"Vivisection" Response

1. Is vivisection morally wrong?

2. What are the benefits of vivisection?

3. What can we do to end vivisection?

I wrote my last essay on the issue of vivisection, and in doing so briefly skimmed this article. After reading it in more depth, I have found even more evidence in supporting my essay, which I will use to expand my rough draft to my final draft. In essence, this piece talks about the morality behind vivisection. I found it very true when the author said that it was necessary for scientists to prove that what they were doing was inherently good, because it prevented harm to our own species. The line that stood out to me particularly was “If we find a man inflicting pain it is for him to prove that his action is right. If he cannot, he is a wicked man.”

What I found even more shocking is the idea that there may come a point in human history at which we will decide that certain human lives are more valuable than other certain lives, just as we view human life more important than animal life. This has been seen numerous times in the past with issues such as slavery, and even currently with issues surrounding racism. There are many aspects of this argument that play into every day life, even when people aren’t aware that it could be affecting them on a personal basis.

Personally, I believe that the idea of any form of vivisection is reprehensible and morally wrong, and reading this article strengthened that belief. I really enjoyed how the author closed his argument in saying that we needed to implement a distinct set of laws as to what type of animal testing was right and wrong, and from there we should begin to implement reforms. I believe this is a perfect and well thought out place to start.

Overall, I enjoyed the article and will use it in furthering my argument for my essay.

"Hope Without a Voice" -- Essay #3 (Rough Draft)

            Across the globe, animals without the ability to defend themselves are being tortured on a daily basis in the name of science. Scientists take these animals, force them to live in substandard conditions (most commonly small cages and boxes), and then abuse them repeatedly in every way: mentally, physically, and emotionally. These animals are helpless and defenseless, forced to endure the pain until meeting their inevitable death, for after they have served their purpose, they are not released or rehabilitated, but rather just euthanized or decapitated. Their remains are then used for further scientific observation, as they rip open the animals to observe what havoc they’ve been able to wreak on their internal organs. Not only are these practices inhumane and reprehensible, they are rarely accurate and cause more harm than good. Because the consequences of continuing animal testing are so reproachable and frequently inaccurate, it is immoral for us to continue these failed experiments, no matter how well intentioned.

            One of the most disconcerting theories concerning animal testing is the idea that because many animals are so similar to us, we can practice scientific experiments on them without having to practice on humans, while maintaining similar results. However, this brings into question two important factors. Initially, while many animals, most notably gorillas, have anatomical structures very similar to humans, there are still major differences between the species that cause vast rifts in scientific data. For example, since 1984 over one hundred and fifty chimpanzees have been injected with the HIV virus in order to study its effects. Unfortunately, it only developed within the members with already weakened immune systems, and even then it was not similar enough to the human HIV symptoms to prove any sort of explicit evidence. In fact, of the multitudes of animals tested, only one showed symptoms that demonstrated any type of correlation with humans (Anderegg). The second concern is that because animals are so similar to us that we are able to test on them and reasonably assume that some evidence will correlate with humans, it should therefore be accepted that they are similar enough to humans to experience the same type of pain and discomfort a human would feel. This shows how vastly unethical it is to torture animals who have been proven countless times to feel the same pain we as humans do. In essence, the only difference between animal testing and human testing is that animals do not have the ability to fight back. Maybe rather than testing on helpless animals, the cruel scientists should attempt to experiment on each other. The results would be more accurate, as they would be practicing on the same species, and the specimens being experimented upon would be volunteers, not forced participants.

            One may argue that animal testing is necessary because many believe that losing the life of a rodent or feline is less tragic than losing the life of a human. In addition, according to American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, “the short life span of research animals allows scientists to study them throughout the entire life cycle – and even through several generations – within a short period of time.” In addition, observing animals in a laboratory allows researchers to control their environment, including temperature, ventilation, and other factors. This gives scientists a more in-depth perspective as to what causes certain diseases and disorders, and also allows them to keep experimental variables to a minimum. However, while that may be true on some levels, it still does not justify its usage. The bottom line is that these animals are given no say as to their fate, and are operated on as though they are somehow resistant to pain. The idea that a scientist would inject an unknowing animal with a disease just to observe how that animal will eventually wither and die is cruel and senseless. These actions are blatantly unethical and need to be stopped immediately.

