Argumentative Essay: The Abuse Of Animal Rights
A quick google search would fill your screen with horror story after gruesome tale on the inhumane actions of scientists towards animals in the name of ‘research’. Animal rights activists are quick to fight for the end of these appalling incidents and heinous actions. The immediate reaction is to abolish, or at least substantially curtail, researchers ability to do testing involving animals. Abuse of this ability is actually a minority, but only extreme stories and drastic accounts catch on in the news. This one-sided perspective of the issue has skewed the debate, leaving hard working scientists with pure intents left with few defenses. Within this essay I will illustrate the negative impacts of making the decision to diminish or abrogate
…show more content…
I would like to counter this with the argument that we have a higher obligation to humans. It has been asserted that ‘speciesism’, or thinking of animals as our lessers is the equivalent to racism or sexism (Andre and Velasquez, 4). I will concede that unwarranted suffering of any form of life should be avoided. In this case, however, it is by no means unwarranted, and animals should not be our primary concern. Animals in anguish is a legitimate issue, but so is the suffering of human beings from diseases and disabilities that could be cured. The majority of our focus must be on the latter. 90 percent of these animals are receiving pain killers; scientists aren’t hardened, unjust, and cruel people as a group. Tales such as the drowning of polar bears used in research extraneous to palpable development are used by activists to support their claims. The majority of people would agree that is an issue that should be stopped, but placing heavy restrictions on animal testing as a whole is not the solution. This would put a gratuitous burden on the productive research reaping benefits previously stated. To put this into perspective, “If we had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving a drowning rat, we would surely save the baby.” (Andre and Velasquez,
I would like to counter this with the argument that we have a higher obligation to humans. It has been asserted that ‘speciesism’, or thinking of animals as our lessers is the equivalent to racism or sexism (Andre and Velasquez, 4). I will concede that unwarranted suffering of any form of life should be avoided. In this case, however, it is by no means unwarranted, and animals should not be our primary concern. Animals in anguish is a legitimate issue, but so is the suffering of human beings from diseases and disabilities that could be cured. The majority of our focus must be on the latter. 90 percent of these animals are receiving pain killers; scientists aren’t hardened, unjust, and cruel people as a group. Tales such as the drowning of polar bears used in research extraneous to palpable development are used by activists to support their claims. The majority of people would agree that is an issue that should be stopped, but placing heavy restrictions on animal testing as a whole is not the solution. This would put a gratuitous burden on the productive research reaping benefits previously stated. To put this into perspective, “If we had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving a drowning rat, we would surely save the baby.” (Andre and Velasquez,