haven't ceased to live in houses, drive vehicles, eat cultivated food, wear clothing, or participate in any society that is beyond subsistance living.) I do believe in animal welfare, but I strongly believe animals are precious resources to be conserved and utilized appropriatly.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2008
- Messages
- 3,331
- Reaction score
- 17
Even when we try to do this, we get stowaways! rats, earthworms, insects..... heck, cockroaches know a good source of food when they find it...and we are it! I would love to be completly seperate from many of the insects of the world!
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,707
- Reaction score
- 899
I don't think I said that I agreed with such views, just that they exist. I am a proponent of animal welfare but just wanted to point out that PETAis not necessarily synonymous with animal rights.
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2010
- Messages
- 24,118
- Reaction score
- 8,863
OMG, this is ridiculously naive. The vast majority of people have no idea of this "research" you are talking about, but the ones who lived through it sure remember blood being thrown at celebrities wearing fur coats, or the pictures of animal "research" from really poorly run labs back in the 70s and 80s. Reform in any area whether finance, or science, the oil-industry, meat-packers, whatever comes because of public pressure. The justifications for the changes are made after the fact.
I've been in vet school all of 2 weeks and have already heard reminders about how animal rights groups may find out if any of the many rules now in place are violated and how bad the publicity is. You don't think that is a huge motivation for better treatment of these animals?
Look, I don't agree with most of what they do, I'm not a vegetaraian, and I don't give them money, but I definitely recognize that by pushing the envelope they have helped move public perception forward. And the pressure they bring to those who work with animals is actually a good thing by keeping them on their toes.
The nut-jobs of today are often the mainstream of tomorrow.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 15
Please tell me this is not an example of your analytical abilities. Do you honestly think that the frog with the fire cracker stuck in its mouth was owned by the teenagers who placed said explosive and were preparing to light it? I suppose it all depends on your definition of "ownership". To me, it implies an exchange of currency for control or care of the animal, not captured from the wild a few hours ago.
Sorry, I meant to say that animal cruelty would be significantly less prevalent if animals weren't owned by people. There's no need to attack my intelligence just because you're on the defensive. I'm simply saying that the principle ideas behind the animal rights movement are meant to benefit animals. I do agree there are a lot of extremists, but you'll find that in any movement.
Just offering a difference of opinion. I don't find there's much diversity on this forum, which is unfortunate.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,378
- Reaction score
- 18
How so? What about owned animals do you think encourages abuse?
Or are you thinking along the lines of "it's not animal abuse if it's not owned", like in hunting? People shoot deer all the time: not animal abuse. But shooting a cat is. Do you feel that the differentiation would be based on the cat belonging to someone and that if they were all free the public would suddenly go "ok shooting cats is fine too: not animal abuse" and in that way animal abuse would be reduced?
I think that ownership of an animal does a lot to PROTECT that animal. If dogs and cats were just running stray all over the place, you'd have a lot of copulation, over-breeding, which would make them common nuisances and around here, common things that get on your property (like deer, foxes, wolves) are fair game to be shot.
Perhaps you can more clearly explain specifically why you think freeing all the animals would drastically reduce animal abuse.
I didn't say anything about animal liberation to end animal ownership. I actually didn't mention any method to end animal ownership, I was simply saying that it's because of ownership of DOMESTIC animals that there is so much cruelty towards them. I was just trying to reason why animal rights activists might be opposed to pet ownership. They do have good intentions, and that's what I was trying to point out. I don't like hearing people make generalizations that animal rights activists are crazy just because you don't understand their logic.
I don't know where you're going with the whole hunting aspect.. I don't consider that cruelty to animals.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2009
- Messages
- 798
- Reaction score
- 2
the point he is making is that if cats and dogs weren't owned...then they would be wild...therefore could be shot. Since they are owned, it is against the law to kill them...so therefore that is protection
Protection against being killed maybe but not against cruelty. A lot of animal rights organizations expose cruelty cases and work to impose harsher punishments for people accused of animal cruelty. So although some of their campaigns may be, in my opinion, short-sighted, they do a lot to improve animal welfare. And isn't that what we're in vet school for?
I will add my two cents for the original topic.
Depends on what "animal rights" mean for you. Some things may clash with those beliefs when you're studying. I mean, you will have *at least* to kill rats and open them up for sure. Also, some groups are extremists. Like it was stated above, if you think every animal deserves to live, you wouldn't be able to deworm a dog, treat them for fleas, etc. Because fleas are animals too. By the way, great point, sumstorm.
On the other side, being compromised with animal welfare is a whole different subject. I am myself in an ONG that is mainly dedicated to creating some awareness on the subject, but we also rescue animals in bad conditions and we have a couple of vets that help us. I know some vet students that are also compromised with the cause. However, we are advocated to domestic animals. Which of course does not mean we don't care about other animals, we do. Just that we use the common sense nature gave us.
