People for Ethical Treatment of Animals

"My opponent has misconstrued what I said. Because humans only have knowledge of what they are capable of, it is impossible for animals to be considered equal by humans...I said that animals should have A CERTAIN DEGREE of rights." My opponent seems to state that animals do not share the same rights as humans, but at least a certain degree. This I agree with; humans are sapient while animals are only sentient. What distinguishes us from animals is our metacognition. We are aware of our own cognitive processes. There is ample evidence from studies that show non-human animals are only sentient, and have no such thing like consciousness or metacognition. They are not persons, and contribute nothing to the rest of the moral community. Animals are unable to enter into a social contract or make moral choices, and therefore cannot be regarded as possessors of rights. "My opponent fails to specify what "restrictions" or "guidelines" he would instate." Thing such as proper anesthesia for fur farming, more strict health and safety guidelines and regulations for animal entertainment, and exclusion of gestation cages for animals and better living conditions for factory farming. There are many things we can do to instate such limits, but hold practices such as animal testing. PETA's advocacy of animal rights means that animals are held on the same platform as humans. "The Clioquinol and Thalidomide catastrophes are not just two isolated cases." I have shown how these two incidents were not the cause of animal testing, but of poor safety and regulation. Thus, my argument still stands. My opponent has strayed from his original two examples and now brings up a new one. "Nobody benefits from animal testing when they take medicines." Of course they do, animal testing was probably the reason how the medicine was made. "Animal testing became mandatory following the thalidomide tragedy, but it has failed to prevent further disasters." Rubbish. He has no evidence of this. "Vioxx, which was used to treat arthritis and acute pain, is the biggest drug catastrophe in history. " It is quite amusing how anti-animal testing advocates seem to link every drug catastrophe with animal testing. However, yet again in the case of Vioxx, or better known as Rofecoxib, the reason for this incident was not because of faulty animal testing, but because the people who made this drug failed to supply adequate papers to the FDA which would have shown that it increased heart attacks. This is once again not an issue of animal testing, but of safety and regulations. http://en.wikipedia.org... "New human-based tests could prevent many of these deaths. Microdose studies of volunteers reveal drug metabolism in the human body with accuracy. Yet regulators require animal studies, not microdose studies." My opponent shows no evidence for this. "We would all be safer without animal tests, which correctly predict drug side effects only between 5 and 25 per cent of the time, according to studies published in the scientific literature." This is again rubbish. My opponent shows no evidence for this, and no links. If the newscientist link was his intended citation, then it links to no specific article but the homepage. "That is why animals testing is not only futile but detrimental to humans." Animal testing has been used to find many significant medical advances, a few including: Diphtheria antitoxin from guinea pigs. Discovery of insulin and its treatment of diabetes mellitus from dogs. Antibiotics for tuberculosis from guinea pigs. Lithium from guinea pigs. Non-volatile anaesthetic halothane from rodents, cats, dogs, rabbtis and monkeys. This is particularly important because this new generation of anesthesia allows complex surgeries to be possible for the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Anyway, we are getting sidetracked. My main point is that an organization, giving a voice to animals that cannot represent themselves among man, and contesting the terrible treatment animals cannot withstand, champions a good cause." PETA unjustly euthanize pets (how ironic) even when they are fairly adoptable; all stemming from their animal rights extremism. http://en.wikipedia.org... They stress that animals are on the same moral ground as humans. I have argued that they are not, and my opponent has not refuted my argument thus far. In fact, they are so radical that Ingrid Newkirk, the president of the organization, has stated that even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, she'd be against it. http://en.wikipedia.org... PETA seems to argue that the suffering of animals are equal to the suffering of humans. So if by saving an infant from a dog's attack would cause the dog more harm, we should not save the infant, then this is truly wrong. Their campaign of showing chickens being treated the same as Jews in the Holocaust is outrageous and downright offensive. Is my opponent saying that a chicken is morally identical human? http://www.youtube.com... If we were to follow along with PETA's campaigns, that means no pets. No horseback riding. No zoos. No circuses. No Seaworld (ouch!). No dogs that guide blind people. If you give animals rights, then they also will have responsibilities. PETA's support on direct action violence is terrorism, and they are worthy of no praise.