Some people say that too much attention and too many resources are given into the

Do you agree or disagree aboutwith this opinionview?

It seems to me that humans have committed a considerable number of cruel thingsbeen cruel to other creatures in many ways and for a long time.

I believe that all the creatures that feel pain should be equal in basicare entitled to equal rights.

I assumthink we should apply to animals the arguments that people have used to justify the equality in human rights can be applied to animal rights for all humans.

One of these arguments is that all humans have many features in common, hence the equality in primary rightscharacteristics in common.

'Features' can mean anything from nose and eyes (facial features) to personality and culture. It's too vague to make a point. 'Characteristics' is slightly better but not much. I can't provide a better word because I don't know what you are trying to say. Are you talking about DNA similarily? Language and culture? Physiology? It is not very convincing when you are so vague.

There is no need to add the last clause, since that is clearly stated at the beginning of your argument. It is clear to the reader that equal rights is what you are arguing for.

If this argument is valid, it will works for the proof ofapplies also to animal rights as well.

Not only humans and animals share many characteristics with each other but also with plants and even solids.

What are solids? Normally this term is used to distinguish among solids, liquids and gases, but clearly that's not what you mean. In the next sentence you say 'thinking' is the key characteristic that matters, but 'solids' makes no sense in the context.

According to another reason,argument, it is the capability tof thinking and to reasoning is what deserv that entitles a creature to have rights.

This should be the start of a new paragraph. You are starting to describe a completely different idea -- not the one above that you agree with, but some other idea you don't agree with.

This kind of argument leads individuals to fascistic governmentsto fascism.

As a consequenceUnder this reasoning, disabled humans will be stripped of any rights they naturally have, and practically it gives others license to commit any immoral acts to these kinds of individualsdo not have the rights of other people. It gives others license to treat the disabled in ways that would be considered immoral if applied to the non-disabled.

These sorts of acts are not tolerable and acceptable in modern societiesModern society no longer accepts this treatment of the disabled.

Thus, human beings have been depriving animals of their most basic natural rights such as the right to survive.

There is a huge jump in your logic here. You say 'thus', but you have not made any attempt to link the arguments above, which deal with fascism, reasoning and the disabled, to animals. You've made no arguments at all to justify your statement that humans have been depriving animals of their rights.

Therefore, ¶
I think humans have not paid enough attention to the life and rights of other creatures.

Do you agree or disagree aboutwith this opinion?

If this argument is valid, it will works for the proof of animal rights as well.

Not only humans and animals share many characteristics with each other but also with plants and even solidminerals.

Did you mean minerals? Minerals are a solid inorganic substance of natural occurrence. The word "solid" is more commonly used with respect to states of matter: liquids, solids, gasses

According to another reason, is that the capability of thinking and reasoning is what deserves a creature to have rights.

When saying "according to" it is best to follow it with a source like a person, group, university, or information source. For example, "According to Charles Darwin," or "According to CNN".

This kind of argument leads individuals to fascistic governments.

As a consequence, disabled humans will be stripped of any rights they naturally have, and it practically it gives others license to commit any immoral acts to these kinds of individuals.

These sorts of acts are not tolerable andor acceptable in modern societies.

ThusHowever, human beings have been depriving animals of their most basic natural rights such as the right to survive.

I think you mean to say "However". Which can also mean "Despite that".

"Thus" in an argument is used like 1+1 , thus 2. It also means "Therefore".