Talk:Animal rights

I removed a total logical fallacy - someone claiming that the real agenda of animal rights was to allow abortions. You have to be pretty hung up on conspiracy theories to believe that. JohnR28 16:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)

• There may be something to that point but it's badly phrased: "If human beings are no better than animals, and if we can kill animals when we want (as for food or clothing), why can't we kill unborn humans?" (my emphasis)

• Because if you a are a true animal rights activist, and you believe that people and animals are equal, then you will prohibit the killing animals and the killing of unborn babies, see? It's more of a logical error on their side. and that should be more evident. AddisonDM 10:18, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

I think this article has genuinely misinformed roots: the purpose for the animal right/animal liberation movement is not to give equal rights to animals, but to give "equal consideration for rights" to animals based on sentience, which they would classify as the ability to feel pain and project pain into the future. There are some other things which seem out of place (like the moral argument - the main supporters of animal rights, like Singer and Taylor, both mention the moral argument in their works and don't embrace that as a point or even consideration). Would it be okay to edit the article with this in mind? Thanks! Marlowe 16:50, 1 July 2009 (EDT)