anznorg ‘Opposing Viewpoins in Context - Document - Animal Rights Animal Rights Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection. 2018. COPYRIGHT 2019 Gale, a Cengage Company Full Text: Proponents of animal rights believe that nonhuman animals should be afforded the same legal and ethical considerations as humans. Strict interpretations of animal rights assert that animals should be granted the legal rights of personhood and deem the use of animals for clothing, entertainment, experimentation, and food to be a violation of those rights. Some animal rights activists believe that keeping an animal as a pet infringes upon the animal's rights. Others, however, condone the keeping of animals as pets but stress the importance of providing an animal with proper care and object to the intentional breeding of animals for human companionship. While many people in the United States may disagree that nonhumans deserve the rights of personhood, they may support efforts to ensure animal welfare. Proponents of animal welfare accept the use of animals for clothing, entertainment, experimentation, and food in cases where they will receive humane treatment and suffering will be minimized. Animal rights advocates dispute several common practices as evidence of speciesism, which refers to the prejudiced favoring of one species, including humans, over others. Opponents of speciesism argue that all animals should be provided equal consideration under the law regardless of whether the species can serve human interests, whether the species population is threatened or endangered, whether the species exhibits cognitive ability, or whether the animal appeals to human aesthetics. Though nonhuman animals in the United States do not have the full rights of humans, federal and state laws have established minimal standards for the treatment of animals used in research, experimentation, food, and consumer good production, A 2015 Gallup poll found that nearly all ‘Americans believed that animals deserved protection from harm and exploitation, including 32 percent of respondents who believed that animals should have the same rights as humans—an increase of 7 percentage points since 2008. Despite popular support for animal welfare, however, animal rights activists have faced criticisms for overzealous advocacy, misguided awareness campaigns, unfeasible policy proposals, and the use of violence and property destruction to further their cause. Critics further contend that recognition of animal rights would impede medical research, hurt many industries, end pet ownership, and force radical dietary changes on humans, Legal Protections and Activism In 1966 President Lyndon Johnson approved the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the first federal law governing the treatment of animals bred for commercial use or research purposes and animals used in public exhibition as well as the treatment of such animals when being transported. Stories of animal dealers abducting family pets and selling them to laboratories for experimentation spurred lawmakers to impose licensing requirements for dealers and research facilities. Likewise, exposés on the living conditions of dogs at commercial dog-breeding farms inspired the guidelines for animal housing, living conditions, and care. Originally, the AWA only covered dogs, cats, nonhuman primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits, but was expanded to include other warm-blooded animals in 1970. In 1976 an amendment made it illegal to promote sporting fights between animals that had been transported over state or national borders, later bolstered by the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. The passing of the Improved Standards of Laboratory Animals Act in 1985 expanded the minimum care requirements for protected lab animals beyond provisions for food and water, such as requiring the pursuit of alternatives for procedures known to cause animals pain. In response to a lawsuit filed in 2000, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) agreed to require protections for rodents and birds used in research. Researchers, however, challenged the new requirements. The protestations of researchers htp:ge.galogroup.conipstdo?p=OVIGBusf_polkdid=GALEY7CPC30100900578v=2.18iter 18snano19 ‘opposing Viewpoint in Context - Document = Animal Rights led Senator Jesse Helms, Republican from North Carolina, to add a provision to the 2002 Farm Bill that clarified the exclusion of rats, mice, and birds from the list of protected warm-blooded research animals. Rats, mice, and birds accounted for over 85 percent of the animals used in laboratory research, Animal experimentation remains a central issue for many animal rights organizations. The farm bill, a federal omnibus bill that is renewed approximately every five years and determines USDA spending and policy changes, has frequently provided a setting for debates over animal welfare. Animal rights organizations have also battled against proposed inclusions in the farm bill that would expose animals to potential suffering. lowa congressman Steve King has repeatedly stirred controversy by proposing provisions that draw the ire of animal rights supporters. In 2018 King recommended a resolution that would prevent states from imposing standards on agricultural goods higher than federal allowances or the state in which the goods were produced. Animal rights activists warned that such a law would nullify many state laws aimed to protect animal welfare and human health, including bans on horse and dog meat. King's support for legalizing animal fights has also made him unpopular with animal rights groups. Human Consumption of Animal Products Because they believe that animals deserve the same considerations as humans, many animal rights advocates equate the killing of animals and eating of meat with murder. Some activists believe a person who supports animal rights should practice vegetarianism, which involves adopting a meatless diet, or veganism, which involves abstaining from all animal products, including dairy, honey, and gelatin. Such beliefs have contributed to a perception among some meat-eaters that animal rights activists are self-righteous and unwilling to compromise, In addition to refraining from consuming animals for food, animal rights advocates oppose using animal products for clothing or other items when a nonanimal alternative is available. According to a 2016 Pew Research survey, 9 percent of US. adults practice vegetarianism or veganism. Democrats and people