Problem 1: Proving Human Superiority
Accepted as a given even though the evidence is overwhelmingly in the other camp. All opposition to animal rights stems from a belief in this falsehood. Nature does not recognize this alleged supremacy by giving preferential treatment to humans through the workings of gravity and weather, and the predatory homicidal behavior of humans is the greatest rejection of the absurd bigoted idea, which is a conceptual companion to racial or gender supremacy. And the qualities of humanity that are said to demonstrate superiority—rationality, moderation, compassion, can be easily refuted by examining human history and the daily news. By contrast nonhumans can be shown to be moderate in behavior.
This myth lurks behind every objection to animal rights even when it is denied.
Problem 2: Proving Survival of the Fittest ends at the species line
A simplistic attack on animal rights belief is that life is cruel and it is survival of the fittest—and yet those that utter this claim conveniently put the limitations on this motto at species. This despite the fact that humans have attacked each other for thousands of years, and Nature hasn’t weighed in to prevent it from occurring. If one says that humans must base morality upon a vague definition of fitness, then it does not stop one from refining the concept to discriminate via race, gender, religion, physical strength, and any other criteria they choose. Opponents to extending moral concern to nonhumans have no way around this fact.
Problem 3: Defending Hunting as Natural For Humans
Humans, we are told, are meant to hunt-but they are the only animal that requires artificial means to do so. Tigers and lions are born with everything they need. Humans without tools are weaklings. The brain is flaunted as the true weapon for humans—but it is also used for horticulture and devising means of killing other humans. Real hunters don’t garden or kill each other in massive numbers. If hunting by humans is natural, then so is homicide.
Problem 4: Defending Vivisection as Ethical and Necessary
Vivisection is cruel-that’s obvious. Only the most stupid of humans would claim nonhumans enjoy being kept in cages for their entire lives and only removed so they can be tortured worse than the most despised criminals.
Experimentation upon nonhuman animals cannot be reconciled with ethical principles of justice.
To deliberately harm one or more innocent beings and claim you are doing it for altruistic reasons is a perversion of compassion, like helping a homeless man by evicting someone from their home so he can occupy it.
The claim that such research is a necessity is a complete falsehood. Humans are the true model for human medical research. This is common sense. Mice, rats, cats, dogs, monkeys do not have the same physiology as humans. Vivisection upon any subject for medical reasons is a choice, not a necessity.
If nonhuman animal research is necessary then clinical trials on humans would be avoidable. Pfizer would not have been doing experiments on African villagers, Thalidomide would not have been shown safe for humans, and the experimental data of Dr. Mengele would not have been kept and used.
And yet even the claim that medical research is a necessity can be refuted. If it were so important, why aren’t scientists and patients advocating the use of the most hated criminals or volunteers in medical experiments?
Humans are the best and safest model for research, and we send healthy people off to be maimed and killed in wars for natural resources, religion, and political ideology, and yet the war against cancer is only considered of dire importance when it comes to the discussion of abolishing nonhuman animals in research.
Real healers become doctors, they do not become experts at conceiving ways to maim and kill innocent beings.
Vivisectors know they are stabbing in the dark when they experiment upon nonhumans but they keep spewing lies to encourage false hope and ensure financial support. When they claim a breakthrough by torturing rats there is usually a cautionary note that “human trials are still years away.” Violence-loving humans have been around since the dawn of time. They used to find steady employment by being temple priests and cutting open live animals for religious reasons. Now they do it in laboratories but with the same basic motivations. They are like faith healers and evangelists—preying upon the suffering of others for their own financial benefit (or egos).