Pros And Cons Of Animal Welfare

Words: 544
Pages: 3

Focusing Question: Are animal welfare activists justified in their position?

Source: Andre, Claire, and Manuel Velasquez. "Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small." Santa Clara University. Santa Clara University, Spring 1998. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Rapid Summary: What I understand this article to be saying is that animals deserve the same treatment we give our own species. Pain is evil and no one deserves to be in pain, the scientists who conduct experiments also are evil. Most experiments done were pointless and morals were ignored. When we test on animals, we are being racist or sexist towards the animals. Animals are living beings just like us so they should have all the rights that we have and should not be subject to pointless experiments no matter what. The argument that studies would not progress if animal testing was to be made illegal is false, and nothing good comes from animal testing.

Narrative of Thought:
…show more content…
In the first paragraph, the authors claim that head injuries claim “more that 50,000 lives a year”(Andre, Velasquez) (and yes there was a spelling error, that instead of than) and then stating that there were videos that recorded “the deliberate and methodical inflicting of severe head injuries on unanesthetized chained baboons” (Andre, Velasquez), makes your argument futile. I understand that maybe the way they caused head injuries was inhumane, but seeing as there are 50,000 deaths a year from head injuries - it seems like a condition that needs to be researched. I’m not sure how they would inflict head injuries without seeming