under fifty years old are more than twice as likely to be vegetarian or vegan than Republicans or adults fifty years and older. In addition to moral objections to the killing of animals, animal rights advocates oppose the practice of factory farming, the practice of raising and slaughtering large numbers of animals by employing industrial methods. Also referred to as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), factory farms produce 99 percent of farm animals raised in the United States, sparking concerns over the treatment of these animals. In factory farming, animals are typically kept in small spaces that do not allow them to turn or lie down, frequently given high doses of antibiotics and other drugs, and subjected to genetic manipulation to produce more meat, milk, or eggs. A survey conducted by The ‘American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 2016 reported that 77 percent of consumers expressed concer regarding the welfare of animals raised for food. In addition to concerns over treatment of the animals, critics have condemned factory farms for their contribution to antibiotic resistance and their impact on the environment, family farming, and the spread of disease. Circumstances regarding the storage and slaughter of animals for human consumption have raised concerns over the treatment of these animals. The Humane Slaughter Act of 1978, which bolstered an earlier 1958 law, provides standards for the humane killing of cows and other livestock for meat produced locally or imported into the United States. The law requires meat packers to take preliminary steps, such as anesthetization, before slaughter and covers about 80 percent of the livestock used for meat. However, animal rights activists note that meat packers frequently violate the law, which is not effectively enforced. Like the Animal Welfare Act, the law provides no protections for poultry. Proponents of animal rights also oppose the use of animal flesh and fur for clothing. Fashion events have been disrupted by protests staged against designers that use animal products. Some activists object to the use of faux fur, arguing that its presence allows real fur products to be sold without being easily detected. In March 2018 San Francisco, California, became the first major city in the United States to ban the sale of fur products. Itpgo.galogroup consi. da?pOVICAUA,pokBld=GALE%7CPCI0100999976v=2.18ter 20anznorg ‘Opposing Viewpoins in Context - Document Animal Rights Animals in Entertainment Animal rights advocates oppose keeping animals in captivity, asserting that doing so denies the animals their natural way of life and threatens their health and well-being. Thus, many oppose the use of animals for exhibition or entertainment purposes. Traveling circuses, for example, have long attracted protests from animal rights groups, which object to the treatment of circus animals during training, performances, and while in transit. In the face of such criticisms, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus ceased operations in May 2017, attributing the decision to low ticket sales and increased costs. A bipartisan bill introduced in the US House of Representatives the same year, the Traveling Exotic Animal and Public Safety Protection Act, aimed to restrict the use of exotic and wild animals in circuses and other traveling performances but failed to reach the floor for a vote, Some activists have focused their efforts on stationary attractions, including aquariums, marine mammal parks, safari parks, and zoos, which they perceive as having prison-like conditions. Others support the research and conservation efforts conducted by some of these places, assuming the animals are treated well. Several animal exhibitors, however, have been cited for failing to provide animals with proper care and acceptable living conditions. In May 2018 the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) for renewing licenses for animal exhibitors with repeated AWA violations. In 2011 PETA filed a lawsuit against the SeaWorld chain of marine animal centers, claiming that ‘SeaWorld had violated the Thirteenth Amendment by subjecting orca whales to “slavery.” A federal judge dismissed the case the following year, ruling that the Thirteenth Amendment only applied to humans, PETA's tactics drew criticisms from civil rights groups who objected to the organization equating the struggles of African Americans under slavery with the experiences of animals. PETA had previously attracted similar controversies by likening the mistreatment of animals to lynching and the Holocaust, including several touring exhibitions such as its 2005 “Are Animals the New Slaves?” and its 2011 exhibit “Glass Walls,” which displayed elephants in shackles and pigs in confined spaces alongside similar images of African Americans. Other campaigns by PETA have met backlash from feminists who have decried the organization's use of nude and semi-nude women as sexist. Concer over the potential harm that animals face when used for entertainment purposes has driven efforts to regulate working conditions for these animals. Following public outcry over the death of a horse during a stunt in the 1939 film Jesse James, many Americans expressed anxiety over the treatment of animals in film production. As a result, the International Humane Association, which has since changed its named to American Humane, began monitoring Hollywood films to ensure animal safety and providing certification that “no animals were harmed,” a trademarked phrase that can still be seen in the end-credits of films. Certain types of entertainment involving animals, however, require that the animals suffer, spurring condemnation from activists. These types of entertainment include bullfighting, cockfighting, dogfighting, and hunting. Many activists also oppose animal athletic competitions, such as dog or horse racing, because animals are commanded to compete and may be subject to poor living conditions or extreme training regimens. Activists contend that trainers often force animals to compete when doing so causes suffering or threatens the animals’ health Source Citation (MLA 8*" Edition) “Animal Rights." Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection, Gale, 2018. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, http:/Mink.galegroup.com/apps/doc/PC3010999337/0VIC?u=fl_polk&sid=OVIC&xid=791b4115, Accessed 12 Jan. 2019. Gale Document Number: GALE|PC3010999337 hitp:ge.galegroup.comipsi do?%p=OVIC&U=f_polkSid=GALE%7CPC30109990378v=2.1&\ter 313