Planet Debate 2011 September/October l-d release Animal Rights
AT: “Animal Testing Necessary”
Download 1.43 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- AT: “Animal Rights Justifies Naziism”
AT: “Animal Testing Necessary”RESEARCH ON NONHUMAN GREAT APES IS IMMORAL AND SHOULD BE REJECTED REGARDLESS OF THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS Gary Francione, Professor of Law, Rutgers, 2004, Animal Rights: Current debates and new directions, eds. Sunstein & Nussbaum, p. 133 Does the use of animals in experiments involve a genuine conflict between human and animal interests? Even if a need for animals in research exists, the conflict between humans and animals in this context is no more genuine than a conflict between human suffering from a disease and other humans we might use in experiments to find a cure for that disease. Data gained from experiments with animals requires extrapolation to humans in order to be useful at all, and extrapolation is an inexact science under the best of circumstances. If we want data that will be useful in finding cures for human diseases, we would be better advised to use humans. We do not allow humans to be used as we do laboratory animals, and we do not think that there is any sort of conflict between those who are afflicted or who may become afflicted with a disease and those humans whose use might help find a cure for that disease. We regard all humans as part of the moral community, and although we may not treat all humans in the same way, we recognize that membership in the moral community precludes such use of humans. Animals have no characteristic that justifies our use of them in experiments that is not shared by some group of humans; because we regard some animals as laboratory tools yet think it inappropriate to treat any humans in this way, we manufacture a conflict, ignoring the principle of equal consideration and treating similar cases in a dissimilar way.
Christopher Anderegg et al, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Europeans for Medical Progress, 2002, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, Scientists have located the genetic defects of many inherited diseases, including cystic fibrosis and familial breast cancer. Trying to "model" these diseases in animals, researchers widely use animals--mostly mice--with spontaneous or laboratory-induced genetic defects. However, genetic diseases reflect interactions between the defective gene and other genes and the environment. Consequently, nearly all such models have failed to reproduce the essential features of the analogous human conditions.62 For example, transgenic mice carrying the same defective gene as people with cystic fibrosis do not show the pancreatic blockages or lung infections that plague humans with the disease,62 because mice and humans have different metabolic pathways.63 MANY DRUG INTERACTION PROBLEMS NOT REVEALED IN ANIMAL TESTS Christopher Anderegg et al, Medical Research Modernization Committee, Europeans for Medical Progress, 2002, A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation, http://www.mrmcmed.org/critcv.html, The General Accounting Office reviewed 198 of 209 drugs marketed from 1976 to 1985 and found that 52% had "serious postapproval risks" not predicted by animal tests.107 56 of 548 drugs (10%) approved between 1975 and 1999 were removed from the market or needed one or more special warnings for possible serious or life-threatening side-effects.108 Despite extensive animal testing, adverse drug reactions remain a leading cause of mortality in the United States, accounting for roughly 100,000 deaths per year.109 HUMAN EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES MORE EFFECTIVE AND USEFUL Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, 2000, Understanding claims about animal experiments, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/understanding_claims.html Comparative studies of human populations have provided important information about the causes of many diseases. The discoveries of the relationships between smoking and cancer, cholesterol and heart disease, high-fat diets and common cancers, and chemical exposures and birth defects came from epidemiologic studies. Such studies also demonstrated the mechanism of transmission of AIDS, and showed how to prevent it. AT: “Animal Rights Justifies Naziism”HITLER’S SUPPORT FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS DOES NOT CONDEMN THEM Richard Posner, Federal Circuit Judge, 2004, Animal Rights: Current debates and new directions, eds. Sunstein & Nussbaum, p. 62 I am not suggesting that the animal rights movement is tainted by Hitler’s support, any more than Hitler’s enthusiasm for limited-access highways should be an embarrassment to our highway builders. The point is only that animal rights have no particular political valence. They are as compatible with right-wing as with left-wing views. WE MUST AUGMENT HUMAN RIGHTS TO DECONSTRUCT NOTIONS OF HUMAN SUPERIORITY – AS LONG AS WE DELEGATE OURSELVES GOD LIKE STATUS VIOLENCE IS INEVITABLE Kyle Ash, earned his B.A. in International Affairs and Political Economy from Lewis and Clark College, his L.L.M. from Brussels School of International Studies of University of Kent at Canterbury, U.K., and is currently working on an M.A. in Global Environmental Policy at American University in Washington, D.C. “INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL RIGHTS: SPECIESISM AND EXCLUSIONARY HUMAN DIGNITY”. Animal Law. 2005 Human reason is a potent asset, and it can be terrestrially beneficent—but only if we convince ourselves to stop using it maleficently. If Mill were alive today, arguing non-speciesist Neo-Utilitarianism, he might reiterate that the Earth’s evolving legal system is suffering from the tyranny of the majority. “Society collectively” is imposing its tyranny over “the separate individuals who compose it.” Protection will require “protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices . . . to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways . . . The logic of Kant and Mill has been useful to our understanding of the shortcomings of natural law, but it has not contributed to a better understanding of the natural world. Their views of other animals are the typical justification for speciesism in international law, as represented by treaties, declarations, and the writings of academics. Upon analysis, the tacit justifications for speciesism in international law are all non sequitur. Speciesism reflects the backwardness of law in that it has not adequately integrated modern qualities of science, namely to be evolutive, to exhaustively refer to empirically-deduced collective knowledge, and to be interdisciplinary. In his book, The Health of Nations, Philip Allott says, “[t]he reality of the human world is a speciesspecific reality made by human beings for human beings.”International law retains the archaic notion that humanity transcends the biosphere. Allott says he is terrified of accepting that “knowledge, mind, and meaning are part of the same world that they have to do with.” However, elevating ourselves to god-like status creates a moral hazard for the way we relate to each other and all other life. Was that not the lesson of our brush with fascism? In international law, the victory of compassion will not be in expanding the circle of human rights, but in redefining their foundation. Human dignity will remain a misnomer as long as it is defined in exclusionary terms. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.43 Mb. Share with your friends:
|