Animal Bill Of Rights

Animals in the wild, much like humans, do not care about the feelings of their prey or other animals in general. The dictionary definition of animal rights are rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans. I do not believe animals should have their own Bill of Rights because they are an important factor to the human species in the use of food, medical research, and many other things important to the human species that cannot be found elsewhere.

Giving animal rights goes against the human culture. What would America be without mouthwatering hamburgers? As Jeremy Rifkin asked, “Should we discourage… fox hunting in the English countryside, bullfighting in Spain?” These are both sports that are taught from generation to generation and is a sport that makes the country unique. Hunting and fishing is also extremely popular in the United States, and also a necessity for many family’s survival across the World. If animals had rights, these people who need hunting in order to live may have to switch their whole lifestyles, or cultures, just to keep the animals satisfied.

As Bob Stevens once stated, “In nature, animals kill and eat each other naturally.” Why should it be different for us humans just because we feel more sympathy to the animals? Food is currently at it’s inexpensive price because of the way food is being grown, although the ways food animals are being raised may be “inhumane” or doesn’t give the animals dignity. In the modern world, it takes much less time for us to raise chickens and other food which causes production to be higher than before. If animals had rights, big companies would have to spend more money feeding the animals their natural diet, causing less plump animals and more money to feed. If it takes more to produce a skinnier animal, it would cost much more for the same pound of