This article analyzed the content of various Internet sites that took positions for or against notions of animal rights to identify the strategies that either side of the animal rights debate use in delivering their message. Sites in support of animal rights characterize the issue as a moral one, where the opposition frames their argument against the context of human necessity.

Article Abstract:

“This article examines contributions to argument on Internet sites concerned with animal rights. As this is part of a project examining how “rights” and “cases” are constructed and contested through argument, the texts considered are selected from sites that take an explicit stance for or against animal rights. Our reading of these texts highlights the strategies used by pro- and anti-animal-rights contributors. The pro-animal-rights side used two main argumentative strategies. The first constructed animal use as a moral problem by ascribing rights to animals in discourses of suffering, oppression, and depravity. The second constructed animal rights as mutually reinforcing of human welfare by presenting animal use as needless for, and dangerous to, human health. The anti-animal-rights side reconstructed animal use as necessary for reasons including human health, thereby situating animal interests and human welfare as incompatible, and make animal rights rather than animal use the moral problem. Implications are discussed.”