Animal Rights, Human Wrongs

Rick Riordan, one of the most prolific fiction authors, stated that humans see what they
want to see which is especially true when animals are discussed. Where I may see mice as
ghastly critters sent from Hell, others may see the beauty beneath their unique frame. Those
same people would be against using this animal for experimentation. Tom Regan, a pioneer of
the Animal Rights Movement, was prominent example of someone in negation of animal
experimentation, arguing in his article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs” that rabbits and mice
alike deserved to live as we do. However, many scientists see mice as a dime a dozen animal,
and believe that using animals in the lab creates more good than harm for mankind. Stephen
Rose, a biology professor at Open University in England, defends this notion in his article
entitled “Proud to be Speciesist.” Both authors provide debatable contentions to create their
arguments; however, after analyzing the articles, I’ve concluded the Rose’s article presents the
stronger credibility and logic structure whereas Regan possessed the most emotional appeal.
Thus, Rose’s article is theoretically more effective, but Regan’s stuck in the audience’s mind
more.

Both authors attempt to establish believability by recognizing the counterargument. One
issue with treating or experimenting on animals is the misguided notion that they don’t feel as
human do. Rose acknowledges the truth by stating the following: “the Cartesian myth—that non
human animals are mere mechanisms…whose expressions of pain or suffering are no more than
the squeak of a rusty cog—is just that, a myth” (Rose 343). By agreeing that animals are not toys
that should be played with, the audience is able to see him as an individual with a clear mind. He
effectively wins the audience over when discussing animal use for cosmetics and drugs. He
believes that other avenues should be found in this regard, and that variation is objects used for testing “should [be] a high priority” (Rose 343). Reagan’s use of concessions was geared
towards proving his point more so that acknowledging the opposing view. When posing the
opportunity for whalers to back their actions with morals, Reagan never actually presents any
reasoning, rather he shouts that “our answer must be: No” (Reagan 339)! By virtually
brainwashing readers, he disregards the fact that thousands of people whale to survive,
specifically in the Indonesian area. Another example of Reagan’s sleight of hand was his fragile
inclusion of how animals may be harmed for justified reasons. He quotes that even if harm could
be justified, those that harm animals “fail to show that the harm caused is actually justified
(Reagan 339). His use of italics showed that he is closed minded about animal experimentation,
and it also led me to infer that he didn’t believe his argument could stand if he had. Because
Rose confidently used concessions, his credibility was more reliable than Reagan’s.

Rose also established a more effective logical analysis of animal use in experimentation.
He used deductive reasoning to enlighten the readers about why using animals was rational. In
the case of finding treatments and cures for disease, Rose comments that “many human diseases
and disorders are found in other mammals” (Rose 343). Because of this it is possible to assume
that if a treatment works on a nonhuman animal, then it can work on a human as well. He also
challenged the idea of animals truly having rights by pointing out that their neglect cannot be
equal to that of women or Africa-Americans because when these groups were oppressed they
stood up and “[demanded] justice and equality” (Rose 344). Since they can’t speak for
themselves, it is our job to determine what is acceptable actions. Because animals cannot behave
as humans, it is irrational to place them on the same playing field as humans. Reagan brought the
focus towards animal endangerment. He uses deductive reason to explain how whales, “the last
remaining members of an irreplaceable species,” need to be protected ( Reagan 337). Because poaching leads to countless killings, eventually this will lead to the extinction of whales. This
would’ve been effective if it weren’t a lie. Blue whale, though are endangered, are far from
going extinct. And it’s a bit hyperbolic for Reagan to state that whaling will lead to their demise.
But he does create the concern that the killing of animals is threatening to their survival as a
species. An efficient assessment was that the slaughter of numerous parent gibbons for their
children is not in any way profitable. According to Reagan’s source, “[In Thailand,] for every
one animal captured alive, ten have been killed” (Reagan 337). Because so many gibbon
monkeys are being killed for commercial reasons, it’s necessary for action to be taken for their
protection. Unfortunately, there weren’t many other examples of effective logical breakdowns
from Reagan’s article, making Rose’s article the more effective in this regard.

The last aspect that I compared was how well each author provoked emotional reaction
from the audience. Rose does a good job of pointing out the benefits of animal experiment.
Scientist wouldn’t have discovered the causes or treatment of diabetes “without experiments on
mammals” (Rose 343). By using this fact, Rose appealed to the sympathetic, and even the
empathetic, emotions of the audience. He also demonstrated a strong sense of morally when
explaining that his loyalty lies to the progressive species. He states that he would save his cat if it
were about to die trying to get a fish; however, he professed that “if [he] had to choose between
saving [his cat’s live] and that of any human child, [he] would unhesitatingly choose the child”
(Rose 344 – 345). This was a crucial note to end on allowing the readers that were against his
ideals to see that he does value life for the greater good. Even if the readers don’t change their
perspective, they at least know that Rose and scientist like him perform their research because
they have a heart, not a taste for blood. With that being said, Reagan’s use of graphic imagery
made his emotional demand greater. He begins the article with a story about a whale hunt and describes the entire event in detail. He recalled the end of the battle by telling the reader how
“the whale [spouted] blood, [keeled] slowly over and [floated] belly upward. It [was] dead”
(Reagan 337). He also used repetitious language. Throughout the article, after Reagan presented
a horrific story, he’d pose the question, “to what end” (Reagan 337 – 339). This reminded
readers that these gruesome activities were an ongoing problem that were not being controlled as
they should be. This could lead to feelings of sadness, pity, or fury. Though Rose did reach the
audience, Reagan’s prose commanded readers to feel multiple emotions perchance to reaction to
the critical circumstance; thus, Reagan was more effective.

