Should animals need a ‘’Bill of Rights’’? Animals are seen as nothing more than a childhood pet. Animals are beautiful creatures that should be protected and cherished. Through animal research and experimentations, humans are getting benefit and gains in inhumane ways; the poor animals are suffering through pain, even though they have moral statuses and rights. Animals are vulnerable, defenseless, and in man’s power. Animal rights is the idea that animals must have the same rights as humans, to live without suffering, just as important as living individuals, and with the same moral status as humans. Without a Bill of Rights, innocent animals are defenseless against those who would do them harm.
Having animal rights would go against centuries of human culture but it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing because human culture is based on killing animals to benefit ourselves. Scientists and other medical researchers say that animal testing is the future to finding cures. Using animals for testing helps them figure out what will work and not work on humans. Also, using animals in the medical area hasn't helped humans near what people think it has. Just because animals are living breathing creatures like us, doesn't mean their systems are anything like ours. In Germany, the government is encouraging pig farmers to give each pig 20 seconds of human contact each day and to provide them with toys to prevent them from
…show more content…
Studies say that such a dramatic consumer cost would rise the cost of food. Consumers would be forced to pay 25 percent more for eggs. Instead of improving production for the American egg industry and supporting our farmer, these regulations will get egg producers out of business. Fewer egg farmers means fewer eggs. Fewer eggs mean higher prices for the
In "The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights," Tom Regan argues that animals deserve moral consideration and respect, and that the ill treatment of animals for human purposes is morally wrong. Regan begins by stating that animals, like humans, are subjects-of-a-life and have inherent value. This means that they are beings who have their own experiences, projects, and plans, and that they have inherent value simply by virtue of being alive. Regan then goes on to argue that the exploitation and use of animals for human purposes, such as in agriculture, entertainment, and scientific research, is morally wrong and should be completely abolished.
One topic that many scholars are debating right now is the topic of animal rights. The questions are, on what basis are rights given, and do animals possess rights? Two prominent scholars, Tom Regan and Tibor Machan, each give compelling arguments about animal rights, Regan for them and Machan against them. Machan makes the sharp statement, “Animals have no rights need no liberation” (Machan, p. 480). This statement was made in direct opposition to Regan who says, “Reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect” (Regan, p. 477).
As a society there should be a continuation of proceeding to develop new laws. Animals have rights that are not being protected or considered when they are not given the chance to live without suffering or harm. Additionally animal rights are violated when they are used as products for experimentation. Animal experimentations
Women and animals are both frequently treated as if their only value is their bodies and that they don’t have intrinsic value as living beings. We’re told we’re only worth something if we’re attached to a man, and animals only if they’re attached to an owner. The complete lack of bodily autonomy for animals should
Meaning that animals have the right to be treated respectfully, not harmed in any way. Another example is, “Animal rights are legal or moral rights to which nonhuman animals are believed to be entitled. Many people agree that an animal’s basic right is to be free from ill-treatment and cruelty... Some animal rights activists believe that animals should not be used in scientific and medical experiments.... ”(Britannica: Animal Rights).
Many people fight for animal rights. They demand that animal testing should be banned. They think that it is very unethical and wasteful. With the development of technologies, people think that animal testing is archaic, and there are many alternative ways. Often animal testing fails, and it is cruel to play with their lives.
Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests.
Think about how many animals died in the making of your shampoo and body wash. Scientific research like drugs, cosmetics and food additives forced animals into cruel and painful testing. Animals may not be able to communicate or have rights like humans but they have the right to live a life with no torture. Animal rights movements have been ongoing since the nineteen- sixty’s. Advocates of this group want to express that animals should have rights just like humans.
(peta.org) What are animal rights? Animal rights are the protection of animals from cruelty through requirements of humane treatment. Laws protecting animal rights proscribe certain forms of brutal and merciless treatment of animals in medical and scientific research and in the handling of and slaughter of animals for human consumption (encyclopedia.com). Today there are thousands of activist groups around the world that focus on animal testing, animal cruelty, and the misuse of animals. Animals have been used repeatedly throughout the history of biomedical research.
Animals are loved one way or another by most human beings. Whether it is loving them because they are a source of food or adoring them because they consider them family. As a result of this, many people start to contradict one another saying animals should not have rights while others say they should. Animal Activists are exacting that animals should have rights that protect them from discrimination, abuse, and neglect that are mostly targeted towards home animals. In the end there is a difference between how you treat a domestic animal and a farm animal.
Sargent 1 Harley Sargent Ms. Clements English 1301 12:00 9/25/17 Animal Rights Animal rights activists believe in giving the life of an animal the same importance as a human’s life. Animal welfare accepts that animals have interests but allow those interests to be traded away as long as the people benefit from the sacrifice. In contrast, animal rights theories say that animals, like humans, cannot be sacrificed or traded to benefit individuals and their needs. Animals should not have the same rights as humans because they were not put on this earth to serve as equals they were put here for us to benefit from. Animal activist want to state their opinion on how farm animals are mistreated but do not witness this abuse first hand, or they just hear it through the grapevine and believe what they hear.
Islam is a religion of mercy, not only for the human beings, but extended to include all creatures of God; such as birds, insects and other animals. God has commanded us to be compassionate towards animals. We will be asked and held in the Day of Judgment for these weak creatures. Therefore, Islam has set rules and regulations for dealing with animals.
There are both negatives and positives to this argument, although there has been medical discoveries which have saved lives, the lives of the innocent animals being tested on are terminated. Why aren't the lives of animals valued as much as that of a human? Solemnly because they are not able to speak English? No.
In conclusion, the overlapping ideas, regarding the equality of animals, and how humans should distinguish and defend the rights, or lack thereof, of animals, shows that no concrete, purely scientific answer exists. Instead, it is human opinion of a rather non-human focus that gnaws and drives animal’s rights controversies
If we give animals rights we will stop testing and will be a hault on disease fighting medicine .