My Views On Animal Rights

My Views on Animal Rights
During this course many of the topics discussed I found interesting. Of the many, the topic that I found most interesting is about animal rights. I want
to further express my view on this topic. I believe animals do not have rights and people only give animals rights because people believe animals have
souls. I have come to this conclusion due to further reading and personal experience.
Animals do not have rights because animals do not have voices. If animals had voices they would be considered human beings, which of course, they
are not. Animals are actually sub–creatures of the world. My stance on this is derived from the fact that animals are treated just as such of what they
are; animals. Animals are designed to accommodate human...show more content...
Humans see animals as innocent and not an enemy in nature. We humans have the same instinct the only difference is we are more evolved than that
of an animal. If you place a human in the desert they will do the only thing they know how, survive. The first thing a person will do is find an animal
and eat it.
The biological make up of a large percentage of mammals are carnivores or omnivores, which sum up to the fact that they eat meat. For most
humans eating meat is a primary part of their nourishment and meat comes from animals. To acquire meat a human can only get it from an animals
and animals can only acquire meat from other animals or humans, therefore eating meat is apart of the circle of life. In the circle of life everything
eats and everything is eaten whether humans join in the circle or not. Animals will eat other animals as well as humans for meat regardless if a
human will eat them or not. It is in our instinct to eat meat, more so in animals than humans. Animals are born into this world to serves us as food.
Humans have just the right to eat meat just as much as a lion or wolf. A vegetarian argument would be that since humans are evolved we should be
more compassionate towards animals because it is their instinct to behave in such way. Just because we are evolved does not stop the animal from
thinking that we are food to them. Eating meat is natural, normal, and necessary. Some people become sick from being strictly
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

The Issue Of Animal Rights Essay
Animals have the right to equal consideration in regards to their being used for human needs as most people use animals for their own needs on a
daily basis even if only indirectly whether to entertain us, or to attain the product we are using, or on our dinner plate. The controversy of the
treatment of animals range from some activists and philosophers that are outspoken against animals being used by humans in any way for our own
personal needs, while others are candid in their belief that animals are here solely for meeting our needs and have no rights at all. Although everyone
is able to tailor their actions to fit their moral, ethical and individual beliefs, and many different categories of unique diets have come about from the
freedom of defining personal standards it is a controversial topic. With vegetarian and vegan diets', becoming more and more common deciding what
is morally justifiable in respects to the treatment of animals is an essential issue for everyone. The dispute of animal rights is essentially focused on what
rights animals deserve to have and how they should be treated in regards to being experimented on, for humans' entertainment, and their being used as
livestock. A controversial issue in the debate of animal rights is the health of the people that do not consume animals or animal products and those that
do. A large area of the debate is centered around the fact that is widely believed thatmeat from animals is necessary for a healthy and

Animal Rights: An Example Of Socialism
Animal rights is an example of socialism. Socialism is the reason some animals are alive today. Animal rights is an example of socialism because
animals have the same rights humans have. Harming animals is seen mainly in dog commercials now. The commercials sometimes show how people
treat most animals at home. People should not stand around a let other people harm animals they should speak up. Most people attitude towards
animals is sometimes rude and not respectful. People treat them like they are not as important as they are. Animal rights is an example of socialism
because it shows you that you do not have to be a human to have rights. Rights for animals could not be an example of capitalism because that means
nobody would have cared about

Animal Rights
Is it cruel to slaughter animals for eating? If you're an animal lover or vegetarian, you may think it's unethical to slaughter animals for consuming.
There are many different views on animal rights, according to Philosopher Tom Regan who is a strong believer on animal rights and why they deserve
not to be harmed. He wrote that the fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, that they are here for us–to be
eaten, surgically manipulated or exploited for sports or money. Once we accept this view of animals– as our resources– the rest is as predictable as it is
regrettable. If we are taught that animals have no moral status it can affect our understanding on their reasoning of life. Regan Kantians belief was
animals have the same rights as humans, they too feel pain and suffering. Singer who is a Utilitarian believes human beings are of value so therefore
animal rights have no importance. There are positive and negative arguments on both ends. I see why Regan's views are important and how animals
can be looked at as useless creatures. I never once thought eating meat was unethical. I feel every individual is raised differently from culture to
religious differences. I was brought up eating meat but never thought of it being inhumane to kill cows, pigs, chickens and fish for food. Now
animals like dogs and cats I do believe have emotions. We also consider them companions so I feel they have a moral status and rights to be taken care
of.

