Can Medical Research on Animals be Justified?

Yes, I'm serious

Richard, your fury is misdirected. I will ignore the parts of your comment that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Instead I will focus on 1) your claim that the word speciesist is ridiculous--which is simply your opinion, not an assertion of fact--as well as 2) the idea that I'm opposed to animal testing because it discriminate against animals, which I'll break into a) your conception of my argument and b) the actual argument. Finally (3), I'll address this notion you have that to respect nonhuman animals means we must disrespect human animals. That seems to be the core issue underlying your comments.

1. The word speciesism was coined by Richard Ryder several decades ago, and has been refined over the years. The implication you draw, that animals are equal to minorities that have been persecuted is your own conclusion, not mine. The implication to me is that, like other -isms, speciesism describes a failure to accord a being equal consideration or respect based on species membership rather than race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Gary L. Francione, Joan Dunayer, Peter Singer, and many others have written on this subject extensively to describe why speciesism is as arbitrary as any form of bias against members of homo sapiens.

Recognizing speciesism and according animals equal consideration for their interests where they are similar to ours does not mean they are literally equal to humans in every way. That would be a fallacious comparison.

At any rate, you provide no valid argument against using this term. While you indignantly call it ridiculous, etymologically speaking, the word is perfectly sensible.

2a) You argue that my argument against animal testing is based on discrimination, but this is false (see: my argument, or 2b). Even if it was based on discrimination, that should not be offensive to people who have been discriminated against any more than it would be offensive to women to say that black humans have been victimized by discrimination. One is not saying that all women are black, or that all black humans are women.

As a side note, for your unwillingness to accept the term "nonhuman animals" throws into further relief your own biases. There is nothing PC about it. Rather it is a matter of being more descriptive. We are animals, too, and distinguishing between human and nonhuman animals is helpful to any conversation in which we are making distinctions between humans and all other animals.

2b) I'm opposed to animal testing because I believe it violates their moral rights, irrespective of whether any discrimination is at work against any species of animal in a given scenario, humans included.

3) There's a fairly common sentiment I come across that respecting animals is somehow denigrating to humans. I don't understand this. If anything, by respecting the moral rights of animals and going vegan, I have had my respect and concern for other humans deepened as well. Once you are no longer blind to our complicit in the wanton and unnecessary slaughter of billions of sentient beings, you can stop ignoring a great many other moral concerns, too.

A lot of people describe it as having their eyes opened. They start wondering how all their food is produced, where their commercial goods are being manufactured, how, and by whom, etc. It tends to lead to a greater sense of awareness, understanding, and respect for all beings, in my experience, so your suggestion that giving nonhuman animals greater respect lowers human beings somehow seems totally unfounded, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.