Can someone please review/edit my essay. Argumentative-Rogerian Style.
Animals should have rights too. I do not mean the same rights and morals as a human being, but a right to be free from harm by human beings. Animals just like humans experience emotions and pain. They can be helpless and need to rely on people for safety, just as our children do. In the wild they must protect themselves, but when up against human beings, they do not have the power that we do, and often lose their homes or get killed without any other choice for survival. When animals are caged they cannot implement their survival skills outside, possibly in extreme conditions. In this case we are not giving them a fair chance for survival. We shouldn't be hunting animals as a sport; people should not get amusement out of killing an innocent animal for a trophy on the wall. When there are alternative testing methods for products we still use animals, causing them pain and distress throughout their life. We should treat animals, as we would want to be treated.
Animals cannot have the same rights as humans. They cannot enter our society or make moral choices. They do not know right from wrong, as we do. Killing animals for food is something we have practiced for many of years to survive. Many people feel like this is a part of our survival, just as animals do. There are several areas where there has been a lack of natural predators, to control the animal population, causing safety concerns by residents. Many hunters feel they can control the ecosystem by hunting. Once hunters obtain a permit, there is no cost, they can hunt for food, or enjoy it as a sport without paying any money. People believe animals should be used in testing, so that we do not harm ourselves. Animals are as close to a human than any other subject for testing, scientists go out of their way to even find the most suitable animal to mimic a human being for the particular test they are working on.
However, humans are just another species of animals and should share the right of freedom. Animals are defenseless and we control them. Even if animals are being hunted or used in slaughter homes, they should be able to live a natural life during their limited lifetime. Animals do not volunteer to tests that can be done using alternative methods. Using an alternative method will also speed up the process, allowing drugs to be approved faster, as well as using fewer animals.
Animal Testing is unreliable and cruel. Animals go through a series of tests that are very painful, most of the time they are not even given anything for pain, or being sedated. Some product tests require the same painful procedure on a daily basis over a weeks' time. Most tests on animals cause permanent injury or even death. The tests performed on animals are not always reliable. A medicine that may be safe with animals may not be for human beings. For example, aspirin is toxic to cats, so if we were to test this medication on cats, it would not help to determine if this was a safe product for human beings. One alternative to animal testing is human testing, if we are looking to find out if the product works on humans, we should test them on humans. We should not have to pump chemicals into an animal, just to tell us the chemical is not safe to ingest; we should know chemicals are unsafe and should be used with caution. If there are already products such as cosmetics on the market, that state "No Animal Testing", why does the same product of another brand use animal testing? It has been several years since the alternative method for testing skin products was developed, but even with this new model, we have not eliminated animals for testing. Scientists are constantly finding non-animal methods, but have still not been enough to completely eliminate animal testing.
Hunting can be unsafe and unnecessary. When hunters frighten a deer, it causes them to run out of the woods and onto roads, causing an increased number of collisions during hunting season. People even hunt in neighborhoods, which can be very dangerous, and cause injuries to people in the area. Many years ago hunting for food was necessary for survival, but today hunting has been used for recreational sports and trophies. Hunting has become an unfair game. I am not saying that everyone in the world should become a vegetarian tomorrow, but there is no reason for hunting animals as a sport, and when used in slaughter homes, there are humane ways that are not implemented. Before an animal is used for food, they should be able to live in their natural environment, not a cage so small they cannot turn around in for their entire life. They should not be forced fed, mistreated, or tortured before they are used for food.
Animals should be treated with love and compassion. Many people get pets for their children or maybe it just sounds like a good idea at the time. Animals that people received for free are more likely to get abandoned because the people think they have nothing to lose. If more people were willing to make an expensive purchase from a humane society, or at least have them spayed or neutered, they may be less likely to just discard them onto the streets. People seem to no longer want their pets over something small like the animal makes too much noise, scratches, or bites. When you bring an animal home, you are bringing home a life, a living creature. This is a big commitment that you should be willing to make. Animals require just as much love and attention as children do. When people leave their pets outside, this is unfair when people keep them locked up on chains outside, they cannot go and find a warm place to sleep when it's cold, or a safe place to stay, they cannot use their natural instincts when we restrict them. If you wouldn't throw away your child because he cried too much, then you should treat your animals just the same. They should become part of your family. Many animals that were in a good loving home and then one day thrown out on the streets will mostly likely die, unless adopted by a new family. Human Society's cannot always save animals; they cannot place an animal to a new home without the background of the animal, so these animals get euthanized.
Animals are just like humans experiencing the same pain and emotions. They rely on us for comfort and safety. We should not harm animals; they should have the right to freedom, just as we do. Animal should not be used in testing, they should not be hunted, and should be treated with love.
You need to expand on your premises and tighten up the logic of your essay. For instance:
"Animals are just like humans experiencing the same pain and emotions." First of all, it is not clear that this is true of all animals. Lobsters, for instance, like most crustaceans, and, for that matter, many insects, lack the sort of nervous system that we have. Some scientists believe that this makes them incapable of feeling pain. Even those that think that they do feel pain believe that their "pain" is very different from our own, because it is physically impossible for them to feel any of the emotions that we do when we suffer. Second, even for those animals that do feel pain, so what? Why should their ability to feel pain matter to us? This question is not rhetorical -- there are ways you can answer it that would support your point of view, but you don't give any of those answers in your essay at the moment.
Most of the rest of your essay is like this, btw. It consists mainly of assertions that won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with them. So:
"However, humans are just another species of animals and should share the right of freedom." No, we're not. If we were, we wouldn't worry about killing animals, any more than a bear or a wolf does. For that matter, we might practice infanticide regularly, as lions do, or cannibalism, as spiders do.
"Using an alternative method will also speed up the process, allowing drugs to be approved faster, as well as using fewer animals." This is an argument against animal testing on pragmatic grounds. It implies that, if animal testing would be faster and more effective in determining the safety of drugs than any other alternative, it would be all right. But you want, presumably, to make a moral argument.
"When hunters frighten a deer, it causes them to run out of the woods and onto roads, causing an increased number of collisions during hunting season. People even hunt in neighborhoods, which can be very dangerous, and cause injuries to people in the area." This would be more convincing if you provided statistics and citations to back up your claims, which currently sound made up.
"Before an animal is used for food, they should be able to live in their natural environment, not a cage so small they cannot turn around in for their entire life. They should not be forced fed, mistreated, or tortured before they are used for food." Another unfounded assertion.
So, more logic, more explanation of why we shouldn't do the things you say we shouldn't do, would greatly improve this essay.
Hello!
A Rogerian argument is very focused on the counter-argument. That means you need to spend some time showing that you understand the opposing argument -- and refuting it.
One example of the opposing argument is that it is "natural" to eat animals. People have even pointed to native Americans as examples -- like, they hunt, and they seem to represent closeness with nature, so hunting must be natural, right? Well, many native Americans get upset about being used as pawns in argument (see Champagne's Contemporary Native American Cultural Issues )
For your essay, try to eliminate 25% of the words, and say it all in less space. Cut out some of the statements of the obvious, like "Animals cannot have the same rights as humans. They cannot enter our society or make moral choices. They do not know right from wrong, as we do..."
After eliminating a big portion of this t refine it and make it sleek and powerful, you can express the counter-argument in words -- and refute it.
