Argument Against Animal Rights

Animal Rights Animal rights protect species from mistreatment by humans. The advocates of this regulation demand that the government establish more laws governing the rights for animals because of their empathy toward animals, similarities to human behavior, moral status, and biomedical research. They mandate equal rights to all species; however, I believe the existing laws are adequate and should not be expanded, but enforced and have minor changes. Victoria Braithwaite, author of the article “Hooked on a Myth”, studied trout with her colleagues in Edinburgh and concluded that, “Fish have the same two types of nociceptors that we do A-delta and C fibers.” Fish have sensory wiring that causes pain and have cognitive abilities. In addition, she declares that people treat animals with emotions “In a way that we would not treat mammals or birds.” Her position is very reasonable since there are rights that pertain to certain animals such as the Humane Slaughter Act found on the Animal Welfare Information Center website. It states that all animals require proper treatment and handling except for chickens and birds (“Government and Professional Resources”). In conclusion, animal rights should be applicable to all species regardless of their characteristics.
The Animal Welfare Act passed in 1966 requires that animals used for research be provided adequate veterinary care which means that scientists are prohibited to inflict pain that is unnecessary and that may harm the animal physically, mentally, and emotionally. In addition to laws for biomedical research, endangered species have a higher chance of increasing their population rate and not becoming extinct in an animal care center rather than their