A Change of Heart about Animals

After reading this article I noticed that Jeremy Rifkins states that animals are very much like humans and we should change the way we treat them. Animals show human characteristics that overlook peoples attention. I agree with Jeremy Rifkin,although animals have human like qualities its inhumane to treat animals like they are inferior to us. Koko,the 300-pound, gorilla managed to master and understand 1,000 words in English. Koko also scored 70 out of 95 on a human IQ test. People shouldn't under estimate the abilities of animals.We should show animals differently because they are more like us than we think. Animals maintain great skills and abilities. We both express our emotions towards life. Animals feel excitement, stress, love, and are very affectionate.Animals should be treated differently because they show great qualities and don't do anything to deserve cruel treatment.

Complete Pathos

While reading the packet of articles we were given, has anyone else noticed that a majority of each of the articles is the writer trying to appeal to our emotions? At first glance, the articles seem to have a neutral standpoint on the issue, but once I started annotating, I noticed that there are subtle hints here and there that kind of lean towards treating animals with complete equality or to stop animal testing. The clearest example I read pertaining to this was in paragraph 15 in A Change of Heart about Animals, by Jeremy Rifkin. "And for the thousands of animals subjected each year to painful laboratory experiments? Or the millions of domestic animals raised under the most inhumane conditions and destined for slaughter and human consumption?" He goes on to question the reader about the inhumane and terrible ways that animals are treated. But, a completely different tone has been established after this paragraph. Prior to paragraph 5, the article seemed neutral and was simply stating facts, noting scientists, and describing different studies. But, after reading the paragraph, I felt discouraged to finish the article. The repetition of questions and examples led me to think that Rifkin was using an appeal to pathos to sway us to recognize that animals should be treated equally. He finished his point by ending the article with "The human journey is, at its core, about the extension of empathy to broader and more inclusive domains." So, overall I just felt that whether he meant to or not, Rifkin included his opinion in the article and used it against the reader to make them feel or see the issue as he does.
The other article that had a clear example of pathos was Of Primates and Personhood...
I think that using an appeal to pathos was an affective way to sway the reader into looking at the issue differently, and that the examples included in the articles were clear enough make us feel bad or agree on different points.

Lost in Standing

I've been on this website multiple times and each time attempting to make a post. I would a draft and then discard it after awhile. My problem isnt that I don't want to post; it's that I can't come up with a standing on this issue. There are so many arguments for both sides and each side is so persuasive. One talks about animals forced into pain and suffering for our benefits; the other argues how animal testing helps find cure for diseases and improve our society. I feel pity for animals that would have to feel suffering through so much pain, but then again, I would want a cure for my detrimental disease.
I've tried reading more articles online about animal research and it only confuses my position on this problem even more.
Does anyone understand my dilemma?

My Opinion

The topic of whether animals should or should not have rights has been in the public eye for quite sometime. I never really had an actual side that I was leaning towards, for I really didn’t take interest in such issues. Last year was when I took notice of the animal rights situation. This was because my Anatomy class assigned a research paper on the ethical issues of animal rights. From my research last year, I finally found my stand on the animal rights issue. I do agree with what Jeremy Rifkin states that animals possess human characteristics such as feelings and self-awareness. Animals AND humans are both creatures. We both have a brain and heart that helps use function and live. Basically humans are no different from animals, which leads to my belief that there should be rights given to animals. Although I do believe animals should have rights, I still think that animals still can be tested or experimented on. As I did my research last year, I remember reading articles stating that animal testing has brought many medical advancements. If animals were given rights, there should be rights that protect animals from harmful or abusive testing. The people testing on the animals must treat them with care from beginning to the end of the experiment. The animals should be provided proper food and housing prior and during these tests. Also with animal testing, the benefits must outweigh the cost. This means that the test should only be done if the benefits will provide a big help or cure for the world needs. Animal testing for make up, vanity, or nonmedical reasons should not be permitted if animals are given rights. The use of animals for entertainment or fashion should be inexcusable as well. This whole topic of animal rights is a very interesting one. As for me, it was very difficult to choose what side of the spectrum to pick. How about your opinion, should animals deserve their own rights? 

COLLEGE

Hey classmates! Today when the counselor came in today to talk about Cal grants and FAFSA, I felt overwhelmed and stressed out. Just when I felt like the stress level was starting to decrease, it sky rocketed back up. There was so much information given, and I couldn't digest all of it at once. If it wasn't one thing it was another, and if it wasn't one website it was another. I couldn't wrap my head around everything that was being said. I kind of wish all of this information was given to us earlier in the year. I also feel like they only mainly focus on four year colleges, instead of community or technical school. I believe I know a lot about four years but not enough about community, which is where I will going in the fall. Maybe it is just me, but hopefully my input can help.

Hooked on a Myth

Before I started to read "Hooked on a Myth", I thought the article would give key facts explaining why we should feel sorry for certain animals. I began reading the article with an open mind, taking all of the facts she gave into consideration. After I read the article I felt genuinely upset and apologetic for how I have treated fish in the past. I never thought that fish could feel the same emotions or pain as us humans do. We don't treat fish like we treat our dogs or cats, and I don't understand why. Fish feel the same amount of pain as dogs or cats do and demonstrate the same emotions, so why do we degrade their morality? I then looked at it from a different point of view. How would us humans feel if we got put through pain intentionally and have animals look at us as though we don't matter? I know I would feel upset, unimportant, and depressed. Studies have shown that fish do demonstrate those emotions, just like us, but we don't pay attention because they aren't as important as other animals. I don't believe we should degrade animals of their morality, because in my eyes, animals are just as human as we are. Hopefully after reading this article, or other articles similar to this, our viewpoint changes on how we should treat animals.

Whose life is more important?

While reading Bob Steven’s response to Jeremy Rifkin’s article, I could not help but nod my head and agree with him. When he said that “There are many human children in the world who do not have these things. Are animals more important than human children?” I changed sides. I was against animal research before but when I read these articles in 11^th grade, it changed my point of views. And also having to do research on this in Anatomy last year, I felt like continuing animal experimentation is the right thing to do. We just need to do whatever we can to survive. I know that going against animal rights sounds like I’m a heartless person but I mean think about it; they have actually helped humans in so many ways. Many vaccines and medicines wouldn’t exist today if it weren’t for animal experimentation. I do believe that animals also suffer and feel pain, but ask yourself, who is more important, your life or the animals? The answer is pretty straightforward and that’s why animal research should continue. Another thing is that humans are not the only ones benefiting from it; animals are also gaining something from animal experimentation. It may be true that animals react to things differently compared to human but if animal testing is banned, who else would researchers experiment on? Humans? That sounds more evil. Animal’s healthcare and lifespan have also improved because of animal testing. Also, animal experimentation is expensive but think about it, money wouldn’t be a problem if we’re talking about our own lives. So, what do you think?