Persuasion Essay

Rahat Abbas

"If a man aspires towards a righteous life, his first act of abstinence is from injury to animals." -- Albert Einstein

Social movements are like novels each comes with a beginning, followed by a succession of chapters that unfold the story until, ultimately, one reaches the conclusion. The novel here is animal rights, a tale about the advancement of other species in a human-dominated world. Stepping from the shadows of other, better known causes such as the civil rights movement and blossoming from the awareness occasioned by the environmental movement, animal rights is, for the first time, becoming a serious issue for debate. Not long ago, animal rights activists were dismissed as fringe, covered in the press only for their more outlandish activities. More recently, however, animal issues have taken a more prominent place in the national media. Suddenly, stories about animals can also be good or bad, heroic and tragic -take a more prominent place in the evening broadcast. Major newspapers discuss the newest animal rights books and profile those whose legal careers center on animal advocacy. But in order to truly understand the contemporary situation, one must begin with the first chapter. In this debate my value is justice. Therefore, I stand today in affirmation of the resolution, RESOLVED: JUSTICE REQUIRES THE RECOGNITION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS and to now avoid any further confusion in todays round, the affirmative offers the following definitions From dictionary.com animal rights means the rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment and protection from exploitation and abuse that are accorded to humans. Also from dictionary.com, justice means the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness or to uphold the justice of a cause. From Merriam Websters dictionary, justice means the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. Also from Merriam Websters dictionary, requires means to claim or ask for by right and authority.

Observation 1: Rights as dignity By using philosophical definitions of human dignity, such as Kants definition, the affirmative may be able to narrow animal rights in a fashion that does not restrict humans ability to kill animals for food. Dignity would imply the ability for animals to live naturally or comfortably in their environments. The dignified treatment of animals would be the end goal; for example, hunting animals instead of breeding them in meat-producing farms might provide animals with dignity. Eliminating animal cruelty could be a central component of this argument, as cruelty is likely the most common encroachment on animal dignity. Rights as dignity would also allow the affirmative to overcome the common argument of rationality as the litmus test for rights. Whereas the right to live (or even be considered alive) for humans seems to hinge on the ability to use the mind, dignity seems to exist independent of rationality or mental capacity. For example, people in vegetative states, kept alive by machines, can have the plug pulled, but cannot be killed in another, undignified manner. In the same manner, animals, though lacking what we would call human rationality, would still have the right to dignity, even if they could be killed for food.

Contention 1: Humans should preserve the natural habitat of wild animals Subpoint A: Animals need a place to live freely. Habitat conservation for wild species is one of the most important issues facing the environment today both in the ocean and on land. As human populations increase, land use increases, and wild species have smaller spaces to call home. More than half of Earth's terrestrial surface has been altered due to human activity, resulting in drastic deforestation, erosion and loss of topsoil, biodiversity loss, and extinction. Species cannot survive outside of their natural habitat without human intervention, such as the habitats found in a zoo or aquarium, for example. Preserving habitats is essential to preserving biodiversity. Migratory species are particularly vulnerable to habitat destruction because they tend to inhabit more than one natural habitat. This creates the need to not only preserve the two habitats for migratory species, but also their migratory route. Altering a natural habitat even slightly can result in a domino effect that harms the entire ecosystem. The following is an example illustrating this point by Dr. Peter Moyle: Habitats don't exist in isolation; most of them have inputs and outputs connected to other habitats and ecosystems. Take Mono Lake, for instance, is one of the most spectacular lakes on the east side of the Sierra Nevada in California. Its water source is streams fed by winter rains and melting snow in the mountains. In its natural state, water leaves the lake only by evaporation. The balance between the inflowing streams and evaporation created a saline lake with many unique features, including a species of brine shrimp found only in Mono Lake. As a large, food-rich body of water in a desert area, the lake is a major fueling stop for migratory waterbirds and a major nesting area for other species, such as California gulls. When water from the lake's inflowing streams was diverted to quench the ever-growing thirst of Southern California, the lake level dropped drastically. Islands in the lake became connected to the mainland, giving coyotes and other predators access to an easy source of food: nesting California gulls. With adequate inflowing water, the islands were good nesting habitat; without the water they were unsuitable as nesting habitat. Without adequate inflowing water, the lake also would become too saline for the Mono brine shrimp to survive and for migratory waterbirds to feed in. Recognition of this fundamental relationship between inflow and habitat for many species was the partial basis of a successful court action that reduced the diversion of water from the inflowing streams. Subpoint B: Animal rights could improve human interaction Related to the issue of moral corruption, justice, even among humans, could be improved by recognizing animal rights. Recognizing animal rights would force humans to reconsider the way we treat each other. By contemplating the rights of nonhumans, we would further consider the rights of humans, hopefully leading to improved justice among humans in the process. Contention 2: Animal rights would promote a progressive view of the world The earths processes are all interconnected, with every species relying on other species in one way or another. Humans have driven many animals to the brink of, or even to, extinctiona travesty of our position as the stewards of the earth. Humans, like every other animal species, have relied on other species for the entirety of history. By recognizing animal rights, we would be recognizing the need for humans to respect the natural order

of the earth. Modern technology has given us the power to destroy the earth in profound ways, but respecting animal rights in a reasonable manner could halt, and potentially even reverse, the damage we have done to the earth. Subpoint A: Human interaction with animals The Section on Animal-Human Interaction: Research & Practice, of Division 17 (Society of Counseling Psychology) of the American Psychological Association, is dedicated to professional and scholarly activities that advance the understanding of animal-human interactions as they relate to psychology. AHI addresses: The role of the human-animal bond in empathy development, the ability to form and express attachments, reaction to grief and loss, the challenges of aging, and other developmental passages throughout the lifespan The ways in which human interaction with animals promotes health The role of animal-assisted therapies in prevention and intervention programs in a variety of settings Violence prevention as it relates to the link between animal abuse and family, juvenile, and community violence Training programs on topics such as pet grief counseling, assessment and treatment of animal abuse, as well as counseling programs to address the needs of veterinary students, animal shelter volunteers, and animal rescue workers.

