Persuasive Essay On Animal 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.

Ever since a young age, I have been a passionate animal enthusiast. I cannot image a life without a dog by my side. Animals are not just pets, or food, or part of the environment. They are intelligent creatures and deserve to be treated as such. Animals have evolved just as we have. The evolution theory even says humans evolved from primates. So why do animals not have rights? They have a brain and can learn and grow, just as we can. It can also be argued that animals have a soul. I believe animals not only have dignity, but they also have rights.

Animal testing has been one of the issues that people are fighting overtime because of its moral. Even though some results of tests are successful on people, many people are still fighting for the animal’s rights. They believe that animals should have their own rights to live a free life where they belong, just like their species. In scientists point of view, animals have been one of the main subjects to test on, but a lot of them are currently looking forward to use and develop alternatives for the cruel act of animal testing.

The idea of animal rights has been around for centuries. Even decades ago, people were taking action for the welfare of animals. Marc Bekoff and Ned Hettinger share this idea all the way back in 1994 when they said that there is evidence that scientist are concerned with animal welfare by acknowledge that they use the guidelines in place to protect animals during research, in order to have their work published (Bekoff 219). Guidelines are the basis for the moral and ethical treatment of animals. Each person may have his or her own standard, but having a standard among the entire population ensures the welfare of the animals. Unfortunately, these standards are not at a level to where the animals are being protected. Many animals in captivity are treated in ways that would shock the average person. Orcas for example, are starved until they do the desired task (Cowperthwaite). This form of operant condition can lead to success, but often leads to resentment and hostility towards the trainers.

Imagine one minute running freely on the vast green terrain surrounding you, then the next locked up in a cold, hard, cage. It sounds horrible, right? Who would want to be locked up with minimal area to stretch your legs, and have people staring at you constantly? I for one, would hate that. I imagine that most animals locked up would share the same feelings. I personally, am against animals being caged. They do not deserve that kind of lifestyle and should not have to live with it just because humans pay money to see it. Animals are suffering greatly from being locked away. When an animal is bought, traded or given to a zoo, the animals rights are stripped away from them.

o domesticate animals such as dogs, goats, chickens, sheep, and beasts of burden between 10,000 and 18,000 years ago. Many people originally believed that because animals had no souls they also felt no pain; however, this belief changed as the study of animals increased. The first animal-protection law in western civilization was adopted in 1641; making it illegal to “exercise any Tirranny or Crueltie towards any bruite Creature which are usuallie kept for man’s use.” (7) In 1789, the English philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, was the first to state that animals have rights. This concept was different from the belief that animals felt pain, in his claims animals deserved basic human rights. This new theory shook the foundation of many peoples belief in what animal rights truly is. In 1821, Maine became the first state to adopt modern anti-cruelty laws for the U.S.; every other state eventually passed similar legislation. It still wasn’t until the 21st century that lawsuits in the interest of animals became common. The animal rights movement has become most active in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Animal rights organizations have been using court systems to protect animals from being used in harmful activities, such as the agricultural industry and as being research subjects, in the belief that they have the same basic rights as all humans.

Most, in which, endure great amounts of suffering caused by mistreatment, neglect, and abuse from factory workers. Animals raised for the purpose of food have the least amount of protection of any animal class in North America, and 95% of animals in research facilities are excluded from the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), which also gives just only minimal protection to the other 5%. People tend to claim they are animal lovers and are against animal cruelty but yet they buy products that include animals in some way, like food or accessories, which pays other people who abuse, exploit, and mistreat animals. Animal cruelty needs to be rid of completely with the help of animal rights, which will then teach the human race about actions that are morally wrong to do against animals.

In “The Case for Animal Rights” written by Tom Regan, the author analyzes reasons for why all beings should have rights, but argues in particular why animals should have basic rights, like humans. “I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights- as a part of the animal rights movement”(Regan 337). The goals of the movement include the following: not allowing the use of animals in science, commercial agriculture, and the eradication of commercial and sport hunting or trapping. Regan blantly dismisses people who claim to believe in the rights of animals, but do not put forth these goals. He rejects the thought that using animals for cosmetic research is a violation of their rights and is unacceptable, but if it is cancer research then it is permissible. “You don’t change unjust institutions by tidying them up”(Regan 337) Regan goes on to break down his paper into views which he believes that people hold in regard to animal rights, he then counters these views with thought experiments that explain why suffering and pain are only feelings that add to the fundamentally wrong system that allows animals to be seen as resources. In this paper, I will discuss Regan’s arguments, possible objections to his arguments, and provide answers to those objections using the author's point of view.

