Why Do We Need The Bill Of Rights For Animals Rights

For many years there has been an ongoing debate on whether or not animals should be given rights, even there own bill of rights. Some who are against the animal bill of rights argue that testing products on animals is important to the safety of humans. Others who want the new bill of rights claim that animals have feelings and that science is treating them inhumanely. Animal activists also add that animals are intelligent beings and are aware of how they are treated. Based on science proving animal activists correct on many of their points, this calls for a new bill of rights, in the United States, especially written for the protection and care of wild and domestic animals.

Animals do not have the cognitive ability or moral judgment that humans do and because of this, they have been treated differently than humans by nearly every culture throughout recorded history. If we granted animals rights, all humans would have to become vegetarians and hunting would need to be outlawed. That means we wouldn't be able to have hamburgers or hot dogs anymore. No hamburgers or hotdogs would mean no more barbques with your family and I mean come on who doesn’t want to spend time with there family? That is just so cruel to us and really messed up.+6

Many people nowadays have different views on what exactly to define animals as, and whether or not they deserve any rights. Some believe that they are nothing more than a childhood pet used for entertainment, while others believe that they are beautiful exquisite animals. Currently, animals inside of a household have more rights that cattle or chicken since they are treated as another member of the family. I think that all animals are worthy of moral consideration, not just house pets, since all animals have enough intelligence to be domesticated, they can all feel emotions such as pain and happiness, they can all care about the wellbeing of others, and they all play a critical role in the circle of life.

When a cause is brought up and given light, it has a way of splitting people in how they react to it. And such has been true when it comes to granting new rights, because it’s brobdingnagian in our society that is always hungry for freedoms. We are split down the middle on whether, or not to consider animals, just like us, and thus deserve the rights we hold in our society today. On the other end, are people who don’t believe such rights should be given to animals. While the pro-arguments hold value, there is much more to see on the other end. As to why animals shouldn’t have a “Bill of Rights” like we as humans do. It’s shown in various different ways, even the most popular arguments held by the opposing side. Such as cows hurting the environment, zoo’s being inhumane, and pets. There are other factors as well to take into consideration such as food, psychology medicine, and even culture.

Animal rights activists have rallied and petitioning for an animal bill of rights because they are stating that animals are only being considered “property” by law, being no different than a table and chair. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is really passionate about the document being published even having specific rights for animals with numbers and strong evidence to back up each right and claim, leaving little detail out. Also, in the article “A Change of Heart About Animals” written by Jeremy Rifkin states “What these researchers are finding is that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined” (Rikin 2). I agree with his statement, because animals and humans have many similarities pointed out by many researchers over the many years. Rifkin provides specific evidence like Koko the gorilla, who passed an IQ test with a score of 70-95 or close to that range. I think it's pretty outstanding, depressing, and convenient that Koko is smarter than a majority than humans. There was also a parrot named Alex, who could communicate with it's owner. Alex was able to tell her owner how many of each colored shape was on a plate, he then asked for a glass of water and I think that is incredible that a bird was able to communicate with a human and they were both able to understand each other.

Most of the animals in farms die so people could enjoy a tasty meal, a nice pair of leather shoes or for cosmetics. "People often say that humans have always eaten animals, as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times." (Singer, B. Isaac) It is not right I as a human would not want to endure the life of an animal under these conditions. "[…] the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men." (Da Vinci, Leonardo, quotes)

More laws should be put in place to protect those rights against those moral-beings lacking sympathy. Those who do not support the animal rights movement, you included, usually assume much of the following: animal rights would have the same meaning as human rights, those in favor of animal rights do not recognize that humans are the ultimate species, and that animal rights would infringe on the rights of humans. The current stereotype of the animal-rights movement usually assumes that all of its’ supporters are vegetarians who ignore the importance of science in modern society. I am writing to you, however, to explain that there is a middle ground that goes largely ignored when interpreting the concept of animal rights. This middle ground is centered on the idea of inherent value and a living creatures’ right to that value that must be established due to the existence of humans. I am viewing the idea of “rights” in terms of animals as a concept that exists due to the existence of humans, but does not apply to them. I agree with all of your basic concepts: humans are supreme and should come first, and animals do not have rights like humans. Where I believe we can come to a compromise, however, involves viewing the issue through a lens of gray rather than black or white. Humans are the ultimate beings with the highest inherent value. There is no other higher