Animal Rights Thesis
Thesis: (All) Although some may not value animal rights, attention should be directed towards this epidemic as animals' health and well–being affects
us.
It is said that present laws have begun a revolutionary outlook on the way humans treat animals; however, it is misplaced that a revolution to conserve
animals' lives has truly done just that. In the present age group, named Generation Peter Pan, a 'trend' of ending the reckless 'murdering' of animals has
been birthed to battle against cruelty– going vegan. Though it has halted the overproduction of slaughter, it has failed in truly protecting, as well as
securing, the rights of animals in their life, liberty, and their pursuit of inevitable happiness. In Generation Baby Boomers, their concerns lied
elsewhere, in warfare and survival, causing little to none pursual of lawful reaction to the deaths of animals....show more content...
They refuse to eat eggs, milk, and all other things coming from animals. Because of the animal products being brutally forced from the bodies and
systems of animals, there has been controversy to the purposes of stopping this red meat and other sorts of production in this class of ages.
The Baby Boomer Generation and Generation X were both ages that failed to provide any greater solutions to the animal rights epidemic. Baby
Boomers had more on their mind than simply fighting for the animals that gave them life. Consumed by war, greed was an efficient way of survival.
In Generation X, fashion statements were made through the use of fauxes and other items retrieved from animals overall. Later in the 80's, a new era
began where animals began to have more rights than ever envisioned by the future

The Violation Of Animal Rights
Every living being has some rights. Animals are living beings so they have certain rights on the people living in the world. There are various types of
animals found in every part of the world. People eat some of the animals. For instance, they eat goats, cows, swine, chickens etc. These are the animals
that are considered favorite foods people. It is also not only about eating them; it is also about trading them legally and illegally to get the financial
benefit. In fact, there are many organizations around the world that are involved in it. In addition, there are other animals too that are becoming the
victim of the torture of the human beings. They include cats, dogs, elephants, etc.
Birds and animals living in the water are also not an exception. They are taking the brunt of the humans' activities that only benefit them and not to any
other living creatures. This world solely does not belong to only the human beings; there are other creatures too that want certain rights for living a
cozy life. Animals are basically suffering more when compared with the sufferings of human beings. Moreover, they are being slaughtered by the
people than by the animals of other species or from their own. Jeremy Bentham was a proponent of animals' rights and according to him; the ability to
suffer should be the benchmark to define the violations of the animals' rights.
The interesting thing about his work is that he was the proponent of the minorities rights too who have suffered in the

Animal Rights And Human Rights
Animal Rights "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. Some of us have animals as pets, for competitions, for our jobs, and some to survive. Much like tasking asked of humans
in day to day life. Those of us who have pets, see them as a part of the family, making us believe they are no different than a child we gave birth to.
When we bring home our new born children, we love them, nurture them, and teach them as they grow to be adults. What happens to most families
when they bring home their sweet little puppies, kittens, or other baby animal of our choosing? I would imagine that the goal is to raise them to adapt
to their new family. This is no different than that of a small child. Looking at a behavioral stand point and comparing household pets tohuman beings,
the reactions are very similar. When children are physically and mentally abused on a regular basis, the smallest act may have a similar reaction as that
of a

Argument for Animal Rights Essay
Argument for Animal Rights
The argument for animal rights assumes that animals posses their own lives and deserve to be assigned rights in order to protect their wellbeing. This
view insists that animals are not merely goods utilised only to benefit mankind and they should be allowed to choose how they want to live their lives,
free from the constraints of man. But if animals are given absolute rights, then surely they shouldn't be allowed to kill each other, as this would be a
violation of these rights. Should murderous animals be administered prison sentences or even...capital punishment?
One method of preventing animals killing each other would be to provide animals with a vegetarian...show more content...
This is ironic because we are moral beings and can think about our actions, yet we kill and mistreat animals as they are lesser beings and can't think
about their actions. However, before we can answer the question of whether or not animals have the right to kill each other, we must ask whether or not
they even have rights.
It can be argued that, as greater beings, we should take responsibility for the wellbeing of those species that are less developed than us, rather than using
our power to manipulate and exploit them. According to Rawls's contractualism, animals are not rational agents and humans are. This implies that, as
humans are the ones who have created the concept of rights, they should only apply to humans. However, Peter Carruthers extends this theory so that it
defends the rights of animals. He suggests that a rational agent could enter into a contract for an animal, representing their interests in 'the formulation
of the basic contract'. There are also some human beings who cannot speak for themselves or question their actions, for example, fetuses, infants, the
comatose, the senile and the severely retarded. These people are still assigned rights despite the fact that they are not moral agents. They may make the
same simple instinctive decisions as animals, yet are given rights based upon their species. It can be

