Do animals deserve the natural rights humans have? Animals are being kept captive in science labs to test many things. In research labs they are used to test many trivial products and they are used in valuable medical research. Many animal right activists go as far as breaking the law as an attempt to get the point across about the wellbeing of animals in science labs. The welfare of animals should be considered in experiments, although they are a substantial benefit to medical research there should still be strict enforced regulations set to stop the unnecessary pain and suffering of the animals. There are many animal rights activist groups asking that an animal’s life be seen just as valuable as the life of a human. Having “natural rights” for animals defined would mean imprisoning and holding trials for animals that break the law, realistically this is not a defensible philosophy. According to Lee and Ames natural rights for animals is a “flawed philosophy” that contradicts itself. The concept of natural rights for animals would jeopardize all medical research. Animals in the laboratory are mostly used for biomedical research, education and product safety testing. Saraf and Kumarawamy note that almost every medical achievement in this century depended on the use of animals in some way (6). Animal experiments have provided the knowledge necessary to comprehend and develop more effective treatments, but “the opposition to use animals for research purpose has always existed” (Saraf and Kurmarawamy 8). Rabbits were used in the early 1920s as a pregnancy test, because high levels of hCG if injected into a female rabbit caused death, this experiment contributed to the development of the at home pregnancy tests that ar... ... middle of paper ... ...ss normal behavior, Freedom from fear and distress. Works Cited "Animal experimentation – the facts." BBC News. BBC, 2013. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. Favre, David. "Overview of U.S. Animal Welfare Act." Animallaw.info. Michigan State University College of Law, May-June 2002. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. Lee, M. Cushmaan, C. Ames. “Counterpoint: Animals Do Not Have Rights.” Point Of View: Animal Rights (2013): 3. Point of View Reference Center. Web. 11 Nov. 2013. Ranganatha, N., and I.J. Kuppast. “A Review On Alternatives To Animal Testing Methods In Drug Development.” International Journal Of Pharmaceutical Sciences 4. (2012): 28-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. Saraf, Shyam K., and Vinay Kumarawamy. “Basic Research: Issues With Animal Experimentations.” Indian Journal of Orthopedics 47.1 (2013): 6-9. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Nov. 2013.
Regan, Tom. “The Case for Animal Rights.” In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, 2 ed.. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.
Loeb, Jerod M. “Human vs. Animal Rights: In Defense of Animal Research.” Taking Sides: Science, Technology, and Society. Gilford: Dushkin Publishing Group, 2011
In conclusion, I agree with Tom Regan’s perspective of the rights view, as it explores the concept of equality, and the concept of rightful treatment of animals and humans. If a being is capable of living, and experiencing life, then they are more than likely capable of feeling pleasure and pain, except in a few instances. If humans are still treated in a respectable and right way even if some cannot vote, or think for themselves, then it is only fair that animals who also lack in some of these abilities be treated as equals. As Regan puts it, “pain is pain, wherever it occurs” (1989).
Tom Regan, “The Case for Animal Rights,” in In Defense of Animals, ed. Peter Singer (Oxford:
Peter Singer, an author and philosophy professor, “argues that because animals have nervous systems and can suffer just as much as humans can, it is wrong for humans to use animals for research, food, or clothing” (Singer 17). Do animals have any rights? Is animal experimentation ethical? These are questions many struggle with day in and day out in the ongoing battle surrounding the controversial topic of animal research and testing, known as vivisection. Throughout centuries, medical research has been conducted on animals.
The abuse that animals endure at human hands is heartbreaking, sickening, and infuriating. Animals are just as delicate as humans, so why not abuse us too? Animal lives should be just important as ours. No animals should be killed or abused for testing, entertaining, clothing, or hoarding. Every year, millions of animals are being killed and torture for testing.
Katz, Jon. "Animals Need Better Care, Not Equal Rights." Slate (5 Mar. 2004). Rpt. in The Rights of Animals. Ed. Auriana Ojeda. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2004. Current Controversies. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 25 Mar. 2011.