            Another important factor to take into account when observing animal testing is that animals do not maintain the same social, ethical, hereditary, and mental norms as do humans. For instance, one study was done in which animals were forcibly fed alcohol to see whether or not they would develop an addition to it, signaling signs of alcoholism. However, after nearly sixty years of studies, the results were inconclusive, as very few of the animals seemed to want to drink more alcohol when they were not required to do so (Anderegg).  In addition, the same source states that their “review of ten randomly chosen animal models of human diseases did not reveal any important contributions to human health.” The most horrifying news of all concluded that according to the FDA, “a staggering 92% of all drugs found safe and therapeutically effective in animal tests fail during human clinical trials due to their toxicity and/or inefficacy, and are therefore not approved. Furthermore, over half of the mere 8% of drugs which do gain FDA approval must later be withdrawn or relabeled due to severe, unexpected side effects.” With the millions of animals being put in harm’s way on a daily basis, these results are horrifically subpar.

            Overall, animal testing is an inhumane and ineffective way at determining scientific breakthroughs with the human body. Animals do not hold enough similarities to humans to be able to form a distinct connection. In addition, the way these animals are treated during the experiments is unnatural and unethical. Animals, just like humans, should have the right to live on their own in peace without overpowering humans using them for their experiments. With improvements in science in other areas, there are now ways to genetically engineer cells, organs, and limbs to be experimented upon without taking the life of an innocent creature. With all the alternative options out there, it proves that we only continue to operate upon animals in the name of convenience. However, this needs to change. Animal testing is a horrific phenomenon that has gone too far, and now we must play our part to stop it before it goes any further than it already has.

Works Cited

Anderegg, Christopher, M.D., Ph.D. "A Critical Look at Animal Experimentation." Medical Research Modernization Committee. N.p., June 2006. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.mrmcmed.org/Critical_Look.pdf>.

"Animal Testing in Depth." People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-in-depth.aspx>.

"Use of Animals in Biomedical Research." American Association for Laboratory Animal Science. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2013. <http://www.aalas.org/pdf/08-00007.pdf>.

"Shooting an Elephant" Response

1. Was the narrator inherently a bad person?
2. How can this piece relate to current world situations?
3. What can we take away from this piece?

I was actually very excited to re-read “Shooting an Elephant” by George Orwell, because I had to read it for an assignment in high school and really enjoyed it. In its entirety, the piece is a perfect metaphor for British Imperialism and the way the British, as well as other countries, overtook other nations that didn’t have the ability to defend for themselves.
I think the part of this piece that continues to fascinate me most significantly is the aspect that the narrator, presumably Orwell himself, shoots the elephant because he is expected to, not because he wants to. In fact, he feels immense pain having to witness the elephant die slowly and painfully. It always hits me when I read the closing line, in which he states, “I often wondered whether any of the others grasped that I had done it solely to avoid looking a fool.” It puts the reader in a very hard position, forcing them to think about whether they feel hatred or pity towards the narrator for his actions. I personally feel pity for him, because although he commits a heinous action, I don’t believe he would do so if he wasn’t so closely scrutinized by those around him. He literally felt as though he was carrying the weight of his country on his shoulders, and he wanted to do what he could to protect his homeland.
This story can be related to current issues, such as the war in Iraq. I’ve heard terrible stories of prisoners in Iraq being tortured by American soldiers, and sometimes it is only because it is what is expected of the American soldiers. When you sign up to protect your country, it is very rare that you understand the full implications that come along with that promise.
This is still one of my favorite pieces to read, and I am glad I was able to read it again.

