Jeremy Rifkin A Change Of Heart About Animals

862 Words4 Pages

Many Americans blindly believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, but little do they know about the differences between the welfare of animals and the rights of animals. In the article A Change of Heart about Animals, Jeremy Rifkin cleverly uses certain negative words in order to convince the readers that animals need to be given same rights as humans, and if not more. Research has shown that non-human animals have the ability to “feel pain, suffer and experience stress, affection, excitement and even love” (Rifkin 33). Animals may be able to feel emotions, however this does not necessarily mean that they are able to understand what having rights mean. While humans must accept their moral responsibility to properly care for animals, …show more content…

Rifkin uses several imprecise “past researches” in his argument, and does not discuss the more recent studies that is at odds with his position. Ironically, the scientific studies in Rifkin’s article were conducted through the same experimentations that animal rights activists are trying to abolish. The author’s arguments were supported by studies on isolated pigs, laboratory crows, an exhibited gorilla, and a closed in orangutan (Rifkin 33-34). This shows that Rifkin does not mind experiments on animals that will benefit his report. Shockingly, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills over 95 percent of the dogs and cats it takes into its Norfolk, V.A. animal shelter (Myers). This proves that animal rights organizations and activists are highly hypocritical. When animal rights activists petition for a Bill of Rights for animals, they are bringing a case to court. Despite how empathetic this case seems, it is a nothing more than a case which is brought by the lawyer without either request or even understanding by the client. The client, the non-human specie, never gave their consent for petitioning a Bill of Rights. These bigotry people are forcing their own judgements and beliefs onto other people, attempting to control the rights of other species. Animal rights advocates, facetiously, represents the human specie holding the adjudication of rights over animals--the very thing that they are fighting

Show More
Open Document