Answering Arguments Against Animal Rights
Part VIII -- Argument Six: Animal rights advocates put animals ahead of people (continued)
A tiny monkey being experimented on

But animal experimenters often try to convince us that the natural rights of humans are given up for the natural rights of non-humans whenever animal experimentation is curtailed.

I have devoted an hour-long program, entitled Experiments in Ignorance, to this issue, so I'll be very brief here.

Dogs strapped down in a lab

The issue is not really one of "babies or dogs," as the pro-vivisectors would like us to believe. There has never been an instance where we could say, "If we kill this dog, your baby will live." There is not a parent in the world who would hesitate over such a decision. But not even the most ardent supporter of vivisection would claim that such a situation ever exists. The strongest claim one could make is that if we kill thousands of animals, maybe we'll learn something that might be applicable to human health: then again, it's more likely -- given our track record -- that we won't.

But even if we do find something, there is at best only a fifty-fifty chance that it will help rather than harm humans. The only accurate test in reality is to try it out on humans: because the results of tests on one species give no indication of what the results will be in another species or even in a different strain of the same species. As surprising as it sounds, this fact is not disputed by the experimenters. They admit that the results of their tests are meaningless. And yet they cry out for more funding to continue their work.
Easter Seals, Multiple Sclerosis Association of America

Here again there is no need to abuse animals in this way. Better alternative exist. Many fine organizations, such as Easter Seals and the Multiple Sclerosis Association of America, conduct research using modern methods rather than testing on animals.

Though we don't want to stop useful research (as opposed to say: shooting cats in the head to see what happens)...
Starving people

...we must keep in mind that thousands of people die every day from a lack of the most basic health care. Things we already know how to do could save their lives. Should we be devoting billions of dollars in experiments on animals in faint hopes of finding cures for rare diseases that few but the rich could afford? Or should we concentrate on preventing disease and death by providing basic health care for all? The moral choice is clear.
Experimenters Injecting a small animal

While experimenters expend billions of our tax dollars and frantically try to convince us of the value of their work in prolonging human life...
A living will

...we march off in droves to lawyers to prevent them from inflicting these life-prolonging measures on us!

In many cases we don't even want what they're offering. Most of us accept the natural fact that eventually we shall die. At what cost are we willing to prolong our lives a little bit longer? How many others are we willing to torture so that we might have a few more moments of life?
Contents   Prev   Next: Part IX -- Argument Six (conclusion)
This site is concerned with: ethics, compassion, empathy, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Watchtower, poetry, philosophy, atheism, and animal rights.