When someone mentions animal rights what comes to mind? My mind flashes back to a print ad a couple of years ago with half-a-dozen naked models holding up a sign saying We d rather be naked then wear fur! I was very happy to support their cause to stop people from wearing fur as a fashion statement. But when I found out what the animal rights groups stood for, I disagree with their cause and the steps they took to enforce their beliefs on others. Animal rights is against all animal use, even to save lives. The animal rights agenda seeks to ban all animal ownership or use, no matter how humane. That means no hunting or fishing. No livestock farming or ranching. No use of animals in science, medicine, or education. There would be no vaccines, no insulin, or no medical research. No meat, fish, eggs, even honey. No leather shoes, wool sweaters, down jackets or comforters, or silk. That just scratches the surface. No zoos, aquariums, circuses, rodeo, horse racing, or animal actors in film. No pets even if it s a Seeing Eye dog. What most people do not understand is that they want animal welfare, not animal rights. Animal welfare is the philosophy that animals should be treated humanely. Animal welfare activists seek to improve the treatment and well being of animals. Many animal welfare believers might feel OK with eating meat as long as the animal were treated well during their life time, and their death was as quick, and painless as possible. Animal rights and welfare is such a broad topic with so many avenues to discuss. This paper is going to deal with my beliefs that animal research should continue. To ban all animal use is impossible. People who do not wear fur and leather goods are leaders in the animal welfare movement but when it comes to their own health issues they tend to be silent. Animal research has been the bedrock for most of the medical advances for this century. Many breakthroughs such as the treatment of bacterial infections with antibiotics, chemotherapy for cancer patients, organ transplant techniques, insulin for diabetics, and vaccines for small pox, tetanus, polio, measles, hepatitis B have almost eliminated these diseases that were such a problem fifty years ago.
Is animal testing necessary and cruel? Working with animals in research is very necessary. Scientist must test medical treatment for efficacy and test new drugs for safety or toxicity before beginning on human testing. New surgical techniques first must be carefully developed and tested in living, breathing, whole organ systems with pulmonary and circulatory systems like ours. While computer models, cell cultures, and artificial substances that stimulate flesh have a role in the process, they do not replace for muscle, blood, bones, and organs working together in a living system. Is research painful for the animal? Most medical research does not cause the animal undue pain. A 1996 report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture showed that only 53% of the animals are used in research that involves no pain. Another 35% of the animals feel no pain because they receive either anesthesia or pain-killing drugs. In a small number of experiments 12% the drugs were withheld because they would interfere with the results. An example would be the study of pain, which is a major problem for both humans and animals. With so many groundbreaking thing happening in the field of medicine such as the cure of AIDS on the horizon, should it all come to a screeching halt because of some extremist point of view. Even if animal testing produced a cure for AIDS, we d be against it. Ingrid Newkirk, PETA 1. Animal testing save lives no one can dispute that so let the researchers do their jobs to further the life span of mankind.