Throughout history, animals and humans have had a necessary relationship based on our need for food and survival. But more recently, humans have created friendships and emotional connections with animals, making us realize that they are more than just a resource to us. Seeing that animals have emotions and feelings too created the thought that they should be treated the same way humans are treated. A very controversial topic that has come about in the last century is if animals should have rights, then what kind of rights should they have? And if they do, then what are their rights in terms of medical research, entertainment and zoos, and human necessities? I believe that animals should be treated with respect and should have basic rights as humans do, but we also need to use them as resources. Human necessity should come before animal rights, because in my opinion, human lives are more important than animals lives; if we need to use them in order to survive, then there should be no regulation against that.

There are many aspects of this argument that help create an opinion about this question, and one is whether animals should have rights in the realm of animal testing. The two opposing positions to this topic are obviously yes, there should be no animal testing allowed or no, there shouldn't be animal testing. Jeremy Bentham, the author of "Harm and Suffering | Animal Use in Research," is clearly against animal testing. In his article, he creates a thesis that focuses on the fact that animals deserve rights because they can suffer and feel pain. He states, "the question is not, can they reason, nor, can they talk. But, can they suffer?" (Bentham, 2016). Bentham speaks to the daily routines and protocols in the animal research facilities that extremely harm the animals. One facility in particular, Vivisection, "is one of the worst forms of institutionalized animal abuse in our society, and it is a sanctioned and legal abuse" (Bentham, 2016). An important point he makes is that "within laboratory walls, what can be done to animals has no limits except those imposed by a committee selected by the facility itself" (Bentham, 2016). The only slight protection these animals have legally comes from the Animal Welfare Act. It relies on the institutions to inspect themselves, which is basically pointless, and that committees, selected themselves, impose their own limits. Bentham's examples of the cruel actions that they take on these animals are horrifying; the doctors restrain, immobilize, give them electric shocks, not give them food or water, and possibly be used for a year long test with no recovery time within that test. Bentham's opinionated article greatly highlights the negatives to animal testing, but there are some positives to it as well, like protecting humans from harmful chemicals and drugs. 

Another article about animals testing, "Animal Testing and Medicine" by Dr. Hajar, lays out both sides of the argument, but also has a possible resolution. First off, Dr. Hajar states that the people against animal testing "believe that animals are inferior to humans and very different from them, hence results from animals cannot be applied to humans" (Hajar, 2011). But the opposing side that is for animal testing believes that testing animals before the drug or experiment is used on humans is very necessary for the safety of mankind. Instead of taking a side in this argument, she creates a possible resolution: the 3R campaign. The 3R campaign which she proposes "advocates the search for the (1) replacement of animals with non-living models; (2) reduction in the use of animals; and (3) refinement of animal use practices" (Hajar, 2011). This proposal is a compromise to both sides because doctors will still test animals, but it would be refined and used in a much more humane way. I agree with Dr. Hajars' opinion on animal testing in that they should still be tested to further human health and safety, but us humans need to do so in a more humane way.