Essay on Nonhuman Animal Rights
In regards to animals, the issue of rights and whether they exist becomes a touchy subject. In the essay, "Nonhuman Animal Rights: Sorely Neglected,"
author Tom Regan asserts that animals have rights based upon inherent value of experiencing subjects of a life. Regan's argument will first be
expressed, later explained, and evaluated in further detail. Lastly, that fact that Regan thinks rights are harbored under the circumstance of being an
experiencing subject of a life will also be discussed in terms of the incapacitated, etc. Regan positively argues that both human and nonhuman
individuals are experiencing subjects of a life. Experiencing subjects of a life have an inherent value, which is nevertheless, equal among the populace.
One's...show more content...
It is as if one says a human who is an experiencing subject of a life must be able to understand and communicate its thoughts. Where do animals fit in?
Do we discount them because they do not speak our language and we cannot understand theirs? Experiencing subjects of a life, in the eyes of Regan,
are argued to have an inherent value, a basic right that is equal amongst individuals. Regan believes that because an individual is a subject experiencing
life, said subject has an inherent value. Regan notes that critics argue that only humans have inherent value, but if such delegation of species takes
place, speciesism, a form of discrimination, the fact of the matter becomes essentially immoral. The reduction of a subject's inherent value based on
grouping of species is indeed a form of inequality...of speciesism. He argues that in order for inherent value to be portrayed equally, discrimination of
the sort cannot be morally acceptable, nor tolerated. Regan accepts that simply saying that humans have more inherent value than animals is not a
rational justification. One can say that an individual's mother has more worth than a dog's mother; however, on what grounds does this argument lie?
This is merely an irrational and immoral statement that degrades an individual. In turn, the justification of which individual has more

Animal Rights and Ethics Essay
"Animal Rights and Ethics"
Gary Grey
Introduction to Ethics and Social Responsibility
Stacey Hiles
March 21, 2011
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".
"Animals Rights and...show more content...
For instance the household animals which we keep as pets have the right to live a happy fulfilled life, but the spider you washed down the stink or
the slug you or a kid poured salt over did not because they are not a "higher" animal. Even though it might seem wrong or controversial for one to
decide which are 'higher' animals, our society and government have decided this for us. For example household pets such as dogs and cats are hailed
too much higher standards in the United States than Cows or Chickens. Which raises the question, is it ethically wrong for Animal rights activists to
fight for the rights of some animals and not others?
Animal Cruelty is a subject that spreads far across the United States and into most civilized cultures. Animal cruelty can either be in the form of
intentional abuse, simple neglect, or abandonment of animals. Whatever forms the abuse takes, however, the animal that is the victim of the abuse is
often helpless and may experience extreme suffering. Animal right activist feel if you don't know how to take care or treat an animal it can be as
deadly as physical abuse to care for one.
Activist also feel by giving a child a fish, rabbit, or bird to take care of can viewed as intentional neglect or abuse. This is based upon a child not being
able to take care of its self but giving another life which depends on its care in order for

Essay on ANIMAL RIGHTS
Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be
given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals
to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as
humans and therefore, we don't have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are
valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using
...show more content...
Singer wants to show that everyone's interest or good counts for one (Singer 8). Singer deals with the question of suffering as his main point since his
goal is to show that rights are based on the capacity for suffering. He supports with some fundamental facts that these animals have nervous systems
just like ours, which "respond physiologically as ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain" (11). Singer's arguments
can be supported by Jeremy Bentham, the founder of the reforming utilitarian school of moral philosophy, who incorporated the essential basis of
moral equality into his system of ethics by mean of the formula: "Each to count for one and none for more than one." In other words, the interests of
every being affected by an action are to be taken into account and given the same weight as the like interests of any other being (Singer 5). Singer
argues that we do not have good legal reasons, scientific or philosophical, for denying that animals feel pain. Therefore, he deems that "if we do not
doubt that other humans feel pain we should not doubt that other animals do so too" (15). He proves that animals can undergo pain and that there can
be "no moral justification for regarding the pain (or pleasure) that animals feel as less importance than the same amount of pain felt by humans" (15).
This portrays the rights and equality the animals may possess comparison to

