Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’” (5).
Charles R. Magel said? Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. Animals are living creatures that have feelings just like a human being.
In Jeremy Rifkin’s article, “A Change of Heart about Animals”, proves his statement that many of our fellow creatures also “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love..”. I agree that animals share similar feelings as us, and I believe that they should be treated in a way that they can feel comfortable and care in their surroundings. Just because animals may not be completely the same as us, that should not give the right to a human to mistreat and abuse of an animal’s life. Animals can be well treated and cared for without giving them the right to be treated as a human. In Victoria
A letter written by Lois Frazier consists of additional opinions, on Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart about Animals.” Rifkin is an animal rights advocate, he conveys his belief that animals are quite similar to humans. Frazier supports Rifkin’s humane ideas and voices several novel opinions of disproportionate rights, such as confinement, affliction, and depletion. In the letter, she sheds light on concerning topics that Rifkin does not address. She first concentrates on an animal’s right to be free and live in a safe environment. Then elucidates her solutions and goes into further details.
Many people asks everyday “Are GMOs bad for my health?” The FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the USA regulates genetic engineering with animals and their products under the new animal drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). It helps monitor and maintain certain standards, including input from the public, when it comes to genetically engineering animals. The ‘new animal drug’ provisions of the FFDCA focuses on whether the new animal drug is safe for the animal and if it is effective. If the drug is for a food-producing animal it also focuses on whether the resulting food is safe to eat. Is safe for the animals?
The Animal Bill of Rights is a petition sponsored by the Animal Legal Defense Fund that protects animals from unnecessary suffering caused by humans. The Bill of Rights provides basic rights to laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals and wildlife. It enumerates the right for animals to be free from cruel and unnecessary experiments. The bill proposes animals should be in an environment which satisfies their basic physical and psychological needs. By signing the Bill of Rights, we agree that animals, like all sentient beings, are entitled to basic legal rights in our society.
They won’t think otherwise before killing a person. Animals who are able to surpass these barriers are able to receive our empathy and their rights, but in Jeremy Rifkin’s, “A Change of Heart About Animals,” he talks ideas about all animals should receive our empathy for great acts of the few. The individual animal receive its equal rights, not by a single entity achieving it for the mass, but by the individual must showing intelligences, emotions and feelings, and most importantly, the ability to co-exist with others; including human and other animals alike. An animal must show intelligences, the ability to communicate, solve problems, and follow simple instructions. In “A Change of Heart About Animals,” Rifkin refers to a gorilla, named Koko, who learned sign language.
Mahatma Gandhi once stated, “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.” In today’s world, animals are being used to control scientific variables in experiments including drug testing, the creation of cosmetics, and treatments for diseases. Animal testing can be beneficial in the aspect that it has contributed to many life-saving cures and treatments. However, on the other hand, animal testing can be seen as cruel and inhumane because of the way animals are treated. Animal testing is more complicated in the aspect that it is not just simply putting the end product on the animals, but torturing the defenseless animals with relentless experiments causing an unknown amount of pain. For example, chemicals are administered, without the use of pain relievers, on shaved areas of the skin or directly into the eyes of the restrained animals to test for the irritation of some cosmetics.
Many times, poachers can be found from within the village itself considering that the locals fear that the predatory animals will threaten both people and livestock (Big Game). Ultimately, big game hunting is significantly important to the local communities and farmers due to the beneficial factors including: a stable food source and prevention of loss of domesticated livestock and human
In the article “A Change of Heart about Animals” Jeremy Rifkin includes ideas that support the argument that a Bill of Rights will protect animals from being neglected and uncared for by their owners or caretakers. When discussing studies regarding pigs’ social