Animal welfare is a subject in many universities.
However, you will see that most people that are in those groups (any of those) aren't vets or vet students. My guess is that you can't care that much about animals, or you go crazy. My aunt is a vet and many times she ends up doing treatments for free because some people want to stop the treatment due to them not being able or willing to pay anymore for it. It's a though job.
Depends on what "animal rights" mean for you. Some things may clash with those beliefs when you're studying. I mean, you will have *at least* to kill rats and open them up for sure. Also, some groups are extremists. Like it was stated above, if you think every animal deserves to live, you wouldn't be able to deworm a dog, treat them for fleas, etc. Because fleas are animals too. By the way, great point, sumstorm.
On the other side, being compromised with animal welfare is a whole different subject. I am myself in an ONG that is mainly dedicated to creating some awareness on the subject, but we also rescue animals in bad conditions and we have a couple of vets that help us. I know some vet students that are also compromised with the cause. However, we are advocated to domestic animals. Which of course does not mean we don't care about other animals, we do. Just that we use the common sense nature gave us.
Animal welfare is a subject in many universities.
However, you will see that most people that are in those groups (any of those) aren't vets or vet students. My guess is that you can't care that much about animals, or you go crazy. My aunt is a vet and many times she ends up doing treatments for free because some people want to stop the treatment due to them not being able or willing to pay anymore for it. It's a though job.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2009
- Messages
- 697
- Reaction score
- 15
Me, on the defensive? Ha ha ha! The defense is for those in a disadvantaged position. No one ever won anything on the defensive. Your red herring is offensive to intellectual discussion. I'm quite open to differing opinions. I will also point out illogical arguments at the drop of a hat.
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 75
- Reaction score
- 0
The fact that animal rights groups may have coincidentally advanced the cause of animal welfare in a few instances is absolutely no reason to let them off the hook for the rest of their ridiculous agenda. I, for one, am not prepared to simply look contentedly on the positive side effects of their actions and write their ideology off as a difference of opinion. The fact remains that the core principles of the animal rights movement are not compatible with the practice of veterinary medicine.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 120
- Reaction score
- 1
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 3,969
Others touched on the point of empathy, in reference to the dissolution of the idea of companion animals and such. If people didn't own animals, or see them in zoos, or benefit or learn from studies using them, the vast majority of people would feel no personal connection with animals. Thus there would be little to no impetus to protect them or their habitats.
The thing that's confusing about organizations like HSUS and PeTA is that in that world their support would really dwindle. These organizations make a LOT of money from people who aren't aware of the differences between the blanket ideologies of animal welfare and animal rights. I mean, even just look at the Michael Vick case. The most vocal organizations were those who did the least to help the animals involved, and those particular organizations got the publicity in the case and made a lot of money from it as well.
So no, I'm also not willing to condone these organizations solely because there may have been incidences in the past in which they have advanced animal welfare. I will continue to do my part to educate people on the facts about their views so that they really know what they're supporting when they donate to these groups. They aren't a more extremist arm of the animal welfare movement as that sort of acceptance would advocate - they embody a completely different set of ideals.
If one agrees with these ideals, that's their own prerogative and though I disagree, I wouldn't try to force them to abandon their beliefs (though I'll debate..). It's the people who aren't fully informed who need to know the distinction, and most people outside of our field tend to be in that camp. Accepting them because some of our views are the same, or because they've done a handful of things that are compatible with our views in the past, is a dangerous thing to do.
The thing that's confusing about organizations like HSUS and PeTA is that in that world their support would really dwindle. These organizations make a LOT of money from people who aren't aware of the differences between the blanket ideologies of animal welfare and animal rights. I mean, even just look at the Michael Vick case. The most vocal organizations were those who did the least to help the animals involved, and those particular organizations got the publicity in the case and made a lot of money from it as well.
So no, I'm also not willing to condone these organizations solely because there may have been incidences in the past in which they have advanced animal welfare. I will continue to do my part to educate people on the facts about their views so that they really know what they're supporting when they donate to these groups. They aren't a more extremist arm of the animal welfare movement as that sort of acceptance would advocate - they embody a completely different set of ideals.
If one agrees with these ideals, that's their own prerogative and though I disagree, I wouldn't try to force them to abandon their beliefs (though I'll debate..). It's the people who aren't fully informed who need to know the distinction, and most people outside of our field tend to be in that camp. Accepting them because some of our views are the same, or because they've done a handful of things that are compatible with our views in the past, is a dangerous thing to do.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2010
- Messages
- 129
- Reaction score
- 0
Or people are just afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being ridiculed
I agree
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
Animal Rights is basically giving Your 2yr old DSH the ability to vote for the next tax levy, or the right to bear arms against that horny Tom across the street trying to hang out in the backyard at 1am.
