By definition humans are animals. Humans kill humans and it is a massive crime. The question remains: why is that when animals are killed by humans, it’s completely accepted? As scientific research has revealed more of the nature of our fellow animals in recent years, many people over the world have debated and petitioned for a bill of rights for animals. There should be a bill of rights for animals because they exhibit humanlike cognitive abilities and emotions and must be protected from harmful abuse, but these rights must not blur the line with human rights. Animals must be granted a bill of rights because they possess humanlike intellectual skills and feelings. In the Los Angeles Times article “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Jeremy
…show more content…
Nicholas D. Kristof explains that “[w]e disagree about where to draw the line to protect animal rights, but almost everyone now agrees that there is a line to be drawn” (Kristof 3). Kristof’s thoughts are very profound as it is widely accepted that animals are being mistreated, but many disagree on how animals should be protected and to what degree that protection goes. There must be a balance between protecting the welfare of animals and ensuring that human livelihood has utmost priority. In his letter to the editor response to “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Bob Stevens argues against the proposition of an animal bill of rights. Stevens points out that “[i]n nature, animals naturally kill and eat each other. If the hawk does not care about the feelings of the rabbit that it eats, why should humans be any different?” (Stevens 1). Stevens also makes a good point because the human race, like all other species in nature, must place its own interests above the interests of other species. Mankind must ensure that their necessities and livelihood is taken care of before looking after fellow animals. Ed Yong of SeedMagazine.com provides objective research and evidence for each viewpoint on animal rights legislation and its effect on medical research in his article “Of Primates and Personhood.” Yong quotes Frans de Waal who proposes that “we should use the new insights into animals’ mental life to foster in humans an ethic of caring in which our interests are not the only ones in the balance” (Yong 3). Frans de Waal’s proposition should be implemented to making a bill of rights for animals. The rights must not conflict with the interests of humans severely, but must invoke a sense of ethical respect for animals. The rights should legally ensure that animals are subject to respectful treatment, but not cross
Nicholas D. Kristof explains that “[w]e disagree about where to draw the line to protect animal rights, but almost everyone now agrees that there is a line to be drawn” (Kristof 3). Kristof’s thoughts are very profound as it is widely accepted that animals are being mistreated, but many disagree on how animals should be protected and to what degree that protection goes. There must be a balance between protecting the welfare of animals and ensuring that human livelihood has utmost priority. In his letter to the editor response to “A Change of Heart about Animals,” Bob Stevens argues against the proposition of an animal bill of rights. Stevens points out that “[i]n nature, animals naturally kill and eat each other. If the hawk does not care about the feelings of the rabbit that it eats, why should humans be any different?” (Stevens 1). Stevens also makes a good point because the human race, like all other species in nature, must place its own interests above the interests of other species. Mankind must ensure that their necessities and livelihood is taken care of before looking after fellow animals. Ed Yong of SeedMagazine.com provides objective research and evidence for each viewpoint on animal rights legislation and its effect on medical research in his article “Of Primates and Personhood.” Yong quotes Frans de Waal who proposes that “we should use the new insights into animals’ mental life to foster in humans an ethic of caring in which our interests are not the only ones in the balance” (Yong 3). Frans de Waal’s proposition should be implemented to making a bill of rights for animals. The rights must not conflict with the interests of humans severely, but must invoke a sense of ethical respect for animals. The rights should legally ensure that animals are subject to respectful treatment, but not cross