This debate concerns the sometimes conflicting priorities of protecting animal rights and furthering human interests. On one side, strong animal rights advocates believe animals deserve similar or equal rights to human beings, and therefore believe, in addition to freedom from abuse and captivity, no animals should be used for human consumption, labor, or research. This belief also extends to protections from the destruction of wildlife habitats. This view also encompasses the question over animal "personhood"—that is, whether or not the rights and protections of personhood afforded humans should extend to all species.

On the opposite side are those who believe, as the dominant species, human beings are entitled to make relatively unfettered use of animals for the purposes of achieving survival and advancing civilization.

The debate over animal rights is a nuanced one. Many individuals fall somewhere between these two views. There are many who would view themselves as supporting animal rights while still eating meat, or those who would be repulsed by animal abuse but who view animal laboratory testing as essential to saving human lives. Many on both sides also view compromise as impossible.

So, where do you stand? What do you think is okay when it comes to animals rights?