Antivivisectionist Arguments

This paper will examine the physical inconsistencies in the arguments of antivivisectionists. It will then propose guidelines for a logical, effective antivivisectionist argument. Animal research is an extremely controversial topic in modern society, one which has spawned extreme reactions on both sides of the argument. Scientific researchers are intimately familiar with the horrible diseases such as cancer and AIDS that visit unspeakable suffering on their victims. These scientists know that animal research can help eradicate such diseases, and believe that ignoring possible cures for these diseases is the ultimate inhumanity.

Conversely, antivivisectionists are keenly aware of the tremendous suffering and indignity visited on animals by humans, even if in the name of humanity. Antivivisectionists are concerned that homo sapiens sapiens may be inflicting harm not only on those animals being tested, tortured and killed in the name of science, but also on themselves, lessening their own dignity and worth through the pain they are inflicting on fellow species, just as the Nazis dehumanized themselves through what they did to others.

The animal rights controversy questions the right to life: the right to life of animals versus the right to life of human beings. The opposing sides of the argument measure the value of human life against the value of animal life, value being equated with usefulness. Because of the subjectivity of such a measurement, emotion plays a major

Putting the rights and welfare of animals above the rights and welfare of one's own species does not make sense from either a selfish or evolutionary perspective. The antivivisectionists do have a strong emotional appeal to their argument. Yet that argument and all of the evangelical fervor behind it has failed to stop animal testing. That failure results not only from the antivivisectionists' inability to convince people to choose animals over humans, but from the fact that the antivivisectionists display inconsistencies. Antivivisectionists use highly inflated figures for the number of animals used in scientific research, up to eight to 10 times the real figures (Loeb et al., 1989, p. 2719). Antivivisectionists are particularly upset by the use of primates in animal experimentation, yet, as Loeb et al. pointed out, "the opinion that animals that resemble humans most closely deserve the most protection and care reflects an attitude of speciesism . . . that most activists purportedly abhor" p. 2719). Speciesism is a term coined by animal rights advocate and author Donald Griffin, describing the type of prejudice that judges a creature's worth based on that creature's species. The most disturbing inconsistency in the antivivis

Category: Science - A