Logical Debate about Animal Rights

In college I looked into joining the campus animal rights group and
read every link on the PeTA website. However, NO ONE was able to
provide me with a logical argument to support this cause. There is
plenty of emotion, but where is the logic? The arguments I've heard
have been:

1. No one in research cares about these animals.
---- I work in research... and I do care. So does my room mate, my
boss, and my and co-workers at various different animal research
facilities where I've worked. This is just who I know personally, I am
sure we aren't the only ones.

2. Animal and people are different so animal research is unreliable.
---- Not true. I was pre-vet in college and took many of the same
classes as the pre-med students. Cells are the same. Hearts, lungs,
kidneys, livers, gall bladders, etc. are the same. The main difference
is the size.

3. No one is even looking for alternatives to animal research.
---- Not true. The company I work for not only raises animals for use
in research, it is also one the world's leaders in researching
alternatives. In fact the only ones not looking for animal research
alternatives are the animal rights organizations like PeTA and HSUS.

4. Researchers get to do whatever they want, no matter how cruel, and
nobody is there to stop them.
---- Not true. Both the AWA and the PHS policy require the formation
of a group called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
(IACUC). This committee's main goal is to protect the animals.
Researchers need to convince the IACUC that they are using the absolute
minimum number of animals that every possible step will be taken to
eliminate or at least reduce pain and distress in these animals, that
this research will benefit both animals and people, and that this
research has never been done before. This committee is required by
federal law to have at least 1 vet, 1 scientist, and 1 member of the
community that has nothing to do with research institute (the law
recommends this person be a religious/moral leader or someone with
ethical training). This last "non-affiliated" member is there to make
sure that the research is serving public and not just the whim of the
investigator. Most IACUC have many more than just the 3 members, but
this is the minimum required.

5. Then, after I didn't by the above arguments, ARAs usually post a
link to a picture of some animal suffering in horrible housing
conditions. However, they neglect to mention when and where these
photos were taken. I agree that bad things have happened to animals in
the past, but showing me a picture form 1912 Bosnia is not going to
convince me that animals are being tortured in the lab down the hall
today.

Does anyone have a new argument for animal rights? I'm getting tired
of running in the same circles with people trying to convince me that I
haven't seen what I've seen or learned what I know for a fact. Is
there a logical argument for animal rights? Or is everyone on this
site just regurgitating what PeTA has told them is true?

There's no debate here---"ANY EXCUSE WILL SERVE A TYRANT"--Aesop

Vonne wrote:
> In college I looked into joining the campus animal rights group and
> read every link on the PeTA website. However, NO ONE was able to
> provide me with a logical argument to support this cause. There is
> plenty of emotion, but where is the logic? The arguments I've heard
> have been:
>
> 1. No one in research cares about these animals.
> ---- I work in research... and I do care. So does my room mate, my
> boss, and my and co-workers at various different animal research
> facilities where I've worked. This is just who I know personally, I am
> sure we aren't the only ones.
>
> 2. Animal and people are different so animal research is unreliable.
> ---- Not true. I was pre-vet in college and took many of the same
> classes as the pre-med students. Cells are the same. Hearts, lungs,
> kidneys, livers, gall bladders, etc. are the same. The main difference
> is the size.
>
> 3. No one is even looking for alternatives to animal research.
> ---- Not true. The company I work for not only raises animals for use
> in research, it is also one the world's leaders in researching
> alternatives. In fact the only ones not looking for animal research
> alternatives are the animal rights organizations like PeTA and HSUS.
>
> 4. Researchers get to do whatever they want, no matter how cruel, and
> nobody is there to stop them.
> ---- Not true. Both the AWA and the PHS policy require the formation
> of a group called the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee
> (IACUC). This committee's main goal is to protect the animals.
> Researchers need to convince the IACUC that they are using the absolute
> minimum number of animals that every possible step will be taken to
> eliminate or at least reduce pain and distress in these animals, that
> this research will benefit both animals and people, and that this
> research has never been done before. This committee is required by
> federal law to have at least 1 vet, 1 scientist, and 1 member of the
> community that has nothing to do with research institute (the law
> recommends this person be a religious/moral leader or someone with
> ethical training). This last "non-affiliated" member is there to make
> sure that the research is serving public and not just the whim of the
> investigator. Most IACUC have many more than just the 3 members, but
> this is the minimum required.
>
> 5. Then, after I didn't by the above arguments, ARAs usually post a
> link to a picture of some animal suffering in horrible housing
> conditions. However, they neglect to mention when and where these
> photos were taken. I agree that bad things have happened to animals in
> the past, but showing me a picture form 1912 Bosnia is not going to
> convince me that animals are being tortured in the lab down the hall
> today.
>
> Does anyone have a new argument for animal rights? I'm getting tired
> of running in the same circles with people trying to convince me that I
> haven't seen what I've seen or learned what I know for a fact. Is
> there a logical argument for animal rights? Or is everyone on this
> site just regurgitating what PeTA has told them is true?