Problem: Are these two paragraphs good introductory paragraphs with a thesis and everything? Also, are they examples of inductive and deductive formats? Please give me pointers or fix up anything that isn't correct.
Inductive:
While there is no guarantee of animal rights in the Constitution of the United States of America, there are reasons to believe it may be construed that way. A growing number of people agree with Singer and Mason's argument that animals need moral consideration and legal rights. It is said that animals cannot be afforded the same legal protection as people since they lack cognitive abilities. Whether or not animals should be afforded legal safeguards is a debatable topic that must be considered. The government is responsible for protecting all U.S. citizens' rights in accordance with the Constitution of the United States. Religious liberty, free expression, the right to work and vote, and the right to an abortion or the right to have arms are all examples of universally recognized human rights. People do not receive these advantages because they request them; civic society needs them (and for a brief period in history, this included personhood for enslaved black people as well). Since it has not been proven that animals can make moral decisions, they do not enjoy the same safeguards. Therefore, people should not grant animals rights based on our subjective perceptions of their deservingness of our benevolence and compassion. Humans should instead base their decisions to defend the rights of animals on evidence that they can make informed decisions about their own lives.
Deductive:
The United States of America's Constitution does not explicitly protect animal rights, although there are good arguments that may be read that way. Singer's and Mason's claims that animals should be afforded moral consideration and legal rights are gaining widespread support. Individual liberty and independence are foundational to protecting the "human rights" enshrined in the United States Constitution. Animals, contrary to animal rights advocates, do not have or require any form of self-autonomy or independence. The ability to reason and reason alone distinguishes human rights from animal rights. When compared to human rights, which can be exercised without endangering the individual, animal rights, are distinct from those of humans. Nothing in the Bill of Rights explicitly addresses animal welfare or protection. No animal should be considered a "person" with the same legal protections as humans.