As Vet's and future Vet's we have an obligation to see the welfare/well-being of all living things. Domesticated, zoo, Farm, wild, and even human!
As Vet's and future Vet's we have an obligation to see the welfare/well-being of all living things. Domesticated, zoo, Farm, wild, and even human!
Mods please do not remove this... you deleted the vegan and animal rights pre-vet thread
You guys are are tending to discuss animal rights in a hypothetical philosophical sense. Yeah it is possible to imagine a world pre-civilization where humans live out of contact with animals and all animals are wild, but that's not the reality and no animal rights activist is pretending it is (except a few fringe crazies). The vast majority of animal rights activists are heavily involved with activities that would ALSO fall under animal welfare - that is, they are attempting to improve the living conditions of animals who are in bad living conditions, or to prevent what they view as the most needless deaths of animals. For example, huge numbers of animal rights activists work full-time to pull dogs and cats from high-kill shelters, place them in foster care, get them vet care, and adopt them out to forever homes. I know an animal rights activist who manages all the laboratory animals at a major medical university; she has over the years changed policies to improve living conditions.
It's like medical triage. The massive amount of animal abuse is too much for all the animal rights activists in the world to possibly change, so they address that without even bothering with abstract philosophical concepts of abolishing pet ownership. Many dedicated animal rights activists do not want to abolish pet ownership anyway, because they love their pets.
With the reality of animal abuse, animal rights activities fall within the realm of animal welfare activities. The difference is only an abstraction.
I consider myself an animal rights activist (haters gonna hate), but I want to be a medical professional because I know it's a highly efficient way to improve the lot of many animals. Reality: They need medical care.
FWIW, I'm also a human rights activist and would be applying to medical school if I hadn't started volunteering at vet clinics because I like playing with puppies. *shrug* I think everyone deserves a life free of pain. Humans are capable of immense cruelty to each other and to other species.
PS.... I was a founding member of the Animal Rights club at my college, and it's NOT going on my application.
You guys are are tending to discuss animal rights in a hypothetical philosophical sense. Yeah it is possible to imagine a world pre-civilization where humans live out of contact with animals and all animals are wild, but that's not the reality and no animal rights activist is pretending it is (except a few fringe crazies). The vast majority of animal rights activists are heavily involved with activities that would ALSO fall under animal welfare - that is, they are attempting to improve the living conditions of animals who are in bad living conditions, or to prevent what they view as the most needless deaths of animals. For example, huge numbers of animal rights activists work full-time to pull dogs and cats from high-kill shelters, place them in foster care, get them vet care, and adopt them out to forever homes. I know an animal rights activist who manages all the laboratory animals at a major medical university; she has over the years changed policies to improve living conditions.
It's like medical triage. The massive amount of animal abuse is too much for all the animal rights activists in the world to possibly change, so they address that without even bothering with abstract philosophical concepts of abolishing pet ownership. Many dedicated animal rights activists do not want to abolish pet ownership anyway, because they love their pets.
With the reality of animal abuse, animal rights activities fall within the realm of animal welfare activities. The difference is only an abstraction.
I consider myself an animal rights activist (haters gonna hate), but I want to be a medical professional because I know it's a highly efficient way to improve the lot of many animals. Reality: They need medical care.
FWIW, I'm also a human rights activist and would be applying to medical school if I hadn't started volunteering at vet clinics because I like playing with puppies. *shrug* I think everyone deserves a life free of pain. Humans are capable of immense cruelty to each other and to other species.
PS.... I was a founding member of the Animal Rights club at my college, and it's NOT going on my application.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 26,338
- Reaction score
- 21,349
Pretty sure we didn't, but it might have not had any updates. Searching will reveal many of these threads. We try not to delete threads unless they are against the SDN terms of service (like cross-posting or asking for medical advice). Try searching for it again?Mods please do not remove this... you deleted the vegan and animal rights pre-vet thread
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2007
- Messages
- 26,338
- Reaction score
- 21,349
is this the vegan thread you were thinking of?
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=827160&highlight=vegan
http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=827160&highlight=vegan
Yes! I searched for it and couldn't find it. I assumed it had been deleted.
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2010
- Messages
- 1,519
- Reaction score
- 4
If you assume, it makes an ASS out of U and ME.
(couldn't help inflicting my mother's favorite phrase on someone)
Mods please do not remove this... you deleted the vegan and animal rights pre-vet thread
You rush to judgment without doing sufficient research, you make utterly false accusations without knowing facts, and you order other people how to do their jobs: yep, you are a typical AR.
No, it's not.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,313
- Reaction score
- 151
Nope. There's a real difference between the two, and it's almost a guarantee that you'll be asked about the difference and where you stand during vet school interviews. If you answer that they're the same, don't hold your breath for an acceptance.