The next category within this question is animal captivity and cruelty; an important part of this problem are zoos. "Zoos: Pitiful Prisons" written by a Peta reporter, talks about the conditions these animals are put in, and how they are very unlike the environment they are supposed to live in. Peta writes, "Animals are often prevented from doing most of the things that are natural and important to them, like running, roaming, flying, climbing, foraging, choosing a partner, and being with others of their own kind" (Peta, 2016). This statement is very true given that in zoos, animals are usually placed in very small areas and sometimes even cages. Not only can they not do what is natural for their species to do daily, but they become cramped, bored, and lonely. In response to these feelings, they start pacing and become agitated. An example of an unacceptable living space is at the Amarillo Wildlife Refuge. They claimed to be carefully taking care of Edith, a chimpanzee, but when Peta and others started investigating, they "found Edith in a filthy, barren concrete pit. She was hairless and had been living on rotten produce and dog food" (Peta, 2016). So not only are the animal's habitats too small in size, but the animals are not being properly taken care of. Another aspect of zoos that are misleading is the education to the public. Some people propose that zoos are essential to America's education of wildlife, but they simply aren't being used for that reason. Yes, there are little plaques giving the general description of the animal in the display, "but visitors spend only a few minutes at each display, seeking entertainment rather than enlightenment" (Peta, 2016). Some people also argue that zoos are "saving" endangered wildlife, but "zoo officials usually favor exotic or popular animals who draw crowds and publicity rather than threatened or endangered local wildlife" (Peta, 2016). Overall, the conditions and treatment of animals in zoos needs to drastically change, and the lives of the animals need to become more important than the revenue they are bringing in.                      Placing animals in the entertainment industry has now recently been labeled animal cruelty. Making them do tricks and work tirelessly year round is now being frowned upon. An example of cruelty in the entertainment industry is elephants of circus's, especially the Ringling Brothers. Katherine Meyer, a woman very involved in the legal case that decided elephants can no longer be used in the circus entertainment industry spoke about the case on "All Things Considered" by NPR. She first spoke to the conditions the elephants were in offstage. While they were traveling from place to place, "they would be chained on two legs and placed in a very small place for up to 70 hours" (Meyer, 2015). When it was time to perform and the elephants were not compliant, "they would be hit with a bull hook" (Meyer, 2015). After the case was decided, the elephants were placed in Ringling Brothers & Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation in Florida. The conditions there are obviously better than on the road, but not by much. Meyer said, "It would be best to place them in sanctuaries or zoos across the country, but that will come with time and pressure of public opinion" (Meyer, 2015). This comes to show that animal rights are getting stronger day by day, but the pressure of public opinion will help the cause move faster. 

The power of public opinion is astonishing, and it plays a large part in how Sea World has been going downhill. Recently, Sea World's mistreatment of their orca whales has become public knowledge since the release of the documentary "Blackfish." The article, "Amid Sea World Struggles, Signs of a More Pro-Animal Future" by Jessica Mendoza, speaks to how people have shifted their views and attitudes of animals in confinement after exposing Sea World's treatment of their orca whales. After "Black Fish" was released, Sea World has seen declining attendance and profits. Not only does this issue pertain to Sea World, but it is about the food industry as well. States have begun to outlaw practices considered "inhumane" in the food industry like the slaughtering and killing of animals. Professor Gary Francione of Rutgers School of Law says, "Animal welfare reinforces the idea that there's a compassionate way to exploit living things. That there's a right way to do the wrong thing. Incremental steps are not valid; once you decide something violates fundamental rights, you stop" (Mendoza, 2015). He seemingly believes that all industries that take advantage of animals should end. Others believe that it is wrong to "intimidate owners into political correctness and deprive us of the beauty of these beasts" (Mendoza, 2015). Mendoza concludes her article by saying, "Despite these disagreements, public pressure is now mounting to protect animals in a range of contexts. The future is definitely pro-animal" (Mendoza, 2015). The overall trend of public opinion shows the increasing support of animal rights in the entertainment industry, and I think it will continue to increase until the animals are treated with respect and decency.

Another aspect of the argument about animal rights that will be addressed is legislation. More and more legislation has been made over the past century to increase animal rights. Morton Silberman's "Animal Welfare, Animal Rights: The Past, the Present, and the 21st Century" describes the history of legislation pertaining to animal rights very broadly. The evolution of animal rights legislation began in the late 1800's when ASPCA (the American Society to Prevent Cruelty to Animals) was created. The creation of this group kick-started the animal rights movement. Since then, 7,000 more advocacy groups have been created to support this movement. Silberman discusses how the Cruelty to Animals Act in Great Britain was the precursor of animal rights legislation in the United States. He describes this act by stating, "This act regulates experimentation on living vertebrates if such studies will cause pain" (Silberman, 1988). This law obviously didn't stick, but it definitely started the movement to pass legislation about this here in the US. The first piece of substantial legislation pertaining to animal rights was the Human Slaughter Act of 1958. Silberman describes this act and says, "This legislation only applies to the humane slaughter of animals, but it brought significant improvement to the industry" (Silberman, 1988). A large issue during the 1960's sparked the public's opinion and involvement in this movement; puppies were being stolen and sold to puppy mills and research facilities. The public was completely shocked and disturbed by this and were determined to pass legislation to solve this issue. The way the public got the government's attention was by publishing an "issue of Life magazine in 1965 that showed pictures of a particularly horrible puppy mill on its front page" (Silberman, 1988). In response to the public opinion, Congress passed the Animal Welfare Act, which "created categories of license, Dealer, Exhibitor, and Research Institutions" and also gave power to the Secretary of Agriculture to regulate what he/she thinks is appropriate (Silberman, 1988). A flaw, in many people's eyes, of this act is the fact that farm animals and laboratory mice and rats are not protected in any way. Some people believe that this act needs to become stronger because it is more so recommendations than actual law. Jeremy Bentham in his article "Laws and Regulations | Animal Use in Research," believes that "the system is plagued with loopholes that leave animals with little to no protection" (Bentham, 2016). Many pieces of legislation have been passed more recently to improve upon these acts like the Endangered Species Act and the Health Research Extension Act. But the point of including this information is the fact that the power of public opinion pushed for all of these acts to be passed and amended. Therefore, the public opinion of animal rights has grown to be in favor of creating legislation and strengthening their rights.

