Paper for Arellano's Class

Darlene McCoy
Mr. Arellano
AP Gov - Period 2
22 March 2009

Animal Rights - or Wrongs?!
In the next year, it is estimated that Americans will spend four billion dollars on their pets. Apparently, people in America like animals. The debate over animal rights has raged for years. Is it right for humans to slaughter animals for food? Is it right for us to turn their hides into fur? Should they be experimented on? Should they have to perform in a circus? And the biggest question: should they have equal rights as us? The contenders for this match are PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and anyone interested in challenging them.
According to PETA, in the US, more than 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food and apparently, raising animals on factory farms is cruel and ecologically devastating. Also, eating animals is bad for our health, because eating meat leads directly to many diseases and illnesses, including heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes, and obesity. PETA would love everyone to "Go Veg!" Even Paul McCartney adds, "If anyone wants to save the planet, all they have to do is stop eating meat. That's the single most important thing you can do. It's staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty." PETA further adds that animals are treated like meat, milk, and egg machines, and gives descriptions of how each is not treated right. The site talks about how the animals are kept in too small cages, and how they are bred to produce, and how the slaughtering procedure is so cruel. There's also a page showing how good not eating meat is for the environment. We'd have more water, pollute the world less, cut down less trees, and use less raw materials. With these statistics, who would not want to "Go Veg?"
The meat industry, which is the US economy's largest agricultural contributor, would not be so happy if everyone went vegetarian. In 2003, the meat industry was worth $90 billion. People would lose their jobs, and their incomes! Giving up an industrial giant for animals would be an insane cause. Maybe if the process could be done over time, we could do it, but cutting meat out of the US's products would be devastating to the economy. Unless PETA wants to pay the $90 billion for the industry, the idea of everyone going vegetarian is ridiculous, though the idea of going vegetarian over time is much more reasonable. Also, shouldn't people decide for themselves what they want to eat?
Personally, I eat meat. I like meat, it tastes good. I'm really sorry about the animals getting slaughtered, but honestly not sorry enough to give up that tri-tip. Animals should not have equal rights when it comes to eating them for food, it's the way the world was meant to be, but the cruelty needs to stop. The sad thing is, nobody is going to be able to make sure animals on a farm are correctly treated, and even if it were possible, the amount of money it would cost would be astounding.
The fur and animal skin industry is another thing that PETA points out to be cruel. In the wool industry, lambs' ears are punched, their tails are chopped off, and the males are castrated, all without anesthetics. While they don't say a whole lot about leather, they do point out that veal, or baby cow, skin is made into calf skin and then sold off. The leather of cows also accounts for two thirds of the value of a cow. Finally, PETA attacks the fur industry, stating that, "Animals on fur farms spend their lives in tiny cages only to be killed by anal or genital electrocution. Some are skinned alive. Animals in the wild may languish for days in traps before they die or are killed." In the US, 3 million animals are bred for their fur, and 4 million more are trapped.
The fur industry alone contributes 1.8 billion dollars to our economy. This is much less than the meat industry, and is something we could do without. While fur can be seen as something to distinguish oneself, there are many other choices. While people would still lose their jobs, I think PETA would be more willing to pick up the 1.8 billion dollar price tag versus the 90 billion of the meat industry. There is really no reason why these animals should suffer, and they should have rights protecting them. Animals should be protected from dying for their fur or skin. I do not wear fur, and I don't think fur is right in any way. I wouldn't like to be hunted for my skin. The only exception to this in my eyes is the leather from cows that have been killed for meat. It'd just be a waste to not use as much as the cow as possible, if it has to die.
There are no records of the number of animals tested on, but PETA says that it is estimated to be in the millions. They say that, "New research methods, such as computer models, cell cultures, and human studies are more accurate, less expensive, and much more humane." Even under The Animal Welfare Act, the number of animals tested on is still unknown. The act forces companies to note the number of animals tested on, except for mice, birds, and rats, which constitute for 80 - 90% of animals used in tests. Animals are forced to inhale and eat products. Lotions and creams are tested on animals, and some products are even squirted into animals' eyes!
