The Importance Of Animal Welfare

For example the Humane Slaughter Act applies only to slaughterhouses that sell meat to the federal government or the federal government agencies. Another example would include the Twenty Eight-Hour Act. With the Twenty Eight-Hour act animals transported by train were protected while those who were transported by trucks were not. Although there are laws evolving in the protection of animals they have their limits. With laws having their limits the laws may not protect animals under all circumstances. 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.

Rifkin’s overall view of animals is that they should have more rights. I strongly disagree in giving animal more rights than some humans worldwide do not have. We, as humans, live off these animals. They are what we survive on. We need them for their meat and their fur. It is basically survival of the fittest. Giving animal’s rights should be necessary only if they are being abused. For example, forcing dogs to fight other dogs till one is dead. If the animals are killed for our basic human needs than it should not be wrong.

Do animals need a “Bill of rights”? The Bill of Rights is a collective names for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship.guaranteeing such rights as the freedoms of speech, assembly, and worship. In my opinion, animals should not have a Bill of Rights.

How animals are treated can also affect daily human life. Animal rights are rights given to animals to be free from exploitation, cruelty, neglect, and abuse and enumerates further rights for laboratory animals, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife. Some animals should have a Bill of Rights. This law does go against centuries of human culture. This law would increase the cost of food. This law would hinder medical research.

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,

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). Machan believes he has the best theory explaining why animals do not have rights. He makes this claim by first acknowledging how

In the Constitution of the United States of America there are a set of rights for citizens called the bill of rights but should animals be able to have their own bill of rights? The Bill of Rights are rights given to citizens of the United states of America. Animal Bill of Rights are rights for animals who can not speak for themselves. Only some animals should be given some rights.

The Animal Welfare Act of 1966, was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and it’s the only Federal law in the United States that regulated treatment and care of animals in research. Animals like rats, mice, birds and other cold-blooded animals are excluded from this law. Dogs, cats, guinea pig, and warm-blooded animals are well protected under this law. Question is why, are the laboratory experiment animals are not protected and treated well. Should we continue experimenting new drug on these animals and make our life easy on their pain or should we for better meant for our society practice and observe new drug on these animals. There are pros and cons for but the choices whether, to continue experiment on animals for new drugs before,

I think that animals should have the Bill of Rights because throughout civilization, nations have codified the basic and essential rights of their people-rights that must not be infringed upon by the government or other individuals or entities. Though much of big science has centered on breakthrough in biotechnology, nanotechnology and more esoteric questions like the age of our universe. And there are no federal laws at all protecting the billions of animals raised for food for the most egregious abuses.

Using animals for our gain is no new prospect; although we’ve elaborated it and made it far more complex throughout our millennia in this, “our” world. Yet, we’ve become delusional, the relationships have only been beneficial for us, and we’ve led ourselves to believe that we are the ‘crème de la crème’ of our little rock floating in space. We forget that animals have been ruling this Earth for hundreds of millions of years, and we are the intruders, albeit the only ones who can make a difference on this planet, for better or worse. It does seem, however, that we’ve opted for the latter, and we’ve enslaved those who share the world with us. It becomes necessary today that we stand for them.

Animal welfare has been a controversial subject in recent years. Nowadays, consumers are placing more attention to their consumption of animal product. The fact that there are diverse consumers with dissimilar perspectives on the meat industry makes animal welfare a complex international public policy controversy that also needs to take economical, scientific, cultural and ethical dimensions into consideration. The government can change the consumption behavior of the consumers and the production process of livestock by intervening the market using a ‘carrot’ approach so that the price system will lead the society to an efficient outcome of animal welfare.

Animal testing is the inhumane act of using conscious, innocent animals to test products without care of what the aftermath may be. According to PETA, the largest animal rights organization in the world, more than 100 million animals are slaughtered in U.S. laboratories every year. Those who have the heart to inflict this type of brutality do this by immobilizing them in restraint devices for hours, in order to drill holes into their skulls and have their spinal cords crushed (PETA). Along with the physical atrocities that humans are forcing these vulnerable animals into, humans are also isolating them from their own kind, confining them in barren cages, and thus traumatizing them for the rest of their lives. Those who possess an ounce of compassion

Since the existence of man there will always be issues and problems. One ethical problem that I can not fathom is animal testing. Animal testing is one issue I wish I could solve, for many reasons. Animals deserve rights, even though they can’t speak. The ways animal testing is conducted is not humane. There are better means to test products. All these factors play part in why I believe animal testing should come to an end.

Ever since the creation of this first “zoo”, people have kept animals is captivity for many uses. Today, animals are kept captive through: circuses, zoos, marine parks, pseudo-sanctuaries, etc. Animals can be kept captive for entertainment, research, rehabilitation, and even companionship. Animal captivity can be an argumental subject for some people. There are many reasons why or why not animals should be kept in captivity. Some people believe all animals should have rights and are better off in the wild than behind bars. Others believe that these captive animals provide valid scientific research and are being helped more than harmed.

One of the difficulties dealing with Shark Fin Soup is the moral principles behind using the Shark Fins within the soup. According to British Filmmakers following Carlos Maucuaca, Mozambique’s first native dive instructor and shark conservationist, stated, “An estimated 73 million sharks are slaughtered every year, with 110 species now facing extinction”. During the production of the film, it was found consumers are dying due to the high levels of methylmercury within the Shark Fins. The methylmercury within the Shark Fins is the reason for several Countries such as the United States warning women not to eat Shark Fins while child-bearing. Due to the fact, 60,000 children are born with damage caused by methylmercury. A study was done by Rachel