The Evil Of Animal Rights Essay
Today, the discussions about the protection of the animal's rights have received the attention of many people, many countries in the world. A lot of
actions have been made by animal right activists to influence the world. Alex Epstein and Yaron Book, both authors of the "The Evil of Animal
'Right'," argue animal right activists use too much violence on their action, which is considered going against the law. Then, the authors give a lot of
evidence to prove testing animals are extinct, but using animals for testing gives us new vaccines which make our lives better. Without animals for
testing, how can scientists find out the vaccine for diseases? Animal right groups are making many effects to Huntingdon Life Sciences. First of all,
some of...show more content...
For example, PETA supposes that "animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. To abide by this principle, we must
leave animals free to overrun and destroy our property, to eat our food, even to kill our children" (586). In my opinion, I do not think PETA means
to let the animal destroy the human's properties or kill children. PETA just wants to let the animal have the free life, but we still put them under
control. I cannot agree how the authors explain PETA's principle, the authors approach that principle negatively and think PETA as a bad
association. The Vice President of The Humane Society Michael Fox explains, "The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal
consideration" (586). This principles is impossible true, we have to compare the value between human's life and animal's life. In some case, using a
mouse to test vaccine can make a curve rescue million people. If the scientists do not test their vaccine or medicine on the animal, how can they see
the effect of those medicines in a live body? We have used an animal to support our life for a long time. In some situations, we should use animals to
make the interests of

Animal Rights Essay
Animals and man have shared this planet since humans first appeared on earth. Animals have provided transportation, food, clothing, shelter,
companionship and entertainment throughout the ages. Therefore, it is our duty to treat animals with respect, care and kindness and not cause them
undue suffering, because they have, in many ways, made it possible for man to survive on earth. However, because normal adult humans have superior
mental abilities in the hierarchical scale in nature, animals have fewer rights than humans. Consequently, it is our responsibility to support and maintain
the animal kingdom (to the best of our ability); therefore helping to preserve them as fellow members or our community of life on earth.
There are many...show more content...
Animals should be viewed as experiencing subjects of life with inherent value of their own. We are guilty of speciesism and have been inhumane and
evil to creatures that are powerless. He contends that any change requires a change in our heads and hearts.
It would seem that Regan wrote this essay because he feels there has been a blatant cruelty and disregard for animals. He does not mention however,
that all species use each other as resources–that is the way of nature. He seems to be denying or ignoring that natural phenomenon. Everything and
everyone is a resource in one way or another. Humans and animals are hosts for many insects, parasites and microscopic organisms, which are part of
nature's food chain.
As founder of the Animal Rights Liberation, utilitarian Peter Singer agrees with Regan's opinion that we are guilty of speciesism. He defines
"speciesism" as "a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one's own species." He informs the reader that he owes this term to
Richard Ryder.
In his essay "All Animals are Equal", Singer laments the fact that the majority of humans take an active part in, or allow their taxes to pay for the
sacrificing species in order to promote their self–interests. To believe that only human life is sacrosanct is wrong, in his view, and another example of
speciesism. He believes we must allow beings, human or animal, which are similar in all relevant aspects, to