Animal testing has done wonderful things, because of it, we as humans have hope to cure diseases. What are the alternatives to animal testing, anyway? I do believe that there is a bigger difference between humans and computers than humans and animals. I'm not sure that people would stand by as other people were treated as animals are. It's wrong for any living thing to be tested on, but better them than us. A few of the links on PATHWAI's, People Against Treating Humans Worse than Animals, International, site include headlines such as, "Researchers using genetically modified mice develop a promising treatment for Alzheimer's disease, Groundbreaking work done with rhesus monkeys show possibilities in a new treatment for HIV." There's a quote as well, "Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it." by Ingrid Newkirk, the national director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. I think if we found cures for these diseases, the lives would be worth it. I feel selfish for saying and believing what I do, but as horrible as it is, animals dying and being tested on so people won't die of AIDs anymore would be a sweet deal. I think companies should be allowed to chose whether they want to test on animals or not. PETA can boycott products all they want, but animal testing for medical reasons is something I don't think we should give up for animals. Once again, this is how the world works, the strong use the weak to their advantage. Therefore, animals should not have the right to not be tested on. Like the meat industry, I just believe that they should be tested on in the least cruel way possible.
Another issue PETA attacks is that of animals for entertainment. They point out that animals are forced to do tricks by being whipped, prodded, and electrocuted. They say that the animals are bored, lonely, and frustrated because they are kept in cages for weeks and weeks. They are moved like mere furniture. PETA asks people to speak out for the animals in these industries that can't speak for themselves. They ask people to hike or go to a baseball game instead of the circus, because they are unkind! They attack zoos and aquariums for keeping animals in cages for all their lives.
I have to agree with PETA on this issue, unless the animals are happy, they shouldn't be made to perform. But, I don't even know of any circus besides Barnum and Bailey that exists anymore. Barnum and Bailey take care of their animals anyway. Quotes directly from their site state that, "The animals are fed, watered, groomed and cleaned daily. The relationships are based upon respect, trust, affection and uncompromising care. Verbal or physical abuse and the withholding of food or water are strictly prohibited." Zoos and aquariums protect otherwise endangered animals.
Matt Prescott is the director of corporate affairs for PETA, and says in a nutshell that, "Animals have a thought process, and every week we learn about who they are rather than what they are. Anyone with a dog or a cat knows that their animals have feelings and emotions, and he doesn't understand why we don't treat all animals well. He then describes some immoral things that we do to animals. We amended our ways when it came to women's right's, slavery, and child labor, but we haven't for animals yet, and he calls us to examine our treatment of animals! He explains that there is no real sacrifice for the ethical treatment of animals, and that the alternatives to treating animals poorly are just simply ways of treating them better. He says the animal rights movement is simply a matter of basic human decency."
On the opposite end of the spectrum, David Martosko is the director of research at the Center for Consumer Freedom. His argument is that, the animal rights philosophy reduces you and your family's moral value to that of animals. He is not against being a vegetarian, not wearing fur, or not fishing, but he believes that people should be able to do as they please. He believes that if animals receive equal rights, a massive change in society is due. We'd all have to eat vegetarian dishes, because there wouldn't be anything else available. He says that groups like PETA argue for not using animals in any way, no matter how responsible or gentle. Without animal testing, we'd have to abandon the hope of ever curing AIDs or cancer. Without hunting and fishing, the predators of ecosystems would over populate. Zoos and aquariums wouldn't be around to preserve species, and seeing-eye dogs would have to be released, and the blind would just have to deal with their problem. We should always treat animals with the utmost care, but to give them the same rights as us isn't reasonable. We're the only species that can understand this debate, when a dog can, talk to me!
I have to agree with David. There is no way my cat's life would mean as much to me as that of my brother's. Not that I don't love my cat, because I do, but a human life is more valuable in my eyes. Animals don't pay taxes, and they can't even think morally. They can't vote! I also believe that before we take care of animals, we should take care of ourselves. There are plenty of people in Africa and across the world who are dying of malnutrition that could use all the money PETA and other organizations put into animal rights. The idea of an animal having as much rights as a human when they can't do all a human can is beyond me. I love animals to death, but the idea is unreasonable. I do believe that animals should be treated right and with respect, but there's a point where it's a little ridiculous. Therefore, by law, animals shouldn't have equal rights as humans, but they should have some rights, maybe a different set, but never equal. Animals should always be given their basic necessities of life, and they should always be able to be happy. The cruelty needs to stop, but not the way PETA would like it to.