Animal Testing (Speech Outline)
<b>Specific Purpose</b> To persuade my audience that animal testing is wrong and how other safer alternatives should be taken.
<br>
<br><b>Central Idea</b> By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved.
<br>
<br><b>Introduction</b>
<br>I. Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class.
<br>A. What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess?
<br>B. You guys give up?
<br>C. Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing.
<br>II. I know that wasn't too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong.
<br>A. After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated.
<br>B. Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or "vivisection", has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century.
<br>
<br>III. Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will
<br>reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today.
<br>A. I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems.
<br>B. Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken.
<br>
<br>(Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing.)
<br>
<br><b>Body</b>
<br>
<br>I. As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter.
<br>A. According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes' theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering.
<br>1. But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting Descartes' idea
<br>
<br><b>Central Idea</b> By going the extra mile in using safer alternatives when experimenting with animals will not only prevent conflicts from pro-life activists, it will minimize lawsuits and morals will be preserved.
<br>
<br><b>Introduction</b>
<br>I. Okay I got a riddle I made up for the class.
<br>A. What was once cute and furry but becomes a bloody rotted mess?
<br>B. You guys give up?
<br>C. Well the answer to this question is an animal that has undergone chemical testing.
<br>II. I know that wasn't too funny but I needed some sort of attention-grabber and this hit home on the question of my topic; whether animal testing is right or wrong.
<br>A. After all, the question whether animals should be tested is often hotly debated.
<br>B. Through intense research I have discovered that the issue on whether animals should be experimented upon, or "vivisection", has cropped up in history as early as the 17th century.
<br>
<br>III. Although animal testing is much less frequent today than in the past, I will
<br>reinforce the idea that alternatives to animal testing should be preserved today.
<br>A. I will first explain the conflicts in the past where animal testing caused many problems.
<br>B. Then I will reinforce the solution to animal testing by discussing the various alternatives that can be taken.
<br>
<br>(Transition: Let us first look at the problem of animal testing.)
<br>
<br><b>Body</b>
<br>
<br>I. As I have mentioned, the question on animal testing was posed even as early as the 17th century, according to the All For Animals Newsletter.
<br>A. According to this newsletter, Philosopher Jeremy Bentham rejected philosopher Rene Descartes' theory that because animals have no reasoning that humans have, they therefore cannot feel pain or suffering.
<br>1. But Bentham went further in this issue, rejecting Descartes' idea
Bibliography: /b> <br><li>Smith, Taylor. "Animal Testing - Alternatives - Cruelty-Free Living." <br><li>All For Animals Newsletter. Issue #1, March 1998. <br><li>Grigg, Bill. "NIH News Release." 28 Dec. 1999 [last revision]. < <a href="http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec99/niehs-28.htm">http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/dec99/niehs-28.htm</a> > 1999. <br><li>Adams, Johnathan. "Animal Welfare Act and Regulations." August 22, 2000 [last update] < <a href="http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm">http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm</a> > 1996. <br><li>"USDA Agrees to Regulate More Research Animals, Including Mice." October 3, 2000 [last update] < <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/10/03/research.animals.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/10/03/research.animals.ap/index.html</a> > 1990. <br><li>"Cruelty Free Companies—Choose to Be Cruelty-Free". < <a href="http://www.allforanimals.com">http://www.allforanimals.com</a> > 2000. <br><li>"ANIMAL TESTING". May 12, 1999 [last update]. < <a href="http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html">http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-205.html</a> > 1996.