Essay on Animal Rights: Proposition for the State of California

Human beings happen to be omnivores by design; that is, they feed on both animal protein and plant protein. It is for this reason that humans depend on livestock for their protein needs. With the advent of democracy and rights, concerns have been raised regarding what manner of practices constitute an abuse of animals; with such a predisposition, most experts agree that killing pregnant animals, animals not more than six months old, and sick animals are very unfair just to mention a few. This paper will address the need for animals to be treated fairly within and without the slaughterhouse because they are capable of feeling and full of nerves just like human beings; whats more, there will be premises to support why animals need to be accorded respect, and this will revolve around how they accord us nutritious food. In as much as the process of slaughtering animals for their meat is seen as legit, slaughter houses ought to kill animals using conventional methods and adhere to the law, otherwise our civilization and ethics as a race will definitely be questioned; besides, the time preceding the slaughtering animals should be defined by proper care and no neglect whatsoever. Although there is a law that protects farm animals from getting abuse, slaughterhouses break this law by making them suffer.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Animal abuse stems from ignoring or overlooking animal rights. Animal rights advocate for the fair treatment of animals and free them from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to human beings (Lovell, 56). In essence, animal slaughter for meat is defiance of the said animal rights and with such a disposition; it is only fair that these animals are treated with respect as they go to the slaughter. Slaughterhouses that defy animal rights ought to be closed even though it may make a lot of sense to second the assumption that animals are devoid of rights. In essence, the false impression that the way we treat animals has no moral connotation is an absolutely contemptible instance of modern day barbarity and crudity (Lovell, 39). This means that global consideration towards animals is the only assurance of ethics and morality. All the same, the above-mentioned statement can be counter-argued by the ideology that human beings can never see animals as their equals since they are never on the same intellectual footing. It is due to this that some slaughterhouses and households will go on killing animals using abusive methods and predisposing these animals to bad living conditions. Animal rights activists as I have always had a conviction that Human beings that show cruelty to animals eventually become hard in their dealings with fellow men. It is easy to judge the heart of a human being from the way he or she treats animals. All things considered, there is no clear answer to the debacle concerning the fair treatment of animals; some will say that killing is killing and that compassion or mercy killing is a farce; this is supportive of slaughterhouses that do not care about animal welfare (Harper, 22).

The debacle surrounding the innate need for humans to feed on the animal flesh is never ending. Besides, it cannot be denied or suppressed. For all animal rights activists such as me, the question will always remain should all animal rights activists and interest groups soliciting for animal rights be vegetarian? (Lovell, 44). There is a lot of contradiction because of what use is there for animal rights activists to fight for proper treatment and feeding of livestock only for them to be killed in the end? Are animal rights activists hypocrites and only seeking their own publicity? Are they perhaps advocating for the proper feed and treatment of animals for the animals in question to be fattened prior to facing the butchers knife? The above questions would surely invalidate any animal rights activists that do not have an inclination to being vegetarian. Since days of an old man has gone to the proverbial jungle to hunt game for his family and it would thus be very hard for such a tradition to be put to an end. Critics of animal rights activists that have self-proclaimed themselves as vegetarians would question whether plant life is invalid and whether trees, being living things do not feel bad when their lives are taken away from them. Accordingly, the need to close defiant slaughterhouses will still be under great debate.

On a global level there exist standard conditions with which animals to be slaughtered for meat have to be predisposed to. These include enough and hygienic lairage facilities, separate lockable facilities that can be used to quarantine animals that are otherwise unwell and layouts that are supportive to ante mortem inspections. Some critics are of the opinion that what good will according to animals that will otherwise die fair treatment? (Del Gandio, 88). Besides, it beats logic for anyone that eats meat to say that animals ought to be treated with respect prior to being slaughtered when it is common knowledge that the animals in question will be butchered in the long run (Shea, 34). Perhaps such a counterargument is an excuse that abusers of animals will always posit whenever they are challenged regarding their ways. It is worth mentioning that the true meaning of animal rights manifests itself in the question of whether they can suffer and not from the question of whether they can talk or reason (Lovell, 22). As a matter of fact, it is the time that governments and religions world over agree on more subtle ways to end the lives of animals used for meat and food. Indeed, there is no point in having to slaughter animals so that the meat in question is deemed to be halal or clean.