animal rights Essay
Humans have rights that are either natural rights or earned rights. Natural rights are rights that every person is born with and keeps throughout his life.
Some of these rights include freedom of speech, the right to an attorney, and other common sense rights. Some people believe that animals do not have
souls; therefore, they do not have any rights (Regan 104). On the other hand, there are earned rights like the rights given to hunters. Hunters have the
right to hunt as long as they do not break any laws while doing so. For instance, they should not hunt out of season or hunt extinct animals. Also,
hunters are always trying to find a new hunting buddy, so they are trying to convert a non–hunter into a...show more content...
"If the inherent value of humans means that they have the right to be treated with respect, then the same applies to animals" ("Animals are Equal to
Humans").
Also, they do not like the idea of animals being hurt in any way. "Because animals do not have a life after they die, we should do everything in our
power to ensure that this, their only life, is as long and good as possible" (Regan
104). So regardless, animals have rights, but exactly how many rights do they have? Animals' rights are different from human rights. Although animals
can not talk, some humans speak up for the rights of animals. These humans are sometimes known as animal rights activists. Some of these people
hold protests to make their points. People may think that protests never happen, especially the ones that end up in a brawl. "According to a list
compiled by the
Foundation for Biomedical Research, at least 37 demonstrations were planned by groups in 15 states for World Laboratory Animal Liberation Week"
(Holden). "A new law could send animal rights activists in Britain to jail for up to five years if they cross the line between peaceful protest and
harassment" (Vogel).
Also, according to a statement by the government, illegal protests include those that are outside of people's homes the cause alarm, harassment, or
distress to the residents (Vogel). They believe that humans

Essay on Zoos and Animal Rights
Among many other fun and exciting attraction to visit around our community, a visit to the zoo has always been a memorable experience. This cost
effective priceless lifetime experience is being undermined by a group of activists all around the country. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA), world largest animal rights organization, argue that zoos deprived animals from satisfying their most basic needs. They urge not to patronized
zoos and claims that the money spent on ticket purchases pays for animals to be imprisoned and traded, not rescued and rehabilitated. They go on
saying in summary that zoos strip animals from their rights. So this heated debate revolves around the animal rights and how the zoo industry inhibits it.
Fifty–four percent of the individuals surveyed offered comments about the elevated awareness of their role in conservation as a direct consequence of
their visit to the zoo. Furthermore, sixty one percent of visitors were able to talk about what they learned from their previous visit, and thirty five
percent reported that the visit reinforced their existing beliefs about conservation, stewardship and love of animals in different surveys. As news writer
Amy miller (2014) states zoos are working harder than ever to save endangered animals around the world. She explained that the Wildlife
Conservation Society (WCS), which is headquartered at the Bronx Zoo in New York City, is working with local officials in Malaysia to stop people
from hunting exotic birds to sell their feathers. Furthermore, The California zoo is famous for its work helping to save China's giant panda. Three panda
cubs have been born at the zoo already. The San Diego Zoo now has the largest population of giant pandas outside mainland China.
In addition to promoting conservation many modern zoo encourage research. Studies and research have to be done in order to contribute to the
preservation of endangered species. The San Diego zoo for instance just opened the Conservation and Research for Endangered Species Center. The $22
million center gives scientists cutting–edge instruments and plenty of room to do their work as mentioned by Amy (2014). Farmers in Africa think the
spotted cheetah is an

Animal Rights Essay
"Animal rights – moral or legal entitlements attributed to nonhuman animals, usually because of the complexity of their cognitive, emotional, and
social lives or their capacity to experience physical or emotional pain or pleasure." (Britannia encyclopedia online, n.d.). The definition of animal rights
is so clear to us. Human rights need to be protected, so do animal rights. In 1976, in New York City, thousands of cat lovers were beaten when they
heard a painful test to be taken for pets' sexual behavior. Henry Spira, the leader of animal rights movement, helped to mobilize a protest and marked
the beginning of the contemporary animal rights movement. The group took dramatic and public action to express their concerns and anger. They were
160). Secondly, 17 to 70 million animals are tortured and killed every year in U.S. laboratories. The Animal Welfare Act requires the report of the
number certain animal used in experiments; therefore, it is unknown how many animals, which are excluded from the list of the Act, die during
experiments (Animal Experimentation, n.d.). The purpose of these animal experiments varies. The four main categories can be identified: "medical
research, product testing, psychological research, and military testing" (Rowlands, 2002, p. 124). For example, a dog would be cut open and its organ
would be speculated when it is still alive as a demonstration of scientific methods to the medical students (Monamy, 2000, p. 9). Animals have feelings
of pain although their signs of pain are different from humans' due to "the existence of endogenous opiates" (Dolan, 1999, pp. 155–156). While people
receive all the benefits from animal experiments, they are rarely concerned about the pain and suffering of animal.
What animal rights should people respect? Legal rights and moral rights are subject to the animal rights Firstly, the most well–known and
understandable rights are the legal rights. "Salmond, the learned jurist, defined legal rights as ' an interest recognized and protected by law, respect
for which is a duty and disregard of which is a wrong'" (Dolan, 1999, p. 138). In 1966,

