Animal Rights

Animalshave been victims of the age of innovation and technologicaldiscoveries especially in the medical field as test specimens.Scientists use animals such as rats, mice, sheep, and some insectbreeds. Scientists pass the judgment saying a sacrifice of a fewanimals for the cause to save humanity as genuine. On the other hand,animal rights terrorists move to an extent of physical life threatsagainst these scientists. These terrorist counter all mistreatmentsagainst animals such as slaughtering, testing, and use in manuallabor such as farming. The groups of animal rights activists claimthat animals, just as human beings, have life and deserve rights justas human beings do.

Inreview of The Evil of Animal &quotRights&quot by AlexEpstein and Yaron Brook the discussion takes an affirmative andopposing perspective on the question, should animals have ‘rights’?

Affirmative Perspective

Animalsshould have closely similar rights as human beings. According to thedirector for Last Chance for Animals, as animal rights terrorists,they wouldn’t care any less if the death of a single rat meantcuring all diseases on the face of the earth (605). These strongcomments come from different reasons as it is outside humanjustification to have animals and meals, clothing and experimentalspecimen. Truth to the matter is that human beings do not give lifeto animals, and following the same, have no right to take it away noroppress them. Taking such an extremist position would mean severalchanges to both the human and animal species, which lead to anopposing perspective.

Opposing Perspective

Scientistsuse animals in experiments despite the violent opposition to maintainsurvival of the human race. Survival comes in different faces.Scientists use animals in labs to test drugs for human safety becausethey are, genetically, closest to human botany. Scientists believethat it is for a good cause to sacrifice the life of a few rats tosave an entire generation. According to Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook(604), evolution of man from the cave life to civilization would beconceptually impossible without countering animal rights.

Peopleuse animals for other daily survival activities as food, fur to keepwarm, transportation, and plowing. These activities end the life ofan animal where employed or lead to it. However, if it were not so,people would die of hunger and cold. The argument on animal rightsagainst human actions against them boils down to human survival.Human beings try hard to ensure survival of all animal species afterkilling and experimenting on a few. Additionally, scientists alsowork on producing the best animal breeds that are resistant to mostof the animal diseases. Therefore, it is justified for scientists toemploy rats in their experiments but ensure their survival.

Manyanimals have a killer instincts. Human beings use protective measuresas killing or taming them in game parks, not plainly for amusement,but to ensure safety for both parties. It then sets it clear thathuman beings have also have some animal rights as part of theirinterests. For a peaceful survival of both species, there needs to bea dominant and a dominated one. From a personal perspective,scientists can use a few rats for medical based experiments if itmeans a step closer to a disease cure.

Works Cited

AlexEpstein and Yaron Brook. “The Evil of Animal ‘Rights’” 2001:(604 -605)