Persuasive Debate: Animal Rights

A. The Negative Sides of Animal Testing “All procedures, even those classified as “mild,” have the potential to cause the animals physical as well as psychological distress and suffering. Often the procedures can cause a great deal of suffering. Most animals are killed at the end of an experiment, but some may be re-used in subsequent experiments. Here is a selection of common animal procedures: "Forced chemical exposure in toxicity testing, which can include oral force-feeding, forced inhalation, skin or injection into the abdomen, muscle, etc. "Exposure to drugs, chemicals or infectious disease at levels that cause illness, pain and distress, or death "Genetic manipulation, e.g., addition or 'knocking out' of one or more genes "Ear-notching and tail-clipping for identification "Short periods of physical restraint for observation or examination "Prolonged periods of physical restraint "Food and water deprivation "Surgical procedures followed by recovery "Infliction of wounds, burns and other injuries to study healing "Infliction of pain to study its physiology and treatment "Behavioural experiments designed to cause distress, e.g., electric shock or forced swimming "Other manipulations to create 'animal models' of human diseases ranging from cancer to stroke to depression "Killing by carbon dioxide asphyxiation, neck-breaking, decapitation, or other means.” [1] Should the animals have to deal with this? They feel pain just like people do, emotionally and physically. But there is one difference between humans and animals: While most humans can communicate through words, animals are unable to do this. “The nature of pain is perhaps even more complex in animals. How pain is sensed and the physical processes behind this are remarkably similar and well conserved across mammals and humans. There are also many similarities in pain behaviours across the species, for example they may stop socialising with people and/or other animals, they may eat less, they may vocalise more and their heart rate may rise. The capacity of animals to suffer as sentient creatures is well established and enshrined in law in many countries, however we don’t understand well how they actually experience pain.” [2] They experience pain, we know that, but they can’t communicate the exact same way we can. In that way, animals can’t consent to the experiments while people can. We can’t be sure that the animals in question are willing to the experimentation. To add to my point, animal tests aren’t necessarily effective. For example, in the 1950s, there was a sleeping pill called thalidomide that was tested on animals prior to it’s official commercial release. Little did they know that it would cause 10,000 babies to be born with severe deformities. [3] Later on, the sleeping pill was tested on pregnant animals (cats, mice, rats, etc.) and they didn’t experience any birth defects unless it was given in dangerously high doses. [4] In other words, animal testing not only harmful to the animals involved, but it’s also incredibly pointless, as showed above. B. Extinction Extinction - the state or situation that results when something (such as a plant or animal species) has died out completely [5] But why is this bad? As I’ll go on to explain, it affects the ecosystem and humans. Sub point I. Ecosystem “Take, for example, the gray wolf. Before a mass extermination effort in the U.S. that decimated wolf populations in the first half of the 20th century, wolves kept other animals' populations from growing exponentially. They hunted elk, deer, and moose and also killed smaller animals such as coyotes, raccoons, and beavers. “Without wolves to keep other animals' numbers in check, prey populations grew larger. Exploding elk populations in the western United States wiped out so many willows and other riparian plants that songbirds no longer had sufficient food or cover in these areas, threatening their survival and increasing numbers of insects like mosquitos that the songbirds were meant to control.” [6] This was all caused by the popularity of hunting them for sport. Though, thankfully, some of the efforts to save the gray wolves have been successful, [7] they’re still hunted today. [8] This affects the entire ecosystem, as shown by this real example. As the populations of prey rose, the need for food of them also skyrocketed. This made the plants die out and the numbers of mosquitos increased after the songbirds started to die out. This can greatly harm the ecosystem to disastrous proportions. Sub point II. Humans First, let’s look at an example of American Bison. "Originally, the bison was a common animal on the central plains, and the Native Americans of the region depended on the animal for food, leather, fur and many other goods vital to a nomadic lifestyle. By 1890, however, there were only a few thousand bison left in America. Tribal hunters were able to kill more of the animals with the aid of firearms, and in some cases the United States government encouraged the widespread slaughter of bison herds. The vanishing species forced tribes dependent on the animal to move to new lands in search of food, and eventually those tribes could no longer support themselves and had to deal with the United States government for survival.” [9] This was all caused by the excess hunting of American Bison. The tribes had to relocate in order to get more food. Remember, if we don't learn from our mistakes in the past, history repeats itself. This can easily happen again. This is why we need stricter hunting laws to prevent this from happening again. Yes, we still should be allowed to hunt, as there are some people who live off the land in other remote areas, but hunting in excess or for sport can prove to be detrimental to not only to the animals who may go extinct, but also the ecosystem and people. C. Speciesism Speciesism- discrimination in favor of one species, usually the human species,over another, especially in the exploitation or mistreatment ofanimals by humans. [10] "Whether it is sexism, racism, classism, transphobia, or speciesism– all forms of prejudice seem to stem from a worldview that leaves out the interests of some other beings." [11]This proves to be true for animals as well. They're sentient beings. They can feel, think, and they have emotion, just like us. In no way am I saying that animals are the same as humans, as we're quite different from them, but we should be treated the same morally. So why treat them any lesser than us? "In the Elements of Moral Philosophy, James Rachels asserts that the minimum conception of morality is an effort to follow reason while treating each being equally. Thus morality requires impartial consideration of each individual’s interests. With this view, our moral sphere must include any individual with interests. Most people, as speciesists, do not believe nonhuman animals have interests. But what does 'having interests' entail? At the very least, if an individual has the capacity to suffer, then that individual has an interest in not suffering." [11] "Speciesism is often condemned as the same sort of bigotry as racism or sexism. "People who oppose speciesiesm say that giving human beings greater rights than non-human animals is as arbitrary (and as morally wrong) as giving white people greater rights than non-white people." [12]I'd like to bring this up for discussion: Why do we feel differently about speciesism than we do racism? I know, this comparison may sound ridiculous, but picture this scenario: There is a house fire. You only get to save one from the fire. Who do you save, the man or his dog? Now let's bring up the same scenario but with different subjects. Again, there's a house fire and you only get to save one person. Who would you save, a white man or a black man? Are you neutral? Which scenarios are you neutral to, if any? In conclusion, animal rights are needed, not only for the animals who could be harmed or hunted to extinction, but also to the ecosystem and us humans. The EndAgain, I'd like to thank fire_wings' for instigating the debate and to Rosalie for starting the tournament. This was a very fun debate to research and elaborate. Thank you. Citations [1]http://www.hsi.org...[2]http://www.independent.co.uk...[3]http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk...[4]http://jpsl.org...[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6]http://science.opposingviews.com...[7]https://www.google.com...[8]https://www.google.com...[9]http://classroom.synonym.com...[10]http://www.dictionary.com... [11]https://buvegetariansociety.wordpress.com...[12]http://www.bbc.co.uk...