Argument Essay: Should Animals Have Human Rights?

1828 Words 8 Pages
This controversial topic seems to never end. Should animals have human rights? A supporter of animal rights may say that animals deserve to be treated, as humans whereas a non -supporter may say animals “are irrational and incapable of living in rights” (source). Although both sides of this topic hold evidence and strong points to back up their belief, I truly believe animals should have human rights. Animals deserve rights, and these rights should obliterate animal experimentation, abandonment, and abuse. Speciesism, “an idea that animals could be considered legal persons with rights”, should be enforced in our society today (Google). A perfect example as to how this idea should take place is the Yulin Dog Meat Festival. This event began …show more content…
The government in china refuses to notice the festival and many petitions have been signed to try and stop this horrifying event. There are at least five reasons as to why this barbaric festival should be shut down. First of all, China is the “second largest number of rabies cases in the world” (Change.org). Even the government of Yulin, in 2007, claims that the city was hit hard by rabies outbreaks. Studies show that “338 rabies cases were reported in Yulin between 2002 and 2006” (Change.org). If the Dog Meat Festival shut down, this outbreak would decrease rapidly. Second, there would never be peace among the society in Yulin. They will always deal with the animal protestors until the event is annexed. We know most of the dogs at the festival are stolen. This would prevent dog theft, and as a result, the society will not be as intense or violent towards this event. Third, the slaughtering of animals can cause a huge food safety issue. Because the meat processors want the meat fresh, the animals sold are sick or dying. Since the animals have been trapped in a cage over long distances, the animals are already in horrendous conditions when they arrive at the festival. Using are common knowledge, contaminated dogs can pass sickness to humans during the food transport, slaughter, and food preparations. Some of the dogs are even “poisoned during the capture and carry toxins in their …show more content…
Companies such as Maybelline, Tide, Clorox, Pantene, M.A.C and Pampers still use animal experimentation on their products today. The benefits of animal testing include life saving treatments and cures. According to the Biomedical Research Association, “nearly every medical breakthrough in the last 100 years has resulted directly from research using animals” (Animal-Testing.org). Because of animal testing, many lives have been saved and I personally think that is excellent. But could we possibly use anything else besides animals? Animals have lives, too. To be experimented on and tested on, it doesn’t fulfill Gods purpose for animals. God speaks through animals as he does to us, too. But does animal testing fulfill that purpose? I am thankful for animal testing but the cons outweigh the pros. Some cons to animal testing include how its inhumane, which I agree with, and cruel. There are alternatives methods for animal testing now, so why should we keep using the lives of animals to benefit ours? If we can use glass testing, then why would we continue to risk animals to lives to save our own? In glass testing, the results produce more accurate results than an animal test would because human cells can be used. We could also use Computer models which reconstructs “…human molecular structures,[and] can predict the toxicity of substances without invasive experiments on

Related Documents