Nature is also a common cause of animal cruelty. Some examples could be weather conditions or predator habits. This article suggest overall that while considering animal rights, we should consider natures harm to them. Should we consider nature or write it off as natural selection? Maybe it is okay for natural selection but it definitely isn't okay for people to try and determine
To help put an end to animal cruelty, we first need to know what animal cruelty is exactly. There are two types of animal cruelty. They are passive cruelty and active cruelty. Passive cruelty occurs when owners severely neglect their pets. To the common person, passive cruelty may look like a less serious form of animal cruelty, but that is certainly not the case.
Causey argues that hunting has the potential to be considered moral and ethical, as long as those who hunt display a more humane attitude toward the animals they kill. Also, she makes it quite clear that hunting for sport and reducing an animal to nothing but points and pounds is an activity that can never be argued as moral. Over all, Causey does an excellent job looking at both sides of hunting. She understands the reasoning and thoughts from both hunters and non-hunters. Her opinion consists of both arguments.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
Owners of animals cannot mistreat or use them in a way that would consider to be cruel to animals. This is why we have state laws to protect them. In 2001, it became a felony to be cruel to animals. I will be explaining what is animal cruelty, the two types of laws, felony fines and punishment, also compare it to other states that have this law. Animal cruelty is a person who commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly: tortures an animal; fails unreasonably to provide necessary food, care, or shelter for an animal in the person's custody; abandons unreasonably an animal in the person's custody; transports or confines an animal in a cruel manner; kills, seriously injures, or administers poison to an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; causes on animal to fight one another; uses a live animal as lure in dog race training or in dog coursing on a racetrack; trips a horse; injures an animal, other than cattle, horses, sheep, swine, or goats, belonging to another without legal authority or the owner's effective consent; or seriously overworks an animal (Texas penal code 9) According to the Animal Legal and Historical Center, Texas animal cruelty laws are very narrow in their scope.
Causey then continues to point out that anti-hunters could care less is hunting is “economically advisable,” or “whether hunters love and appreciate nature”. Hunters say that it is ethical to kill for sport while anti-hunters say no. Causey begins to distinguish between legality and morality. The pro-hunter answers the question about ethics with facts but the anti-hunter is answering rather a different question about whether or not hunting is moral. Causey begins to discuss what hunters see in hunting as a sport.
After reading the entry of Big John, The Lawn & Garden Doctor, I strongly recommend changing or eliminating the new division. I have a firm belief that if these chemicals being used within the new division have to be kept away and locked up because of how deadly they can be it shouldn’t be used at all. Someone as innocent as a
They will test the value of new shampoo products by using rabbits as their tests subjects usually. In doing so the rabbit has to have its eye held open by clips so they can see how it is affecting the eyes; the rabbits stay like this for days without being able to blink or wash the materials out of their eyes. The commonly used LD50 (lethal dose 50) test involves finding out which dose of a chemical will kill 50% of the animals being used in the experiment. Animals go through so many cruel things, because of the cosmetic industry that is allowing it. [animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body.
Those who against animal experiments insist that those painful experimentation on animals should be halted. The pain is not moral whether it is experienced by a child, an adult, or an animal. If it is wrong to impose pain on a human being, it is also wrong on an animal. But many people argue that halting animal experiments would end the progress of science and actually human are taking gain from those experiments. Animal experiments should be acceptable if the pain is minimized in all experiments.
Animal cruelty needs to stop and if farmers aren’t willing to stop the nasty, brutal way they are killing animals, then what we can do is stop buying meat. Maybe not all at once but we could slowly stop buying so much. Along with that, we would also need to stop going to zoos and circuses. A lot of people think animals do not have feelings, but they do. They know when someone is being nice or being mean.