There have been many attempts to validate arguments against animal rights. It was perceived that humans are distinct beings from animals, not only in physical terms, but also in terms of rational autonomy and morality. There is, however, a forgotten aspect to this argument. Many people in society do not possess these qualities, including the mentally handicapped and babies (Singer). This creates the assumption that considering animals disenfranchised is tantamount to insinuating that mentally disabled people and babies are also disenfranchised. We can therefore assume that the argument goes even further by asserting that babies and the mentally handicapped are not human beings. The basis of the argument is that because animals lack rational autonomy and the ability to make moral decisions, they have no rights. . Using this position, the argument further explains that it is in the best interest of the human race to test on animals. This utilitarian vision, which involves sacrificing one to save the many in order to progress, is considered a better alternative than sacrificing no one. Because of this belief, this argument assumes that humanity has an obligation to sacrifice animals for animal experimentation, for the sake of man. This argument creates the assumption that animals should not be given equal consideration to humans. If this argument is to be applied within society, it must be seen as implemented equally between organisms with the capacity to have rational autonomy and morality, and organisms incapable of doing so. have rational autonomy and morality. It is said in the argument that all humans have the capacity to be independent and moral, so it must be understood that babies and the mentally handicapped are not human beings...... middle of paper ... ...d are not considered to be devoid of moral rights, it is then impossible to assert that animals are. In conclusion, it can be assumed that animals deserve the same consideration as humans; for the question of what moral rights some humans deserve may still be controversial. Although animals do not have the cognitive capacity to be rationally autonomous or moral, they remain a living organism and deserve rights just as much as babies or the mentally disabled. Works Cited Cohen, Carl. “The Case Against Animal Rights.” The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature. By Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. Fourth ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print. Singer, Peter. "Animal Liberation: All Animals Are Equal"" The Moral Life: An Introductory Reader in Ethics and Literature. By Louis P. Pojman and Lewis Vaughn. Fourth ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2011. Print.