First, a little background information... http://www.rce.rutgers.edu/pubs/pdfs/fs753.pdf

Animal Welfare- Humans feel that we hhave a moral obligation to look out for animals' well-being because they contribute to human welfare (def*-providing food, fiber, work, compainionship, entertainment, education, etc.).

Animal Rights- (def*- just and fair claims based on law and moral philosophy). Completely opposed to any use of animals, holding that it violates the "moral inviolability" of an animal to consider it a resource for use by people. When you're talking about animal rights, there is no justifying why you're using the animal... You can't use it to find a cure to save the lives of millions of other animals. The ends don't justify the means. This philosophy argues that there is no moral relevant different between humans and animals. You wouldn't sacrifice your neighbor's lungs for the sake of curing lung cancer, so why is it ok to sacrifice a dog's? Animals, like people, have the ability to suffer, the capacity for self-awareness, intentionality in behaviors, the ability to communicate, etc.

Debate!

It may be argued that animals make no moral judgements and do not have the capacity to understand moral concepts, therefore animals are not moral agents and thus posess no rights.

If animals don't have any rights, can't we just treat them anyway we'd like? Can cruelty and abuse be justified by the fact that animals have no rights? UMM NO!!

*I don't believe that they have the rights that humans have, but I do think that they have the right to animal welfare. There's no excuse for cruelty and abuse, we need to look out for all walks of life on this planet in order to survive. That's why we have Animal Cops & Animal Precinct on Animal Planet.*