Animal shelters are overflowing, some euthanizing dogs just because they no longer have the resources to care for these animals, yet people are still buying their dogs from the pet store. When getting a new dog, adopt it from the animal shelter rather than buying it from a pet store.

The Animal Bill of Rights are laws that provide animals with rights to protect them and their dignity. Over the years there's been quite a controversy whether if animals should be given rights and a curiosity about their capabilities and if it's enough for them to be guaranteed the rights that a human has. Although it has been proven that animals indeed to have feelings and knowledge to their existence and even causes and effects of life or death, many people in the US still don't agree that animals should have rights. Many of the people who don't agree are more curious as to what would happen and the lengths these rights would go for animals and how it would affect the lives of humans. They laugh at the fact that these rights could possibly apply to all animals even the smallest ones when it shouldn't be a matter of humor. I think the real reason they laugh is because they're afraid of what these animals can do that could possibly outsmart humans in any way. These animals have suffered for years and they finally get to shine and their abuse finally comes to light and more people are realizing the inhumane acts these poor animals go through.

Your unwitting response only proves how adamant you are to twist and bend the rules to your convenience. The rules clearly state that "the tenant will ALSO be notified", with no further stipulation indicating that said notification is to further be forwarded by the owner of the unit. Also, VERBAL complaints are invalid, as you have stated numerous times, whenever we have addresses our own concerns with other dogs/people in the building. Therefore, you are purposely suppressing the rights we are entitled to, which is absolutely ridiculous and indicative of your personal agenda to attack, harass and discriminate against us, for no reason; which is a clear violation of the regulations set forth by the FHA, not to mention a violation of the IDFPR oath you are supposed to uphold as a licensed community association manager.

Today we live in a world of opposites: animal lovers and activists who strive to make equality for all living things and people who have anthropocentric mindsets which causes them to believe that animals are undeserving of rights. Should not there be rights for all living things? Well, at least this is what I believe, and I did not come to this conclusion on my own. The way I view animal rights is tremendously influenced by my exposure to media, my personal experiences, and the values of my generation.

Throughout the world, right under the human nose, millions of innocent and helpless, animals are being tortured and murdered. They are used for product testing as well as to put into products without consumer knowledge. These defenseless animals are deprived of respect and are victimized to an extent where it becomes unbearable to watch. There are many organizations that are trying to fight for animal rights. However, these organizations struggle with is because there is no legislation in the United States to combat animal testing. Even though it is not against United States regulations, animal testing should be outlawed because of its harmful and cruel effects.

The abolitionist approach to animal rights discards all use of animals and conserves that all sentient beings, whether humans or nonhumans, have one right: the simple right to not be treated as the possession of others. The acknowledgement of this one simple right indicates that we must eradicate, and not just regulate, established animal mistreatment— this is too get rid of the belief that assumes that animals belong humans. It is recognised that it will take a long process to abolish the property positioning of nonhumans, but they believe it can be achieved if they support only the campaigns and positions that clearly encourage the abolitionist agenda, and not give backing to those that believe in regulations of animal exploitation – such as Professor Robert Garner who argued that animal welfare regulation can cause a ‘ significant reduction of animal use and animal suffering’ (The animal rights debate: abolition or regulation?, 2010). The abolitionist approach sees abolition as the objective of animal ethics and sees creative, nonviolent vegan advocacy—and not welfare reforms—as the means to that end (Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach, 2015)

Imagine it’s 2029. Animals have altered to a completely different lifestyle-- the dogs and cats that used to roam your house are solely used for human safety. To ensure disease can be stopped with the new developed drugs, your dog Ralph, whom you’ve grown up with, is ripped from your home and shipped off for testing-- never to be returned. The next day, the birds at your bird feeder are shot and killed to be sold at the antique shop.