moderate animal rights position

Tom Regan expresses his very radical view of the moral standing that we should extend to animals in our ethics and treatment towards them. This animal ethic derives from the idea that moral standing should be acknowledged in all “subjects of a life.”
For Regan, all entities that are considered “subjects of a life” possess “inherent value.” This then means that all who have inherent value have it equally whether they are humans or not. Thus, Regan suggests that there are moral limits to what how we treat a subject of a life with this inherent value. Reason, as humans possess this characteristic, then compels us to recognize the equal and inherent value of these animals. And with this in mind, their equal right must be treated with respect as well.
I agree that there should be a level of respect for these subjects of life; this ethic resolves the notion of cruelty such that a concept that a good end doesn’t justify evil means (in regards to implications for animal cruelty and our current US commercial animal agriculture). Moreover, I agree that there is a level of inherent value in animals that should help facilitate our reasoning that should compel us to recognize and support animal kindness as a respect factor.
However, like Warren, I do not believe that inherent value on its own is a strong enough case for animal rights. Animals, plants and the forest can all be considered subjects of life that have inherent value. However, the most important thing to recognize is that none of them have moral rights. Rationality, in congruence with morality and reasoning, provide a much stronger argument for the ethics of treatment that should be applied to animals. We, as humans, have moral right to sentient beings that we should not inflict pain on sentient beings without compelling reason. Now, I understand that “compelling reason” is a very broad and abstract notion; however, so is Regan’s idea of inherent value.
For clarification, let’s describe a situation. For example, imagine that I had to kill a hundred chickens to test a new drug and could save millions of lives by finding a cure for cancer. Personally, I feel that maximizing the good while keeping human dignity and striving for respect for all involved (humans and non-humans), is the most practical animal rights ethic possible. This then would contest Regan’s argument that there are moral limits to what one can do to a being with inherent value, despite these overall consequences or benefits. He claims that there are moral limits, as these beings have “rights” and are possessed by all creatures who are subjects of a life.
I wholeheartedly agree that pointless cruelty to animals is morally wrong, as we have ability to reason and to understand and comprehend the notion that we should be striving for respect (as much as possible) for all while additionally not infringing on human dignity. We should eliminate the unnecessary suffering of animals, especially suffering that does not lead to the satisfaction of any “important” human needs (cure for cancer, food, etc). I feel that it should be morally permissible to use animals to satisfy important human interests and needs.
In conclusion, human beings belong to one biological species and animals belong to another biological species. Thus we have the ability to reason and understand (unlike animals) while acting and striving for respect for inherent value without infringing on human dignity. Therefore, my belief and ethic lies more congruent with Warren’s weak animal rights position rather than Regan’s “Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights.”