Comparison of Animal Rights Texts
I am going to compare two pieces of text called: 'It's a crying shame'
and 'Sorry, but I think dying people are more important than dumb
animals,' by an Animal Rights Group and Polly Toynbee respectively.
The first article is intended to appeal to a younger audience who
think that killing animals is wrong because they are cute etc. The
second extract is aimed at adults who are interested in the welfare of
human beings. The Animal Aid leaflet is persuasive as it is trying to
pledge donations to stop animal experiments. The newspaper article is
informative and persuasive by saying that killing an animal to save
humans is good because would you rather die than an insignificant
canine or rat.
The Animal Rights leaflet is very eye catching. It has a colour image
of a dog, which appears to be crying. The size of the text is varied
form size 22 to 9 points and is in the font Arial which is an easier
to read font than Times New Roman. There are three columns in which
text is displayed. They use the colour purple a lot and a sort of
reddish pink colour. Colour images are used well as they portray how
graphic an image is and makes people feel sorry for the animals. The
colour purple is soft and loving and is also eye catching. It will
also attract women who feel strongly for animal rights. The text is in
small chunks making the text easier to read and eye catching, also if
the text is in chunks it seems like less to read.
The newspaper article is very plain and boring, defiantly aimed at the
mature audience. It contains an image of the author, Poly Toynbee, in
black and white and the text is Times New...
... middle of paper ...
....
Poly Toynbee's article uses mainly very blunt and to the point
language. She also uses real life facts and statistics: 'only 5 per
cent of medical research uses animals.' And 'Maybe because only 7 per
cent of the population is vegetarian, so an out-and-out vegetarian war
wouldn't catch the public imagination.' This proves points very well
and gets it to the reader plainly and simply. As before she is trying
to get the reader to approve of her opinions and to simply really care
about human welfare.
Overall, I agree with Poly Toynbee's argument. Personally, I would
much rather survive than a canine or rat. Human life is one of the
most important factors in this millennia's time frame and as the world
is ultimately going to be destroyed we should inhabit it as long as
humanly possible, no matter what the cost…
In his essay “Religion and Animal Rights," the writer Tom Regan maintains the place that animals are "subjects-of-a-life”, like humans. If we value all beings regardless of the degree of human rationality that are able to act, we must also attribute to animals or as it is called non-human animals as well. All practices involving abuse of animals should be abolished. The animals have an intrinsic value as humans, and stresses that Christian theology has brought unbridled land on the brink of an ecological catastrophe.
Many people would agree that animals deserve rights some may even say the same as humans.In the essay "An Animal Welfare and Conservation: An Essential Connection", Paul Waldou reflects on his own experiences an animal law professor. The author asks the question "what is the relevance of 'animal rights ' to the rich set of concerns we call out with words like 'environmental, ' 'conservation ' and 'ecological '?" (Waldau 174). He then explains through personal anecdotes and personal reflections the answer to this question. It is the authors personal opinion that " 'animal rights... is part of a peace-constituted path essential to human health" (Waldau 174). In my opinion animals should have the same rights as humans because all creatures
Over 2 million animals are killed every year, almost all of these animals had never felt the embrace of a loving person. Animal rights are very conservational because some people think animals are things, they do not see them as living beings, and just see them as if they are just something that can be replaced. Everything done to animals have emotional effects on them and they are not things that just do not feel pain. Animals should have similar rights as humans because animals feel pain just as much as humans do, have emotions just as humans, and they have things that humans have.
In his Meditations, Rene Descartes argues that animals are purely physical entities, having no mental or spiritual substance. Thus, Descartes concludes, animals can’t reason, think, feel pain or suffer. Animals, are mere machines with no consciousness. Use the Internet to explore the issue of animal rights. Investigate the legacy left by Rene Descartes concerning the moral status of animals.
In this society, it is under law for all people have the basic rights under the universal declaration of human rights. As stated, this only benefits humans, where humans rule the world. So where does the rights of animals come from? Many people do not understand animal rights and how we should treat them equally and why. Through animal research and experimentations, humans are getting benefit and gains in the obscene inhumane ways; the poor animals are suffering through pain and distress, even though they have moral status and rights.
animals. If they keep the animals, then the animal will be treated as a pet or
I will argue that it is a better option for humans to not accept the doctrine of Animal Rights, and I will offer three reasons to support this claim. Firstly, Animal Rights can be limiting to the advancement of human health. Secondly, there are alternatives to accepting the Animal Rights. Finally, Animal Rights does not support animal control, which is important for sustaining the ecosystem. The second point will be discussed as an extension of the first point.
In the 1970s the question of animal rights became a major social issue that more people started to take notice and action in. This discovery of the cruelty these animals go through, lead animal cruelty to become a serious issue in our world today. To understand how animals could be treated so unjustly one would need to know that many believed that animals could not feel pain. However, animals can feel pain just like humans can and using them for experimentation causes them extreme pain. “Each year, more than 100 million animals are killed in the U.S. laboratories for biology lessons, medical training, curiosity-driven experimentation, and chemical, drug, food, and cosmetics” (Peta 1). With countries having inadequate regulations to protect animal’s rights the chances of that number dropping are slim to none.
Many people feel that animals have no rights and are here solely for our use.
"The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.
in the middle of the visual in large, bold, white font. The text says ‘‘what it is is beautiful’’.
In a Berlin Zoo, the abandoned polar bear cub Knut looks cuddly, cute, and has stolen the hearts of many. Knut has no support from his mother and at his age must be raised by humans to save his life, a task that would seem to be supported by all animal lovers. But, while zoo leaders prepared to help the cub, animal rights activist insists it was wrong to intervene and save the cubs life (NBC News). Animal rights activist insisted that Knut would be been better off dead than raised by humans (NBC News). "Feeding by hand is not species-appropriate but a gross violation of animal protection laws," states animal rights activist Frank Albrecht (NBC News). Albrecht continued to show his passion for animal rights by insisting that the zoo must “kill
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 for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.
Animals are so often forgotten when it comes to the many different levels of basic rights. No, they can’t talk, or get a job, nor can they contribute to society the way humans can. Yet they hold a special place in their owners’ hearts, they can without a doubt feel, show their different emotions, and they can most definitely love. In recent years there has been a massive increase in animal rights awareness, leading to a better understanding and knowledge in the subject of the humane treatment of animals. Where do humans draw the line between the concern of equality, and simple survival?
Throughout the history of the world, there have been subjects of heated debates; there are a few facts that are undisputed. One of the undisputed facts is that animals existed and inhabited the planet before humans did and humans have been dependent on animals for thousands of years. Animals have played a very vital part in our history and one wonders whys should they be treated with much cruelty. While animals have been a great resource, a steady supply of food and clothing and even security, our treatment towards them has become nothing short of appalling. Since humans are dependent on animals for their well being, their comfort and at times their religion, there should be a moral obligation to treat animals.