While opponents of animal rights (AR) usually make weak arguments for their case, they are occasionally right.
For instance, AR advocates really do believe it is morally wrong for humans to eat animals. Taurine, however, is made in the human body and can also be obtained from non-meat sources.
In addition, a substantial amount of animal research is done for cosmetics, not to find cures for diseases, so this is unnecessary.
Finally, it has also been proven that humans can get all the nutrients and vitamins that they need from green vegetables and fruit.
Some people believe that animals should be treated in the same way humans are and have similar rights, whereas others think that it is more important to use them as we desire for food and medical research. With regard to the exploitation of animals, people believe it is acceptable for several reasons.
Firstly, they think that humans are the most important beings on the planet, and everything must be done to ensure human survival.
Therefore, again, having to kill animals for food is not an adequate argument.
To sum up, although some people argue killing animals for research and food is ethical, I would argue there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is not the case, and, therefore, steps must be taken to improve the rights of animals.
An extreme change is needed to save animals from these fates.
It's a common misconception that animal rights advocates want all domestic animals to go extinct.