I am in the process of completing my oral presentation for my English class on "A Case For the use of Animals in Biomedical Research" by Carl Cohen. This is a rough outline of how I am going to present it:
Introduction:
Summary of what the article is about:
"Using animals as research subjects in medical investigations is widely condemned on two grounds: first, because it wrongly violates the rights of animals, and second, because it wrongly imposes on sentient creatures much avoidable suffering."
Position of the author:
"The first relies on a mistaken understanding of rights; the second relies on a mistaken calculation of the consequences. Both deserve definitive dismissal"
Bodies:
Conclusion:
State my opinion
Introduction:
Summary of what the article is about:
"Using animals as research subjects in medical investigations is widely condemned on two grounds: first, because it wrongly violates the rights of animals, and second, because it wrongly imposes on sentient creatures much avoidable suffering."
Position of the author:
"The first relies on a mistaken understanding of rights; the second relies on a mistaken calculation of the consequences. Both deserve definitive dismissal"
Bodies:
- Why animals have no rights
- In defense of "Speciesism"
- Authors concluding remarks (substitution, reduction, consistency)
Conclusion:
State my opinion
/images/smilies/smile.gif
Which consists mostly of dismissing the authors (In defense of "Speciesism") and disagreeing with his remark about there not being a need to reduce the amount of animals in experiments.