"A Small Place" Response

1. Did Kincaid realize the effect that writing her piece in such an angry tone would have on her readers?

2. What was Kincaid trying to accomplish by writing this piece?

3. Is tourism truly a bad thing?

After reading “A Small Place” by Jamaica Kincaid, I was left with mixed feelings. Honestly, I felt a little offended by the piece as a whole; she was almost rude in the way that she blamed the hardships of her people on the English. To me, it seemed as though she was a small child lashing out at the world in general because she couldn’t quite pinpoint who exactly had wronged her and instead just threw a tantrum hoping something would come of it. As I learned during elementary school, this was definitely not the way to solve any type of problem, and especially not one on the scale that Kincaid is advocating.

Something else that bothered me was the hatred Kincaid seemed to hold for any and all tourists that came through Antigua. I could definitely relate to her in the sense that tourists are annoying: they stick out like a sore thumb, they crowd areas that are already overcrowded, they don’t participate in the social norms of the area (which can often be perceived as rudeness, but is usually just naivety or plain stupidity), and they’re overall just obnoxious. However, there are a lot of positive aspects to tourism. For one, they bring business to local venues and increase overall revenue for the city, allowing us to invest in new projects and better our towns. In addition, I personally have always been extremely flattered and felt so immensely fortunate that I was blessed enough to live in a place that people vacation to. It made me feel proud of my hometown. Unfortunately, Kincaid is so angry that she doesn’t have the ability to perceive things this way; instead, she is angry at the people who visit for reminding her of how the English have changed her country and that we have the wealth to be able to travel while she and her people are stuck there. In all honesty, I thought it was a childish way to view things.

Overall, I think this piece had many strong points, but the overall argument was masked by the tone of the author, very similar to Paglia’s article “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex.” If the same piece had been written in a less accusatory tone (wherein I didn’t think it right of her to criminalize me when I personally have done nothing wrong), I think it would have been a much more persuasive piece overall and reached a lot more people.

Essay #2 Reflection

After finishing my second essay, this time about the use of ethos, logos, and pathos, I still find that I struggle with various aspects of my writing style. I definitely feel as though I have improved since my first essay, but I know that I still have a long way to go with honing my skills. Although I’ve written multitudes of essays in the past regarding ethos, logos, and pathos, I felt like I was required to go into strenuous depth in this assignment, which made me realize that maybe I didn’t know as much about the subject as I had previously thought I did. I found most difficulty determining which aspects of Hitchens’ article referred to logos, which I have realized was my weakest argument in constructing this essay. Other than that, I personally felt that I was able to go a little bit deeper in my analysis of Hitchens’ work than I was in my previous essay about Lady Gaga and the death of sex. In addition, I was able to learn more interesting information, such as what it felt like to be water boarded and the severe implications associated with it. I think this essay served as another step in the right direction in furthering my writing career.

Essay #2 Response

I commented upon Ramin’s essay, “The Dark Side of Salvation.” I really enjoyed reading this essay as a whole. The introduction way very well laid out; it gave background into Sullivan’s piece and then introduced his thesis. Although the thesis was a little vague, it gave him lots of room to expand upon it in the body of his paper, which I always see as a good strategy.

The main thing I had trouble with throughout the paper was that while you used great examples which were all well developed and supported with textual evidence, I was unsure where you drew the lines between pathos, ethos, and logos. You mention the idea behind them briefly in your introduction, but you don’t even use the words “ethos,” “pathos,” or “logos” anywhere in your essay. It was a well-written essay that maintained numerous strong points about Sullivan’s argument, but I felt as though it did not successfully meet the requirements of the paper. This is something I constantly struggle with as well: I will write a great essay or response, but later realize it doesn’t exactly answer the questions my professor was asking. I always have trouble deleting it and re-writing something different, but unfortunately that’s what we have to do. I would recommend reshaping your essay slightly and maybe reorganizing some paragraphs to more aptly distinguish between the separate facets of your argument.

In addition, there were quite a few grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors, but nothing that can’t be fixed with a bit of careful rereading. When writing a paper quickly, it’s easy to overlook the smaller things, so I would recommend reading your paper out loud to yourself (as silly as that sounds) and making sure your sentence structure and everything else sounds the way you pictured it would in your head.

Overall, I think that you’re headed in a great direction with your paper and did a wonderful job pulling the best evidence out of Sullivan’s argument to use in your paper. I’m sure after a few revisions, your paper will be wonderful!