Animals have held an important spot in many of our lives. Some people look at animals as companions and others see them as a means of experimental research and medical advancement. With the interest to gain knowledge, physicians have dissected animals. The ethics of animal testing have always been questioned because humans do not want to think of animals on the same level as humans. Incapable of our thinking and unable to speak, animals do not deserve to be tested on by products and be conducted in experiments for our scientific improvement. Experimentation on animals is cruel, unfair, and does not have enough beneficial results to consider it essential.
Animal rights are held entirely too high in regard. Many activist do not realize the benefits of testing on animals. They claim that it is "unethical" or "cruel" to perform experiments on such creatures. The truth is, the world as a whole has advanced tremendously in the past century due to animal experimentation. We are affected every day by at least one thing that has been influenced by animal testing. Many of the things we take for granted would not exist if it were not for experimenting with animals. The medicine that we need, the education that we receive, and the products that we use are just a few of the benefits that these animals bring to us. We should look at animals, not as poor defenseless creatures that are subject to cruel experiments, but as heroes that have improved almost every aspect of our life in todays society.
Most would not put animals in the same category as humans so giving them the same rights seems quite ridiculous; since humans are supposed to be seen as the alpha species. What is a more realistic term is to consider them our property, because we continue to use animal testing and think it is okay to harm these animals. In the end, animal testing and research is cruel and should be done away with. It is a proven fact that animals feel pain just like humans do. No animal deserves to have his or her life purpose be to give his or her life unknowingly for science. We must to put an end to this cruelty and torture because just like humans, animals are living beings. No matter how it is perceived, it is cruel and unusual punishment.
To conclude this paper then, after reviewing the reasons for being opposed to assigning rights to non-human animals I am still faithfully for the idea. There is no justification for the barbaric and insensitive ways to which we have been treating the non-human animals with over the decades. As I stated before, they are living creatures just as we are, they have families, emotions and struggles of their own without the ones we inflict on them. So then where does this leave us? Of course it is a complicated mater, but none the less non-human animals should be protected with rights against them being used as machines, for food, for their skins, their wool, and all cases in which they are being abused.
Controversy and varying opinions have surrounded animal research in laboratories. Some believe animals should be given the same right as humans. We use these animals to test the possible outcomes new drugs or therapies will have on our body. God created all animals and humans alike, but they don't have the same rights as we do. If animals were to have the same rights as we do those that live in the wild who kill would have to be punished for the act. Animals have no reasoning ability so they shouldn't be afforded rights. I do believe we have a responsibility to treat animals humanely, ethically and with compassion and kindness.
It is the notion of our time that non-human animals exist for the advancement of the human species. In whatever field -- cookery, fashion, blood-sports -- it is held that we can only be concerned with animals as far as human interests exist. There may be some sympathy for those animals, as to limit practices which cause excruciating suffering, but those may only be limited if they are brought to public light, and if legislators receive enough pressure from the public to change.
A large issue is animal testing. “More than 25 million vertebrate animals are used in testing in the United States each year. When invertebrate animals are thrown into the mix, the estimated number rises to as high as 100 million.”(dosomething) The laboratory testing of animals is important to biomedical research, product safety testing, and education. Biomedical researchers use animals to extend their understanding of the workings of the body and the processes of disease and health, and to develop new vaccines and treatments for various diseases for humans and other animals. However, the morality, the necessity, or the validity of the studies are questionable. Thousands of animals are helplessly killed every year that animal testing is being conducted. “Ninety-four percent of animal testing is done to determine the safety of cosmetics and household products leaving only 6% for medical research” (about my planet). This can cause harm to the animals and may in turn be fatal. It is not fair nor is it humane to conduct experiments on animals to make sure a product or procedure is safe for us. There are no reasons to regard an animal’s life as if it is insignificant in contrast to a human life. During the testing, animals may be force fed or put in restraints in order for the scientists to get the product into their systems. Ani...
Aronson, Jamie "Point: The Fight for Animal Rights." Points of View: Animal Rights (2007): 5.