Creating a stronger understanding of animals rights and what kinds of arguments come into play is very important to me. An important question to ask is to what extent should animals have rights. As of now, I am studying to become a veterinarian, so animals obviously mean a lot to me. This research greatly affects my values due to my strong passion for animals and their well-being, but would also question whether necessities for humans come before the rights of animals. One personal experience I have had regarding animal rights was when my sister found a very dirty, skinny black Pomeranian on the side of the road. She decided to bring him home and ever since that day, Bear has been the best pet. Bear had obviously been abused in some sort of way because he was and still is a very skittish dog. He refuses to let you hold him for more than five seconds and is gravely afraid of small spaces. Imagining the thought of someone hurting Bear makes me sick to my stomach, and even mad, because why would anyone want to hurt a defenseless dog? Since I have an emotional connection to animals and have an opinion on animal rights based on research, I believe I am qualified to write about what kinds of rights animals should have.

To answer my research question, I will start with my first source, "Animal Testing and Medicine" written by Dr. Rachel Hajar. This is an informative article that not only explains why people believe animal testing is important due to medical reasons, but also why people disagree with animal testing. Dr. Hajar creates her own campaign to resolve this issue called 3R in which the three R's stand for replacement, reduction, and refinement. The major values and interests at stake for the article/author are educating the public of both sides of the argument as well as opinions of people in the medical field. Most believe that people in the medical field fully support animal testing, however by creating her 3R campaign, she is showing that she not only supports animal testing, but also agrees that it needs to be much more regulated. Dr. Hajar is a surgeon in the Department of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Hamad Medical Corporation (US National Library of Medicine, 2011). This makes her a credible source because she has a lengthy medical background and is knowledgeable about drug and medical testing. The author shows no bias toward either side of the argument because they are both explained and supported with evidence.

The second source, "Protect Animal Rights" written by Brien Comerford is an argumentative article about animal testing and animal fur. Comerford believes that animal testing is very unnecessary at this day in age which is supported by the fact that human and skin cell research has been much more productive and useful than using animal tissue for various tests. He also argues that eating meat and other animals is unnecessary because millions of Buddhists and Jains live healthy long lives without relying on meat as a part of their diet (Comerford, 2011).  The major value and interest at stake in this article is the hope for people to change their opinions on animal rights. Comerford is a credible journalist from the Chicago Tribune who writes articles and editorials only on animals and animal rights. He is definitely biased due to the fact that his whole career is based around writing his opinions about this subject, therefore, I would use this as an example of an opinion in my research paper, not as primary source.

The third source is a scholarly article written by Jessica Mendoza. "Amid SeaWorld struggles, signs of a more pro-animal future" is an article about how people have shifted their attitudes toward animals in confinement. SeaWorld has been under lots of scrutiny for the mistreatment of their orca whales which has caused profits and attendance to decrease drastically. These trends may lead toward banning the use of animals for entertainment purposes, but there are still those who disagree with this idea. Some still think it is important for humans to have those interactions with animals that people have at the zoos or SeaWorld (Mendoza, 2015).  The major value of this article is the welfare of animals and to use them as entertainment. The interests at stake is whether the trend of people thinking more about how the animals are treated within captivity will keep increasing and maybe cause change in society. This article is credible because it was found in the opposing view points in context database through the Thomas Copper Library. She shows no bias in this article because both sides of the argument of animal welfare are supported with evidence.

This research question is very arguable because people have various opinions on if animals should have rights and it is very controversial. I believe that in general animals should have rights because they have feelings and emotions just like humans do. I would go even further and say that their rights should extend to regulating zoos and animal testing because all they are doing is harming the animals, not helping them. All the articles have the common theme that animal mistreatment should be regulated more, while also having the opposing side that disagrees. The perspectives of all the articles together lean me even more towards regulating animal testing and use for entertainment, but that could be completely different from another person reading these articles. I might need to make my research question more specific to zoo mistreatment and animal testing, but I am waiting to see what other research I gather on the subject of animal rights as a whole.