More laws ought to be put in place to reinforce and rather reiterate the Federal Meat Inspection Act that is operative all over the United States; this act was invented to put a stop to the inhumane slaughtering of all farmed animals. Recently this law came into play when the USDA temporarily closed a slaughterhouse in rural Oregon for slaughtering practices that were deemed inhumane; precisely, workers of the plant did not succeed to knock out cows with one shot from a handheld bolt gun, and they were as an alternative shooting them several times. Abraham Lincoln once said that I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being (Young, 52). Critics have time and again said that there was a lot of vagueness in Abraham Lincolns statement since he never gave an explanation or a clear definition of what particular rights he was talking about. Another individual that had similar thoughts as those of Abraham Lincoln is Cesar Chavez who mentioned that Compassion and consideration towards all living beings is a sign of a society that is civilized. On the flip side, cruelty, be it is directed towards animals or even human beings, is never the select preference of any one civilization or group of people (Harper, 89). In the event that all peoples put into consideration animal rights in all their practices; more so when it comes to all the employees within slaughterhouses, the world is bound to be a better place. Besides, giving respect to animals is bound to make people understand the need to respect human rights.

Willful neglect is something that has been observed in many slaughterhouses within and without the United States; it is part and parcel of cruelty to animals and is at par with other unlawful practices such as an act or an omission meant to result in unjustifiable physical pain, suffering, or even death. Temple Gradin was more open-minded when it came to using animals for the various meats used to set tables; he said that It is within my thoughts that the utilization of animals for food is a decent thing to do; all the same we have to do it in the right manner. Human beings have got to accord the animals in question a respectable livelihood, and we have a responsibility to predispose them to a date that is painless (Torrez, 83). In a nutshell, human beings owe all animals; domestic or wild, respect. With statements as those made by Temple Gradin, critics are bound to bring up a lot of moral and ethical questions; asking what the right manner of killing would be. In fact, others would go ahead and say that no manner of killing is noble or decent. We can find reiteration to the schools of thought by animal lovers in the words of Marc Bekoff who said: Often, the greater our ignorance about something, the greater our resistance to change (Shea, 37). By the same token, all animal activists want to see the world where animals are treated with more respect and predisposed to respectable and bearable conditions.

For slaughterhouses that break the law regarding the fair treatment of animals, the appropriate charges ought to be regarded as a felony. In the United States, for instance, aggravated cruelty to both domestic and wild animals is maliciously and knowingly bringing about physical harm or death through depicting a component of such beasts body of no use or by badly disfiguring such animals (Gavit, 35). According to Alice Lovell, animals have the ability to communicate very well, but human beings have been ignoring them (Lovell, 63) What the author is trying to put across is that human beings ought to put themselves in the shoes of animals; she does not demonize the whole process of killing animals for food, but perhaps wants a less painful and more responsible way of doing it. To this end, of what need will slaughterhouses operating under the licensure of the State of California be if they do not follow the governments instructions to show leniency to the animals that they handle.

The owners of slaughterhouses within California should make all their workers understand that in as much as the animals they handle have death as a final destination or sentence; there is a need to treat them right until their time to die comes. Perhaps the manner in which death sentence convicts are treated can give more insights on how animals in slaughterhouses can be treated in a much better way. Convicted criminals on death row never have food, and other utilities denied from them and with such a predisposition accorded to guilty offenders and law breakers; animals definitely have a right to fair treatment (Lovell, 19) Counterarguments may suffice in line with such a b old statement made in favor of animal rights; critics may posit for animal activists not to compare slaughterhouses with correctional facilities. What more, they may suggest that human beings are of a much higher standing intellectually in comparison with animals who do not have the same reasoning power (Del Gandio, 22). Although this school of thought may be very true, animals still have nerves just like we do and feel an equal and similar amount of pain when a blade, a mallet, an axe is used to end their life. To sum up, positive change is unlikely when people do not learn to respect animals.

Transportation to slaughterhouses should be well arranged for animals to be comfortable. Hurdling about a hundred cows in a mini canter is not commendable for the fatigue that it may course to the said animals in the short and long runs. In addition to that, other unlawful practices conducted in slaughterhouses ought to be addressed. Generally, animal abuse constitutes torturing or subjecting animals to uncalled for suffering and pain, and no custody over them within enclosures such that there is no adequate space to align with their height and girth. One of the single most and grandest concerns is that the domestic animals are never supposed to be shown their own species getting butchered, but they continuously have to look at their own kind being dragged without mercy to their brutal death. Its also very much in opposition to the law to butcher livestock below...