PRO ANIMAL RIGHTS

As our nation develops, our various societies grow, and so does the demand for more
products and innovations, but there is always a species that needs to be sacrificed to produce
these results, and this time, it is the animals that have to pay the price. There has been much
debate on the subject of whether or not animals are allowed any rights and the defined
consequences of those rights as well. However, there is less deliberation on the matter of
giving animals their rights and the magnitude of the issue. The subject of animal rights
enlightens human beings that as a norm, certain habits ought to be well-thought-out as wrong.

Ethically, people have a responsibility to refrain from said traits; this entails not
performing them even if they are humane. For example, if animals had a right to not being
reared for the sustenance of human beings, then humanity has a responsibility towards laying
down preventive measures. It does not matter if animals are provided with outstandingly good
treatment during their lifetime and afterwards slain without pain or fear; this is what animal
rights stands for (Cohen). However, in awarding animals these rights, it would have a
devastating consequence on the benefits society relishes from animals.

On the other hand, social principles advocate that animals are not eligible for any
rights. For example, awarding rights to animals would indicate that laboratory experiments
done on them should be terminated. The principal purpose why animal testing is conducted
comes with the benefits unearthing new discoveries of medical drugs and treatments for the
well-being of the human body. Indeed, many treatments and medical advances have been
made possible through animal research and testing. These advances include therapies and
cures for preferred forms of cancer, and the drugs that have been made possible through
animal testing include but not limited to; antibiotics, insulin, HIV control medication, and

many other vaccines; this is among the main reasons of how animal research and testing
advances human health.
Another added value resulting from animal experiments comes with tests done to
certify that a particular drug is safe for human usage. Testing is done for other substances that
people use or are exposed to in their day to day lives. Drugs will threaten human health when
developed without following the proper channels. In this case, animal testing provides
researchers with the chance of measuring the threat level and expected side effects of drug
use preceding their certification for human use.

Primarily, trials are conducted on animals with similar features to those of humans, in
this case, primates. In this esteem, the investigators put into deliberation the variances and
likenesses available in humans and primates comprehensively and henceforth make a
deduction on the subject of the new drug (Rohr). Therefore, advances achieved through
animal testing have significantly profited the society.

Some may argue that the trials expose the animals to discomfort and instil fear, but
awarding those rights against these tests would hinder community from realizing great strides
in the medical field. Furthermore, since it is essential for the predatory animals to eat if they
are to endure. On the other hand, people eat meat for good satisfaction since they have many
sources of nutrition other than harvested crops. However, the American Dietetic Association
is backing the idea of diets that comprise of both vegetables and meat for a healthy human
body. As it states, the organization is authorised with aptly planning nourishments that contain
both meat and vegetables; and have been reputable to be nutritionally adequate, healthful and
have been proven to provide the human body with sustenance.

On a more positive note, when we strive to award animal rights, thus reducing their
numbers in research and testing laboratories. Hence the introduction of non-animal research
methods, though it may take some time for the change, we realise testing new methods that
more accurately predict human reactions and side effects to drugs and toxins. These
humanbased testing approaches are ascertaining to be better at protecting people from
dangerous chemicals than animal experiments could, as well as providing the answers we
need to find effective treatments and remedies for the illnesses that afflict the human race.

Do we need to select to either protect animals or ourselves? This question is the type
that those who have invested animal experimentation would ask. Backers of animal testing
primarily employ the misconception of a fabricated predicament: that we must choose to care
about human needs and suggest that we cannot do both. This flawed thinking leads us to
believe that we must either experiment on either an animal or we must a human child,
implying that we are required to make a choice.

However, not only is this concept that we must either protect animals or humans not
right, in fact, the contrary is true, the human quandary is indistinguishable tied with that of
other animals. A considerable amount of the most significant public health matters humans
faces today directly inter-linked with the way we treat animals; this is inclusive of infectious
disease pandemics, domestic violence, the spread of chronic illnesses, and medical research
failures. Here is a brief example of how poor treatment of animals negatively impacts us; the
gradually increasing international rearing of animals for eggs, meat, dairy products and other
animal products is perilous to both the animals and us. Animals reared for food are now far
and wide overcrowded in factory farms, living in severely messy and harsh conditions; and as
a result of these circumstances there is the creation of the perfect breeding grounds for new,
deadly diseases such as swine flu (Family).

When we treat other animals with decency and in a humanly acceptable manner, there
are direct and indirect benefits to the human condition. When we treat animals inhumanely,
our health suffers. Therefore in few words, what is good for the animals is also what is right
for us.

REFERENCES
Cohen, Carl and Tom Regan. The Animal Rights Debate. Lanham: Rowman& Littlefield
Publishers, 2001.

Family,

The

Mary

T.

and

Frank

L.

Hoffman.

"http://www.all-

creatures.org/articles/arprotecting-animals-humans.html." n.d. An Animal Rights

Article from All-Creatures.

Rohr, Janelle. Animal rights: opposing viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1989.