Animals are a piece of the jigsaw puzzle of life for some people. Many people, lonely and those with company, have strong memories of pets. Animals should be treated as we would want to be treated. Even though animals may not be able to do things the way humans do, they deserve to be treated with respect.
It is obvious that animals do not need the exact same rights as humans have, but that is not the point. The point is that animals play an important part in the human world and deserve something in return. Animals would not know what to do with the rights that humans are granted. What if we wrote a simple list of rights for animals that could fit their needs? Some animals only need a good home. Of course, not everyone can open their home to an animal. Couldn’t we solve this problem by either opening shelter or enlarging the shelters that already open their hearts to stray animals? Some animals already have homes, yet they are neglected. According to Pet-Abuse.Com, “32.3%” of animal abuse in the United States is neglect/abandonment. Unfortunately, humans are either forgetful or ignorant of the fact that animals are social creatures.
Thanks to animals, we have advanced in our journey to increase our knowledge. According to Karen Huffman’s Psychology in Action, “7 to 8 percent of research” is performed on animals. “90%” of the animals being tested on are “rats and mice” (Huffman, 21). Even if the percentage of testing on animals is small, even if most of the animals being tested are rats and mice, animals are still being put at risk. Sure, there are “animal care committees” that “ensure proper treatment of research animals” (Huffman, 21). But, what about the tests that are conducted off the record? What about the animals that have died because of these off the record tests? I do not think that we need to drop testing on animals, but I think that we should closely monitor the tests that are performed on animals.
Humans should simply treat animals with respect in their hearts and the thought of the golden rule in their mind. However, sadly, humans treat each other like the dirt on the bottom of a shoe. Our society is the problem. If by someway we could begin to treat each other with respect, then we might be able to treat animals, who are loyal companions, they way they deserve to be treated.
1 Comment so far
Leave a comment
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
You’ve built a sound argument here. My only qualm is your use of source info. Here are a couple thoughts to ponder:
1. Your link on “Psychology in Action” is to a book for sale on Amazon. This hurts your credibility. Does this mean you are quoting from the book? Have you read the book? Where did you actually read about Hoffman’s “7 to 8 percent” number? If you read another article that mentions Hoffman’s research, you need to cite that article and link to it. This is a bit tricky. I need to sit down with you in a writer’s conference, and show you. Remind me.
2. When we use stats, we have to be careful to explain where and by what methods these stats came to be. I’m sure you know people can make numbers lie. To make a credible argument–one people will believe and trust, you need to explain the numbers you use. For example, where did “Pet-Abuse” get the 32.3% number? How did they arrive at this number? How do I–a critical thinker–know I can trust it as fact?
3. tip about MLA format:
you say: According to Pet-Abuse.Com, “32.3%”
I say: no need to put the stat in quotes. If you take other word from the article w/it, then use quotes.
Comment by lhuff February 20, 2009 @ 7:41 am