Animal Rights Controversy

Is Congress As Representative As We Thought? In our current Congress, we could say that it’s likely been the most diverse of all of its time. As we know, Congress holds an important role in accurately representing its constituents. Congress is made up of both the Senate having 2 representatives per state and the US House of Representatives holding 435 seats. This is astounding to think about when we consider who makes up our population.

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

From Romania, Mircea Eliade, studied religion from the profane to the sacred. His theory of hierophanies is broken into two axioms to be better understood. The first axiom is that religion is its own thing and is not caused by something else. The second axiom relates to describing religion. Unlike other people Eliade believes that “times and places may differ, he would say, but concepts are often the same”(231). Pals’ uses Euclid’s math as an example that Euclid’s math is the same as it was before it's just used in a different time period. From an excerpt of Eliade’s The Sacred and the Profane we are given the difference between the profane and the sacred; the profane is the regular day to day activities however the sacred are out of the ordinary

“Nearly as many, 68 percent, were concerned or very concerned about the well-being of animals used in ‘sports’ or contests as well as animals in laboratories (67 percent) (Kretzer, 1).” Many people question whether an animal is capable of thought and emotions. Others feel as though animals are the equivalent of humans and should be treated as such. Since the 1800’s, animal rights has been a topic that has several different sides including two extremes. If animals can react to their environment, emote, and are aware of things done to or with them, then they should have similar rights to humans.

Issues concerning animal rights are often controversial. Various attempts at making human life more convenient interfere with the lives of animals, endangering them. Overtime these practices, such as deforestation, lab testing on animals, and poaching, can increase the risk of the animals involved becoming extinct. Several different organizations attempt to combat the risk posed to endangered animals by creating ad campaigns to raise awareness of the harsh effects losing such animals could cause. The World Wildlife Fund, for example, made the image above with the hope that people might either change their harmful ways or contribute to groups that attempt to save animals. By identifying the ways in which this image can be considered an argument

Several opponents of animal testing are blinded by their own opinions and have not taken into consideration the growing list of scientific advancements from animal testing. Between 1992 and 1994, the Research Defense Society published a list that gave the number of patients who benefited from animal research in the UK; from antibiotics to heart and lung transplants, 83,392,400 people were able to benefit from animal research ("Animal Rights . . ."). Several vaccines, antibiotics, drugs, prevention ideas and treatments have resulted from animal testing, and if experimentation is stopped, a cure for diabetes, aides, and cancer would be beyond reach, new surgical procedures to repair heart defects will be terminated, 30,000 young Americans with cystic fibrosis will never have a normal life span, the development of artificial blood will never continue and several other new life improving studies will never occur ("Animal Research . . .").

There should not be an amendment to the constitution granting animals rights. The reason I feel there should not be any amendment is because they provide us with food, give us resources that we use daily and we also get long lasting clothes from using their fur or flesh. But I do believe there should be laws on how to properly kill animals we consume or use for their fur, flesh or meat.

The “General Information” chapter discusses what is meant by animal rights and which animals are included in the animal rights movement. The animal rights movement questions whether enforcing and enacting animal rights is a moral issue or a legal one. The author calls for the readers to have an amount of

“Hormone-free”, “organic”, “grass-fed”, and “natural” are labels that animal and plant producers use to inform consumers of what they are eating. These claims are misleading and usually increase the prices of those products. By increasing the price and sticking a label that reads “natural” makes consumers think that this product is better for them. Animal Welfare Approved gives an example of an egg carton boasting the statement that its eggs are “natural.” This statement can legally come from an industrial farm where the hens do not forage the way a chicken does “naturally.” According to the USDA, farms have to get organic certifications and accreditations in order to sell, label, and represent their products as organic. It is difficult to

Introduction, animals that are being tested safety of their products that’s been a subject of an intense debate for over 10 years. While, a lot of people that alleged animals, the remained animals are being subjugated by the research cosmetics companies all over the country/all over the world. Even though, the scientists frequently profit from animal research, I don’t think all the suffering, the pain, and the animals dying are worth just trying find out the human benefits from the products.

The study of good and bad, right and wrong, moral principles or value held by a person or society, promoting human welfare, maximizing freedom minimizing pain and suffering is called ethics. The discipline that studies the moral relationship of human beings and also the value and moral status of the environment and its non-human contents is called environmental ethics. It considers the ethical relationship between the humans and the environment. Animal and animal rights are the highlighted topic in the environmental ethics.

backs and they were dragging their hind legs (Reed 38). While in the lab, the

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

The statement by Paul McCartney rings true, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls everyone would be a vegetarian.” Animal rights is a concept which people hardly ever consider in a serious light. Being born as a human being, having a superior mental capacity and sense of times makes people think that they can rule this world and use other living beings as they see fit. This mentality leads to people say things like “animals are born to eaten” or how Aristotle claimed “all of the nature exist specifically for the sake of men” and “that animal are merely instruments for humankind.” (Pg. 495). This way of thinking often leads to overconsumption of animals, cruelty to animals and loss of species.