Essay on Animal Rights
For the past 20 years, there has a been an on going heated debate on whether experiments on animals for the benefit of medical and scientific research
is ethical. Whether it is or isn't, most people believe that some form of cost–benefit test should be performed to determine if the action is right. The
costs include: animal pain, distress and death where the benefits include the collection of new knowledge or the development of new medical therapies
for humans. Looking into these different aspects of the experimentation, there is a large gap for argument between the different scientists' views. In the
next few paragraphs, both sides of the argument will be expressed by the supporters.
A well known scientist named Neal D. Barnard...show more content...
The stress of handling, confinement and isolation alters the animal's mental stability and introduces yet another experimental variable that makes any
results from testing even less valuable to human helping. In many cases, drugs and other substances are given to the test animals but studies have
shown considerable differences in the effects of these drugs on different species.
David Salsburg of Pfizer Central Research has noted that of 19 chemicals known to cause cancer in humans when ingested, only seven caused cancer
in mice and rats using the standards set by the National Cancer Institute. This justifies that many substances that appeared safe in animal studies and
received approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in humans later proved dangerous to people. The drug milrinone, which raises
cardiac output, increased survival of rats with artificially induced heart failure; humans with severe chronic heart failure taking this drug had a 30
percent increase in fatalities. Also, the antiviral drug fialuridine seemed safe in animal trials yet caused liver failure in seven of 15 humans taking the
drug (five of these patients died as a result of the medication, and the other two received liver transplants). Scientists and the populous that do not agree
with

Animal Rights Essay
Animal Rights
"Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife––birds, kangaroos, deer, all kinds of cats, coyotes, groundhogs, mice, foxes and dingoes––by the
million in order to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billion and eats them. This in turn kills man by
the million, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative––and fatal––health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then
man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger
and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals....show more content...
In 1871, Charles Darwin proposed that one species could evolve from another. He stated that humans had evolved from other primates, such as apes and
monkeys. Darwin related human feelings to those of animals. By stating that certain human characteristics could be traced back to animals, Darwin
caused much controversy. He was now contradicting the traditional relationship between human and animal. In a way, almost putting them both on the
same level. This theory questioned all that was believed to be true in society and made people think about their purpose.
With many of the experiments done today, animals are mistreated in every way shape and form. Usually, there is a lack of adequate food and water.
Ventilation for the animals is minimal and many times cages are packed full with animals, leaving very little if any room to move around. On many
occasions, the animal will die throughout the course of the experiment.
Animals are in laboratories, today, because we are powerful enough to keep them there, not because they truly belong there. Once we have an animal
caged and restrained, we suddenly gain an even greater feeling of superiority over the animal. No matter what laws exist, experimentation will continue.
This is because the experimenter's imagination is endless. Our containing the animals can be

Persuasive Speech On Animal Rights
Do animals have the right to a certain quality of life? How would your views change if our cooks got treated the same way cattle and poultry do?
How would you feel about them being beaten and brought to their knees just to be detained to know how to cook todays specials? You might think
that the food industry has no issues and no faults behind their tasty food, but when you open up the meat curtain, there is a different kind of world out
there that is cruel and inhumane. In Robert Kenner's 2008 film, Food, Inc., He shows the conditions that cows, chickens, and pigs have to live in. The
dark and closeted homes in which the animals are closely compacted together and eating, sleeping, and walking in their own manure. As a person who
would consider themselves an animal rights activist, most people would agree that the food industry treats their animals like products instead of
living things. Let's take chicken farming as an example. Chickens are injected with growth hormones to make their breasts bigger for human
consumption. The film showed chickens that were abnormally large. These modified chickens can only walk a few steps before having to sit back
down because they can't carry their own weight for too long. Some farmers will recycle the dead carcasses of the animals into the feed for herbivores
on the farm. So plant eating animals will be eating the meat of a dead carcass. Animals could get sick or contract a disease from the dead animals.
This infection would soon get

My Views On Animal Rights

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from OnlinePaperWritingSe

More from OnlinePaperWritingSe (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

My Views On Animal Rights