The following persuasive essay was written in support of the assertion that “animal experimentation is necessary for the betterment of mankind.”
Preceding the persuasive essay example I have shown the example of a persuasive essay outline that points out the organization of its major sections including problem statement, assertion, concession, proof and conclusion.
Does Rat Have Rights?
Proof of the Existence of Problem: Use Examples
Concession: contrasting arguments
Refutation of contrasting argument
Notes of Discrepancies in opposing arguments
Benefits of animal experimentation: Use Examples
Series of examples of benefits; appeal to authorities
Refutation of contrasting argument; appeal to authority
Additional evidences of assertion: examples
Conclusion: Outcome of contrasting argument
1. Gay rights advocates, feminists, and other civil rights groups have become familiar to most Americans today. But another group, equally militant, is making itself heard, and it promises to become a major force to be recognized: the anti-vivisectionists. They leave wheedled, nagged and sometimes bombed their opponents in the scientific world. Some of these groups have burned down university buildings, broken into labs, flung open cage doors and "liberated" cats, rabbits, rats, juice and dogs being used In heart research. Such actions, while spectacular, have blurred the issues surrounding the use of animals in the search for cures for disease and for the development of new knowledge of the human body. The simple fact is that animal experimentation is necessary for the betterment of mankind. Any qualms over jeopardizing the animals are more than offset by the acquisition of knowledge useful in alleviating human suffering
2. The anti-vivisectionists’ arguments range from the emotional to the spiritual and philosophical. They argue that experimental surgery causes pain and distress to animals. They maintain that there are alternatives to animal use that are more humane. Some anti-vivisectionists claim that many of the studies conducted on animals could be programmed for computer analysis and thereby reduce or even eliminate the need for experiments on living animals. Still others argue that all forms of life-including animals should be preserved and fostered rather than experimented upon.
3. At first glance these arguments appear convincing. Why,
after all, would anyone want to kill a defenseless cat or dog? Upon closer examination, however, the anti-vivisectionist position is scientifically philosophically, and logically impossible. By their preoccupation with alleged pain and suffering of animals used in medical research, anti-vivisectionist are placing a premium on animal life at the expense of human existence and improvement. It is interesting to note that most of them eat meat, yet the meat packing industry, which slaughter millions of animals annually, seldom finds it necessary to defend its activities against them. Animals serve as experimental subjects in teaching surgical operations and techniques; in testing the efficiency and safety of drugs; in psychological studies of pain, stress, and depression; and in helping scientist learn more about the biological processes.
4. Some of the examples of the benefits gained from animal experimentation will make clear its contribution to human welfare. Years ago, infectious disease was the cause of most deaths in the industrialized world. Today infectious disease ranks among the lowest causes of death because of the development of vaccines, which were tested on animals. The toxic effects of many antibiotics and other chemotherapeutic agents were first recognized through their applications in animals. The identification of thalidomide as a teratogen and the discovery of the polio played an important role in the development of new surgical, therapeutic, and electronic devices used to fight diseases associated with the cardiovascular system. Over 60,000 coronary bypass operations are done annually; their success can be traced to the fact that they were originally performed on animals. Animals remain the key for further progress in our conquest of cancer. Other tests are now being done for cures to such long-time ailments as hepatitis and leprosy. It is clear, then, that animal experimentation has proven beneficial in the search for cures to illnesses that afflict mankind. Without such experimentation, we would not have had the contributions of Pasteur, Lister, Salk, DeBakey, or hundreds of other discoverers of cures for ailments plaguing mankind.
5. Some anti-vivisectionists have recently claimed that studies conducted on animals could be programmed for computer analysis and thereby eliminate the need for experimentation on live animals. But computers have been used since their inception in biological research and, with their growing complexity; have extended the frontiers of investigation. If anything, computer availability has contributed to the increasing demand for animals for research. To suggest that animal experimentation could be replaced by Computer printouts are totally unrealistic. Even Albert Schweistzer recognized in his own unique philosophical scheme of things that scientific experiments with animals were necessary for the alleviation of human ills.
6. Operations that were impossible or highly dangerous a few years ago are routinely accomplished today with a high degree of safety, thanks to extensive experimentation on lower animals. This is particularly true in the area of neurology. The human brain is most complex and superbly designed structure known. Our understanding of its functions, such as intelligence and memory, is extremely limited. Without the use of experimental animals, particularly those whose nervous systems are similar to that of man, we will be unable to decipher the mysteries of cerebral performance. Without experimental surgery on animals, we will never be able to develop now and improved methods for the treatment of neurological diseases, many of which are now incurable.
7. Some anti-vivisectionists argue that all life is sacred and unified, and that therefore it is morally wrong to use lower animals in research and teaching. But medical scientists answer that there is simply no historical. biological, philosophical, or theological justification for applying the principles of human morality and ethics to nonhuman creatures. Anti-vivisectionists are really saying that the suffering of animals is of greater moral weight than are the advancement of human Understanding and the alleviation of human suffering. How can it be right to use animals to provide food for our bodies but wrong to use them to provide food for thought? As rational beings we recognize the concept of life and how it varies among plants, animals, and human beings; therefore, we believe that different principles apply for each of the forms of life. To include lower animals in our ethical system is philosophically meaningless.
8. The anti-vivisectionist position can be supported only if one believes that the moral value attached to the avoidance of animal suffering is greater than the moral value attached to the alleviation of human suffering. If we are to continue our search for cures to combat the many ailments that afflict mankind, and if we are to alleviate suffering and improve the quality of our lives, then we must continue to rely upon animal experimentation.
Best of Luck in the Future!!!