Animal Experimentation Argumentative Analysis

783 Words4 Pages
In Animal Experimentation: Opposing viewpoints series by Greenhaven press, the negative and positive points of animal testing are discussed and it is explained how animals have rights, experimentation is immoral and inhumane, and it is unnecessary so experimentation on animals of medical products intended for human use should be outlawed. Speciesism is the belief that the species Homo sapiens is superior to other animal species. Racism is the belief that one's race is superior to another’s race. Sexism is the belief that one sex is superior to another. Just as all races are equal and all genders are equal, all species are also equal and should be considered so. There are no superior species so if we wouldn’t test medical products on humans…show more content…
Animals and humans are equal because like humans, other animals are psychological beings and have an experimental welfares of their own, so they do not deserve to be experimented on (Greenhaven Press # 28). As far as the mortality of experiments goes, “non-human animals suffer just as much as human ones do” (Greenhaven press #82). Humans aren’t the only animals that feel pain. Psychologically, non-human animal species are closely related to Homo sapiens and the agony and pain felt by these animals is the same as that felt by humans. If medical experiments wouldn’t be conducted on humans, other animals shouldn’t have to be subjected to them either since they also feel pain. So it is morally wrong to perform medical experiments of products intended for human use on animals since the experiments are agonizing whether it be humans or other animals. And also depending on the experiment, “lab animals will sometimes suffer more than people would, sometimes physically, sometimes psychologically.” (Greenhaven press #84). Sometimes animals can feel more physical or emotional pain than humans would in certain…show more content…
And if they are not necessary in experimentation, they do not deserve to be experimented on just for a null result. If it isn’t absolutely vital to harm animals for the sake of human intended medical products’ research, then why do it? Since it isn’t needed, scientists shouldn’t experiment on animals, they should stick with the effective methods they already have learned and seen work instead of harming innocent animals and wasting time and money on useless labs. Animals are living beings, they weren’t put on the planet for the purpose of being experimented on. They don’t deserve to be treated so terribly just to try to test medical products that weren’t even intended for use on them. If scientists want animals so badly for tests, why not the animals that these tests were designed for? If the products are intended for human use, than other animals shouldn’t suffer for being innocent. Clearly, animal experimentation is immoral, unnecessary, and animals have rights too, so they shouldn’t be tested on and they most definitely shouldn't have to go through agonizing inhumane procedures that will scar them for
Open Document