Subpoint B: How would humans affect animals? Habitat Destruction When humans destroy wild land to build homes, factories, shopping malls, amusement parks, garbage dumps, even to build a visitor center, store and restaurant in a park, the land is changed. The animals that once lived there, from the bugs that lived in the ground to the birds that ate them, all may disappear. Some can move to new home areas, but there are already other animals living there. There is not enough food, water or shelter for all of them. Many of the animals will die. When farmers spray chemicals on their crops to save them from pests (bugs and molds and things that eat the plants), the chemicals get into the water and into the soil. Bugs that do not hurt the crops die. The birds and mammals who eat these poisoned bugs may also die, or they cannot reproduce, or their offspring die young. Factories, automobiles, trucks and planes put chemicals into the air. The exhaust from their engines contains tiny specks of toxic chemicals that fall on plants, on the ground, and into the water. There, they get into the animals when the animals eat the plants, drink the water, or nest in the ground. These animals, too, can die or not reproduce. Food and Fashion Industry There are many people who do not eat animals or wear animal skins (leather). They are called vegetarians. There are others who will eat animals, but only when those animals are raised humanely (in clean places with enough room to move around in, with plenty of good food, and few, if any drugs given to them) and slaughtered (killed) without pain, and only when the whole animal is used. When we slaughter a cow, sheep, or pig, we use the whole animal: the slaughtered animal provides food for people and other animals, skin for leather clothes and other goods, even the hooves and bones are made into other things and used for people and other animals. There are many types of farms and factories that raise animals for slaughter. Many of these animals are kept very close together, so close that they can hurt each other just by moving around. Many are fed foods and drugs to make them grow but that do not make them healthy. Some animals are raised or hunted just for their skins, bones, shells or internal organs. Some are hunted for meat, but only part of the animal is actually eaten. For example,

certain fishermen kill sharks, but just cut off and keep the fin. People kill large snakes and lizards just to get their skin; they dont eat all that meat. Bears are killed just for their paws and gall bladders. Pets People buy and catch animals to keep as pets. Many of the people who have animals as pets do not know how to care for them. Pets, particularly ones like reptiles, amphibians, and fish, need special equipment, heat, lights, and food in order for them to be healthy and live. Between 50-90 percent of these types of animals sold each year dies because they were not cared for properly. The prevalence of animals in society makes a detailed discussion of their importance unnecessary. Nonetheless, it is worth briefly summarizing some of the figures to emphasize just how important animals are to American society and the economy. According to the Census of Agriculture, in 1997 there were 98,989,244 cattle and calves used in United State agriculture, 61,206,236 hogs and pigs, 7,821,885 sheep and lambs, and over 7 billion chickens used for egg and meat production. In that same year the total value of all cattle and poultry was nearly $100 billion. Agriculture is but the tip of the proverbial iceberg, however. Anyone who questions the bond between people and their pets need only look at statistics detailing the number of people who celebrate their pets birthdays, stay home from work when a pet is sick, or greet their pet first when coming home in the evening.[xxiii] As detailed by the American Veterinary Medical Association:

Veterinarians in private clinical practice are responsible for the health of approximately 53 million dogs, 59 million cats. Bird ownership has risen over the past 5 years from 11 million in 1991 to approximately 13 million birds. The number of pleasure horses in the U.S. is about 4.0 million. Other pets such as rabbits, ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, other rodents, turtles, snakes, lizards, other reptiles and many other animals primarily kept as companion animals. Rabbits and ferrets are owned by 2.3% of households in the U.S. with a total population of 5.7 million; 4.8 million rodents are owned by 2.3% of households and 1.5 % of households own 3.5 million reptiles. The fish population is estimated at 55.6 million owned by 6.3% of households. Of course, animals can also be found in the laboratory. A wide variety of species are used in research and experimentation. In fact, over 18 million animals are used in research and experimentation in the United States. The controversy surrounding such experimentation is beyond the scope of this Article, however, even for a superficial discussion. Just as introductions rarely represent true beginnings; neither do conclusions represent the end of the story. Rather than providing closure, conclusions are often, looked at in another way, simply introductions to another story. Such is the case here. While animal rights as theory already has a significant history, animal rights as a vehicle for legal change is just taking root. In countries around the world changes in the legal status of other animals is already underway and several localities in the United States are beginning the slow process of fundamental change. The question is no longer whether it makes sense to debate the place of animals in our society. Rather, the issue has already been raised. The question now is how that debate should be conducted and how the questions raised should be resolved. For these reasons, I affirm the resolution RESOLVED: JUSTICE REQUIRES THE RECOGNITION OF ANIMAL RIGHTS; I will now be open for cross examination.