Animal rights are a fragile issue that goes back and forth between people often with so many different beliefs and ways of viewing things. A major question in animal rights is; are animals entitled to the possession of their own lives and their everyday basic needs? With opinions on this topic based on research and tests, opposers to animals having rights over their life are not taking into consideration that animals live just like us humans but we cannot physically communicate with them. It is unfair that because of lack of communication animals are killed all around the world for the use of their skin because of our selfish need to wear animal fur.
Certain animals should be guaranteed rights under legalizing binding Animal Bill of Rights for example dogs, elephants, birds, dolphins, gorillas, and chimpanzees. If animals do not have a sense of morality, why should they have rights? These animals do have a sense of morality they can distinguish right from wrong and good and bad behavior. Humans are capable of having sense of morality that 's why they have rights, but not all humans do the right things they go and violate laws all the time.
Animals are just as living as we are, they deserve the same basic rights that we do and they deserve to live a life without pain and suffering that humans so often inflict. As humans, we have a natural need to help and protect. This need should range from world hunger to ending all harm that comes to any species. We are natural born leaders and therefore it is our responsibility to look out for those who look up to us. As animals have no say we have to be there voice and speak up where needed. Through this and advocating for a better tomorrow we can make a difference in animal abuse and end all harm to those innocent, to make the world a better equalized place.
Over 2 million animals are killed every year, almost all of these animals had never felt the embrace of a loving person. Animal rights are very conservational because some people think animals are things, they do not see them as living beings, and just see them as if they are just something that can be replaced. Everything done to animals have emotional effects on them and they are not things that just do not feel pain. Animals should have similar rights as humans because animals feel pain just as much as humans do, have emotions just as humans, and they have things that humans have.
...ans? This is a very controversial and debatable subject. Many people look at this topic differently, a lot of people believe that animals should be granted the rights that humans have but many believe that they should not have rights.
The idea of an Animal Bill of Rights is one that should have started years ago and should already exist in our society. Animals are creatures that can think and feel just as we can. Humans should not be legally allowed to keep farm animals in poor or unhealthy conditions as they often are found in. Testing on animals should have a specific set of rules and regulations to ensure they are not put through harmful or unnecessary experiments. Lastly, no animal should ever be forced to live in an environment where they are being abused or neglected in any way by their owners.
Almost all humans want to have possession and control over their own life, they want the ability to live independently without being considered someone’s property. Many people argue that animals should live in the same way as humans because animals don’t have possession of their lives as they are considered the property of humans. An article that argues for animal rights is “The case against pets” (2016) by Francione and Charlton. Gary L Francione and Anna E Charlton are married and wrote a book together, “Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach (2015). Francione is a law professor at Rutgers University and an honorary professor at University of East Anglia. Charlton is also a law professor at Rutgers University and she is the co-founder of the Rutgers Animal Rights Law Clinic. In this article Francione and Charlton mainly focus on persuading people to believe in animal rights but only focus on one right, the right of animals not to be property. The article is written in a well-supported manner with a lot of details and examples backing it up, but a few counter-arguments can be made against some of their arguments.
They live in our homes, we treat them like family, take care of them by taking them to the clinic when they are sick, animals; mans best friends. But many people, mainly researchers and scientists, use them for testing purposes. Which then gets passed on to the consumers, those looking to buy medical and cosmetic products. A large number of people also argue that animals have feelings, emotions and deserve the same rights as humans do; equal rights. While others exploit various types of animals for things such as fur coats, steak dinners, and entertainment purposes. This may be how many humans justify their needs and blindly satisfy their morals. Two arguments are being made one for the welfare of animals and the other advocating their use for man kinds advantage, let's look at both.
Many countries around the world agree on two basic rights, the right to liberty and the right to ones own life. Outside of these most basic human and civil rights, what do we deserve, and do these rights apply to animals as well? Human rights worldwide need to be increased and an effort made to improve lives. We must also acknowledge that “just as one wants happiness and fears pain, just as one wants to live and not die, so do other creatures” (Dalai Lama). Animals are just as capable of suffering as we are, and an effort should be made to increase their rights. Governments around the world should establish special rights that ensure the advancement and end of suffering of all sentient creatures, both human and non-human. Everyone and everything should be given the same chance to flourish and live.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.