Both authors presented strong information for their viewpoint. If I were to look at the
articles solely on their structure, Rose’s article for animal experimentation is the obvious choice
for clear effectiveness. Everything about the article is sound and well-written. However, it
actuality the point of these articles is not to sound eloquent. It’s to be remembered and to
persuade people to pick a side. I believe that Reagan’s article is the one that left a lasting
impression on the readers. Because he lacked in credibility and logic, Reagan knew his best
chance of reaching people was through their hearts. And, it each paragraph, he aims to affect the
readers more and more psychologically. Rose wanted the audience to think rationally and
succeeded in that but the best way to connect with the audience is to gauge them through
emotion. After reading both articles, I concluded that people are more likely to remember
Reagan’s article because they’ll feel it when they think about it. The world revolves around
people’s perspective, and people see what they feel.

Demoralized & Inhumane

Hey Guys!!

Earlier today I was scrolling down my timeline and noticed a post questioning the necessity of animal testing. Now, as an animal lover, I agree that experiments shouldn't be performed on animals, but I had a problem with his alternative for this: use convicts in prison. This is a foolish solution for many reasons I plan to discuss, and it's important to note that dehumanizing people because we think their previous actions in life were immoral isn't going to reap benefits.

First let's discuss animal testing. There are selected types of animals used such as mice, rats, fish, dogs, chimpanzees, rabbits, and guinea pigs. Now, the purpose of using these specific animals is because their DNA is virtually the same as ours. Mice, whose DNA is 99% identical to a humans, are used the most. No other animal besides the chimpanzee close; so, the question of why use the remaining creatures throws itself into the atmosphere. According to the American Anti-vivisection Society, scientists continue to use the other animals because of tradition. In the early 20th century, present-day research still waited to be discovered. An the excuse to continue was the potential to find more medical and biological innovations. However, the same research has been recreated experimenting with synthetic models. And though model organisms are used to study deadly and foreign diseases, it's important to note that animals respond differently to viruses than humans. And scientist still don't understand those differences yet, which is why experiments using model organisms as the basis fail. Is the hope of discovery more important than the lives of these innocent animals, or do nonhuman organisms simply mean less?

To piggyback the idea of "lives meaning less", I want to now talk about the prisoners. When we think of prisoners, the main images in our head are of rapers, murders, and gang members-victims of the streets life. But not all prisoners are behind bars for heinous crimes. The most recent Federal Bureau of Prisons statistics prove that homicide and rape offenses make up only 11% of the prison population. Drug offenders make up 46%, by far the largest percentage. It's safe to say that the majority of people in jail are druggies and dealers. So, why does the minority overshadow the majority? And with this blind view of convicts, how can we ever help them feel welcomed back into their communities and the American society? We look down on the fallen without trying to learn the story of their shortcomings. Now, there's no way to morally justify actions against the law but crimes don't give us the right to condemn-let alone perform experiments on them. Just because someone's in prison, it doesn't mean they're prisoners. People are fallible. Everyone makes mistakes and suffers their own punishments, but that doesn't mean they're monsters. It means they're human.

There are many absurdities connected to both animal rights and the prison system. I think there are works in progress to adjust the future sentences of people in prison, but there should be more motions for the release of the guinea pigs-well all model organisms-and to find other methods to forge scientific advancement. Bottomline: Animals aren't necessary for biomedical research; prisons serve a purpose, but not every prisoner deserves to be in there for long periods of time. And no matter the act committed, everyone deserves a second chance at life.

I have left links to the American Anti-vivisection Society and well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Feedback is encouraged!

AAVS: http://aavs.org/
BOP: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/

-Vernell Allen

WELCOME NATURE LOVERS

Welcome lovers of all things nature and whatnot! My name is Vernell and I am a huge fan of the natural world and it's profound beauty that can even leave a politician speechless. This blog will be about different aspects of nature pertaining to my life as well as different environments. I will also talk about animal rights and human expectations. I believe it is our job to protect this world because, honestly, we are tearing it down. If there are any topics you'd like to read or discussions you'd like to have, contact me and I'll be more than happy to interact. Thank you and enjoy!