The article talks about animal rights. The writer illustrates both argument, for and against, in his article. The writer starts by explaining the meaning of animal rights, which includes no experimenting, breeding, killing animals and no zoos or using animals for entertaining. The people for animal rights argue that both human beings and adult mammals have rights because they are both ‘subjects-of-a-life’. On the other hand, the people against animal rights argue that animals don’t think, not conscious. Also animals these people argue that animals were put on earth to serve human beings. This view comes originally from the Bible, but probably reflects a basic human attitude towards other species. Christian theologians developed this idea - St Augustine taught that "by a most just ordinance of the Creator, both their [animals'] life and their death are subject to our use." They also argue that animals don’t have souls as Christian theologians used to teach that only being with souls deserved ethical consideration. In addition, animals don’t behave morally and are not the members of the ‘moral community’. The arguments goes, why should human beings have obligations towards animals, if animals don't have obligations to other animals or to human beings? I agree that animals should have rights. In my opinion, animals are also like humans, they should also be given certain among of rights and respect. However, I think that the rights should be limited, as animals are not like human. They lacking in the ability to judge right or wrong and may behave immorally. Therefore, if full rights are given to animals, it may be rather ironic; imagine punishing a dog for biting someone in the court.