Why should animals not have the same rights that humans do? Maybe because they cannot talk, read books, or drive cars, but neither can some humans for that matter. So why is it that when an experiment, which was conducted to help treat type 2 diabetes, killed 203 people, it was halted immediately, although millions of animals die each year due to scientific experimentation? The answer is that many believe that animals are worthless or are not worth as much as human beings are, so they are therefore dispensable. The problem with that is animals are living things just like humans. Therefore, like human beings, they understand fear and experience pain. They also feel excitement and happiness. So why should they be denied the same basic rights

Animals should be given a Bill of Rights, after all, they have every reason to be guaranteed this because they've suffered in silence for so long. It is their time now to shine and they finally have a light and that is the chance in life to live and strive for better in their own habitat. Animals have been taken advantaged of, abused, and used for experiments for the own public good. If you think about it they have never been given a voice and they are always discriminated against just because of some minor factors that separates us such as species. I'm sure if animals could talk just like humans more people would view these innocent animals in a more decent way but, we shouldn't let such small factors come between us. Activist and author Jeremy Rifkin of A Change of Heart About Animals claims that “...researchers are finding...that many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we have ever imagined.” It's true, he also states that they are like us because “they feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement,and even love…” This should be enough for

Today we eat more and more unconsciously: the food is more and more processed and tastes are more and more uniformed. We do not care where our food come from and how farms are turning into factories. It is an efficient chain mechanism that uses cruelty to turn animals into profit. The organization “Animals Legal Defense Fund” has proposed a petition containing a “bill of rights” for animals. It legally protects them against abuse, torture and mistreatment. Evidence of this can be found in farm conditions, captivity, cosmetic research and, unfortunately, many others ...With this evidence present, animals should indeed receive rights because it would improve human culture, increase our available food, tame medical research and finally it finally

Animals deserve their rights because they are living, breathing, and capable of feeling just like human beings. Animals are vital to sustain our ecosystem and the effects of the mismanagement in the commercial and gaming industries further devastate our environment.

To give animals their rights would be saying that as human beings, we may not experiment on animals, one cannot breed and kill animals for food or clothes or medicine. One cannot use animals for hard labour, hunt, and cannot display the animal at a zoo or use them for any source of entertainment. In the article “introduction to animal rights,” by Joseph Lubinski, it states,”To the law, animals are property: they are goods to be bought and sold, acquired and maintained.” Human beings have grown accustomed to emotionally attaching themselves to animals that once were solely used for the purpose of hard labour. Advocates against animal rights do not agree that animals should be treated with the same privileges a human being

Humans have rights and animals are pretty similar to humans so why shouldn’t animals have rights. Animal testing laws should be more strict so not a lot of animals end up dying. Animals are an important part of this world, and if we don’t take good care of them and keep on killing them, then what are researchers going to do. Just like if you take out an animal out of a food chain then the whole entire food chain gets affected, if we take out animals

Animal rights definitely come with many challenges and questions, that is true, but if we could make life better in some aspect for animals utilized in research (or as pets), why wouldn't we? Although I agree that the monkey having permissions for his "selfie" is a bit ridiculous, that is different than humans attacking stray dogs in the street just because they are there. Animal rights should be more practical, such as having a basic guideline on how to treat non-humans. While it is true that nature is a dog-eat-dog world, most animal abuse that humans commit are simply out of spite and hatred, not a need for survival. It is merely my suggestion that we narrow it down to disallowing only the unneeded violence, not the methods that

Animal Bill of Rights is a bill that is created based on the U.S Bill of Rights in order to protect the animals from getting harmed and used in experiments in an abusive way. I stand with Rifkin, Braithwaite, and Yong on how animals need a “Bill of Rights” due to the fact that we humans, specifically the scientists, have been treating animals in an inhumane way and considering them as an object to help achieve many goals. I wouldn’t think that such law would go against centuries of human culture because we have become more and more savage to other animals, and we would need to have some restrictions to prevent us from hurting them more.