By attempting to destroy the essential life-preserving medical testing industry SHAC and their allies reveal the man-hatred contained in the notion of animal rights.
Why do you think the a Show more How do they affect the credibility of the argument and the readers response. Why do you think the authors engage in these obviously bad fallacies? How could the authors have re-worded or re-structured these arguments to be less fallacious? Could they even? How do these fallacies detract from the authors argument? Write a brief personal response to the topic and the use of fallacies. These last two paragraphs will explore YOUR thesis and support. The Evil of Animal Rights By Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook (Tulsa World May 19 2001) Scientists are closer than ever to finding cures for AIDS cancer and other deadly illnesses. But more research and testing are needed and much of it must be done on animals. But will it occur? Not if the animal rights terrorists plaguing Huntingdon Life Sciences have their way. Huntingdon tests new medical products on animalsmostly rats and miceto help determine if the products are safe and effective for human use. According to a recent story in The Wall Street Journal there has been a series of violent attacks on people and property linked to the company. Eleven cars belonging to Huntingdon employees have been firebombed a senior manager had a caustic substance thrown into his eyes by a protester and the companys managing director was seriously beaten by masked assailants. The terrorists ally themselves with a group called Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty (SHAC). The group publishes information about Huntingdon and its shareholders stockbrokers and customers and encourages its members to stage loud protests outside these businesses and the homes of their employees. The protests often include violence breaking and entering property damage and death threats. Lacking adequate police protection and fearing for the lives of their employees many of the targeted companies including Merrill Lynch Citibank Charles Schwab and British Biotech have cut off all association with Huntingdon bringing it to the brink of bankruptcy. SHACs leaders disavow any connection to the violencebut they do not condemn the terrorists responsible for it. After all it is the violence that scares away Huntingdons associates and brings SHAC closer to its goal of shutting down Huntingdon. However that is only the beginningWhen Huntingdon closes well be moving on to the next one says SHAC founder Greg Avery. Ominously the crimes against Huntingdon are not isolated incidents; animal rights terrorists commit more than 1000 crimes annually. Some animal rights leaders are even openly in favor of criminal action. According to Alex Pacheco director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): Arson property destruction burglary and theft are acceptable crimes when used for the animals cause. There is no question that animal testing is absolutely necessary for the development of life-saving drugs and medical procedures. Millions of people will die unnecessarily if it is not permitted. Animal rights activists know this but still demand that animal testing be prohibited. Chris De Rose director of Last Chance for Animals writes: If the death of one rat cured all diseases it wouldnt make any difference to me. This is pure man-hatred. It is common to write off terrorist activity and the vicious statements of animal rights leaders as extremist while maintaining that the majority of people in the animal rights movement have benevolent intentions. But man-hatred is not limited to a few leaders it is inherent in the very notion of animal rights. According to PETA the basic principle of animal rights is: animals are not ours to eat wear experiment on or use for entertainment. To abide by this principle we must leave animals freeto overrun and destroy our property to eat our food even to kill our children. As Michael Fox vice president of The Humane Society explains The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration. This is a formula for human extinction since human survival and progress depend on our ability to kill animals when they endanger us eat them when we need food run tests on them when we fight disease. Without horses for transportation and oxen for plowing without furs to keep us warm and meat to sustain us mankinds ascent from the cave to civilization would have been impossible. Today animal rights advocates want to make the progress of medical science impossibleso that rats may live. The only goal of a doctrine that demands such a sacrifice of man to animals can be the annihilation of man. To attribute rights to animals is to ignore the purpose and justification of rightsto protect the interests of man. Rights make it possible for individuals to coexist peacefully trade and produce provide for their own lives and pursue their own happiness free from the threat of violence. Animal rightswhich demand mans destructionare the antithesis of rights. By attempting to destroy the essential life-preserving medical testing industry SHAC and their allies reveal the man-hatred contained in the notion of animal rights. Our lives depend on rejecting this evil idea. Show less
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!
The post By attempting to destroy the essential life-preserving medical testing industry SHAC and their allies reveal the man-hatred contained in the notion of animal rights. appeared first on Premium Academic Affiliates.
