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 part in the debate. It is, however, a particularly difficult battle for the antivivisectionists, for they live in a society of omnivores who eat, wear and make tools and playthings out of animals, a society which, with the advent of AIDS and other mysterious and virulent new diseases, is becoming increasingly convinced that its very survival depends on animal experimentation. Society panics in the face of cancer and AIDS and the flesh-eating streptococcus v...