Hi, I am a bit new to the site so I am not sure 100% how everything goes on here. I am assigned an essay that is to be around 1000 words with a minimum of at least three works cited. The topic of the essay is the same as the topic of this thread and the type of essay is to be an argumentation or persuasive. I am leaning a little toward the persuasive side as most of the benefits outweigh the cons in my opinion, and truthfully, if everything is done as respectively as possible then all of the benefits outweigh the cons...Once again, this is still opinionated. The essay has to be in third person and cannot be changed from that. Any tips on where I should begin? I cannot even really think up a good topic or thesis sentence for it and that is where I usually begin. Oh, and for anyone's information that reads this, the reason I am posting all this information is mainly so I can stay on track as much as it is to help you understand what parameters I am working with.
-David
YOU CAN WRITE THAT THAT ANIMALS ARE LIVING BEINGS THEY ALSO EAT AND WALK
ONLY DIFFERENCE WITH HUMAN BEING THEY CAN'T THINK LIKE HUM BEING. ANOTHER THING YOU CAN WRITE THAT GOD MADE ANIMALS FOR ECOLOGICAL REASONS .
niraj, could you please stop shouting at everyone, which is what ALL-CAPS means.
David, argumentation and persuasion are not mutually exclusive, and in fact essays that do one generally also do the other.
If you believe that animals should be used for medical research, then that becomes the core of your thesis statement. Then, you need to decide what your reasons are, and craft a summary of them that you can attach to the thesis core. Also, for this topic, you are going to have to explore some of the objections to animal research, and make it clear what limits, if any, you believe should be placed on it.
The main argument for the side you seem to be leaning towards would be that moral responsibilities generally exist only between moral beings. Animals are not capable of moral reasoning, and therefore cannot be considered moral beings. They are therefore excluded from being objects of moral responsibility in the way people are. So, we have a a moral responsibility to people to try to help them, but no such responsibility to animals. This is a simplified version of the argument of course, and you will have to flesh it out to create a convincing essay, but the case is fairly easy to make, as most people intuitively accept it anyway. Some don't, though, and you will have to respond to their potential objections. I'm sure that at some point, someone who feels strongly about animal rights will stumble on this thread and offer you some idea of what those objections might be.
I am still trying to find where i can add in a couple more citations (and i dont have my works cited page yet so im not listing it here so plz dont hit me with plagrism for the 2 places ive sited some information) But here is pretty much the rough draft of my essay.
Why the use of animals for research should be continued.
The use of animals in laboratory research is a very well known debate. With the use of animals for research, many people wonder if the animals are treated well and if they are taken care of properly. Some of these people even go to the extreme trying to shut down some places they deem inhumane. While others only think about how much we gain by having living things to look at without having to blindly test every theory we have on human patients while just hoping nothing bad happens. Personally, I think of both of these sides and when it comes down to it, I have already made my decision. For humans' health, animals' health, and furthering our knowledge in medicine and medical practices, the human race needs to continue using animals for medical research.
I do not know about every other person in the world, but when it comes down to me dying compared to an animal dying, I am definitely going to choose the animal to die. What most people do not know is that around 90% of the animals used in research are rodents such as rats or mice(NCABR 13). Most of those rodents are specifically bread just for that reason, to be used in research labs. There are other animals, such as dogs, pigs, and cows that are used in research too, but once again, the majority is rodents. Most of the surgeries are non-invasive procedures in which the animal feels very little pain or no pain at all. In cases where the animal does feel large amounts of pain, the animal is usually injected with an anesthetic. The only better alternative to using animals to understand how medicine and medical procedures work would be to use humans, and I know I am not volunteering my body while I am still alive.
What happens if I bring my dog into an animal clinic because it is sick one day, only to find out they have never seen something like this sickness before, or they do not know how to treat the sickness that it has? My dog will die. Every day scientists are finding new ways to help not only humans, but animals too. The whole reason they are doing most of these tests on animals is because certain animals are really close to humans when it comes downs to organs and how the body works. Because of this closeness, animals can be susceptible to many diseases humans can. So the more we know about how these diseases affect these animals the better we can fight them. For example:
The canine role in diabetes research has paid off for dogs too since diabetes is one of the most common endocrine disorders to occur in the dog. In modem veterinary medicine, diabetes has become a treatable disease in dogs. Management of the condition is achieved through insulin therapy and diet modification, similar to what is prescribed for humans(NCABR 12).
Without using animals in research labs, our progression with medicine and medical sciences would slow down dramatically. Every day new medicines and practices are coming out that, without the help of animals, would never make it to us. Well, they might make it to us, but only after blindly testing on random human volunteers that could possibly die just as easily from the testing as a rat would if used in the humans place. If it was not for animal testing, both polio and leprosy would probably be wide spread and still a major threat today. While they are still a small threat to worry about in some countries, they are very much gone from the more industrialized countries such as the United States because of animal testing. Animal testing is a very vital part of this worlds learning. Without it we would be in the dust about many diseases and even minor coughs and colds.
I cannot imagine a world without the use of animals for food, for clothing, or for pets. Where a dog or even a rat was considered a moral equal of a human. Just as equally, I cannot imagine a world without animal testing. It would make the world a lot harsher of a place without it. We would have two other options, either stop researching diseases and medicines and attempt to treat them as they come without any knowledge of them, or have humans sacrifice themselves in the name of science so we may test various procedures and drugs on them after infecting them with something that could very well kill them. I think I would rather stick with doing it to rats.
"The use of animals in laboratory research is a very well known debate."
Not so much. There is a longstanding debate over the use of animals in laboratory research, though.
"What most people do not know is that around 90% of the animals used in research are rodents such as rats or mice"
So? What does this have to do with anything? Unless you are arguing that our ability to anthropomorphize creatures should be the main principle guiding which ones we use in research (which is both illogical and difficult to defend, to boot, given the number of cartoons featuring mice as heroes) there is no reason why it would be better to experiment on mice than on dogs, pigs, cows, monkeys, etc.
"Every day scientists are finding new ways to help not only humans, but animals too."
Not a bad point, but not too convincing either. For one thing, there are plenty of counterexamples of research that leaves animals in debilitating pain. For another, few people, even the most radical animal rights kooks, argue that medical research on animals isn't beneficial to humans. They argue instead that we don't have the moral right to perform such research even if it benefits us. So, you should probably address that concern . . .
"I cannot imagine a world without the use of animals for food, for clothing, or for pets. Where a dog or even a rat was considered a moral equal of a human. Just as equally, I cannot imagine a world without animal testing."
Your lack of imagination is not an argument for anything, and your assertion that it is makes me want to ridicule you as harshly as I can. And I support your position. Revise.
