In medical research, testing is a vital process in understanding and finding answers for problems faced by humans. This researching, throughout history has involved the use of animals in several situations and has been considered highly beneficial. Only in recent history the use of animals has become questionable. Should animals have rights and are humans abusing those rights? This issue has become of great importance among the public because of the concern for the respect for life and whether there is a deflation of this because of the use of animals in testing. A reflection is believed to be necessary in the debate on animal rights and whether morals, ethics, and respect are being put aside for human needs.
             So, do animals have rights? Let's look at the reasoning of why animals have been looked at as inferior to humans. One outlook is that humans have a higher intelligence level than that of an animals, and this gives humans the right to use them in any way needed. As L. Neil Smith states in his essay "Animals Are the Property of Humans", "Animals are groceries. They're leather and fur coats. They're for medical experiments and galloping to hounds. That's they're purpose" (39). Another outlook that's been given is that animals don't have the reasoning or value that a human does, which makes it unjustifiable for animals to have rights. As believed by R.G. Frey in his essay "Animal Life is Less Valuable Than Human Life", "Normal adult human life is more valuable than animal life, and I defend it on the ground of the greater richness and potentialities for enrichment in the human case" (32).
             The problem with these two outlooks is that the bigger picture is not being looked at. The outlook of the intelligent level between humans and animals is irrelevant to the debate. This can be seen through the situation of someone with severe mental retardation or brain de...