Morality is a very important piece to the animal rights argument. This category really speaks to the question as a whole. The question is whether or not they should have rights like humans do; there are obviously two opinions for this question: they should or they shouldn't. R.G. Frey speaks to what you should think about before forming your opinion in his article "Animal Rights." While forming your opinion, Frey believes that you should replace the fact of it pertaining to animals with babies and severely mentally-ill people. He believes that "Each and every criterion for the possession of rights that excludes animals from the class of right-holders also excludes babies and the severely mentally-enfeebled from the class of right-holders" (Frey, 1977). He is basically saying that animals and babies and mentally ill people should all have equal rights and that you should only do to animals what you would do to babies and the mentally ill. This argument is very flawed and outrageous considering the countess differences between them all, but the morality behind it is what I agree with. Another morality opinion about animal rights comes from "Whether a Right or Not, Animals Should Be Treated Morally" written by Sam Vaknin. This article highlights on the definition of "personhood." Vaknin believes that the definition of "personhood" is "the ability to be desirous, to intend to fulfill and pursue one's desires, a sense of self-awareness, and self-sufficiency" (Vaknin, 2009). The question is whether or not you believe animals fit within that definition or not. Vaknin's opinion on the matter is based on the fact that we call animals "animals," not "humans" because they are non-human organisms. From there, he describes his opinion to be that humans are different than animals, and therefore, should have different rights. But he also believes that animals do suffer pain and that it would be morally wrong to cause them pain in inhumane ways. A recent example of using and considering the definition of "personhood" is in Austria. The people in Austria believe that a chimp should be legally declared a "person." Their definition of a "person" is an animal that would be allowed to "have a guardian and able to receive gifts for his support if the shelter where he lives closes" (Montagne, NPR). This is an extreme example of how people feel the moral obligation to give animals more rights and to treat them as equals.

The interest and concern of animal treatment has greatly increased in recent years because people are starting to question whether it is morally right or wrong to treat animals the way they are being treated now. In terms of the public opinion as a whole, statistics show that "about 33 percent of people said they were "very concerned" about the use of animals in research, compared with 21 percent who were very concerned about zoo animals. About two-thirds of people said they were "very or somewhat" concerned about animals in the circus, competitive sports or contests, or in research" according to a recent poll by CBS News (Lewis, 2016). This poll also showed that "another sixty-two percent believe that animals deserve some protection from harms and exploitation, but believe it is still appropriate to use them for the benefit of humans" (Lewis, 2016). This shows that American people are concerned about the moral treatment of animals, and that more and more people are starting to push for more animal rights. 

The opinion that I am proposing about animal rights, which is that animals should be treated with respect and should have basic rights as humans do, but that humans need to use animals as a resource and to go about that in a humane way. This opinion is greatly supported by the information presented here because the examples and reasons behind the support greatly out weigh the opposition. There are many ways humans can treat animals with more respect while still using them as resources, entertainment, and animal testing. The way animals are killed can easily be more humane, animals can be given larger habitats in zoos and can be treated kindly, and animal testing can be minimized and more humane as well. There is no logical argument that can oppose that statement. In conclusion, the opinion that animals should be given more rights has increased and grown in popularity for a reason; the reason is that no animal deserves to suffer and feel pain if the action is unnecessary and even necessary. There are easy ways to decrease the abuse and mistreatment of animals without completely changing our culture and way of life.

