Neha Siddiqui Vivi-section Vivi-section is the act of cutting open an animal for scientific purposes. Vivi-section should not be legal. Us humans are the smartest living beings on this planet but that does not mean we go around stealing the rights of animals for our selfish purposes. We use Vivi-section for scientific purposes, to find cures to deadly diseases but Vivi-section results aren’t accurate since humans and animals aren’t the same. Vivi-section violates animal freedom.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
Abeni Mebane Pam Pearce Eng. 090-013 12/4/08 Stop Animal Testing In the Cosmetic Industry Have you ever wondered how many animals suffer in labs in the cosmetic industry? This is an issue that gets over looked and no one cares about. The estimate of animals killed and experimented in the United States every year is one hundred and fifteen million animals. I understand medication being tested on animals but the cosmetic industry should not test on animals because its animal cruelty, the testing is not accurate, and there are other ways to test products.
It is true that now a days science and technology has developed and has gone a lot further that we could set up many substitutes for animal testing, but still it is not 100% replaceable with the actual animal. Scientists could study some types of effects on a petri dish of a cell culture, but these cell cultures are not useful when it comes to observing the systems and the organs that cells do not have. Observing the side effects of these drugs requires the systems in the body to carry the medicine around to each part of the body. Moreover, some organs that needed to be observed are not available in the cell culture. For example, the eyes, scientists could not tell if the medicine will cause blindness if they do not use animals on testing.
The moral argument is that scientists are killing fetuses to improve the medical condition of living patients. I think that this argument is completely absurd. I think that if a person wants to donate an embryo for this type of research, it should be left up to them. My way of thinking on this issue is very nonconsequentialist which insist that consequences, effects or outcomes are irrelevant: morality is about doing what is right as a matter of principle, regardless of consequences. That means you do the right thing no matter what happens (Thiroux).
Senator Barbara Boxer United States Senate Washington DC, 20510 Dear Senator Boxer, Hi, I am Marissa and I am a student at Warren high school and I strongly believe that reproductive cloning is wrong. I am against reproductive cloning because it can lead to an end of our humanity. Human beings are so unique and to copy an individual is devaluing to the original creation of a human. We are not a product to be reproduced we are imperfectly divine creations that need to remain with those expectations of humanity. Reproductive cloning in my beliefs is just not morally right.
Individual have diverse feelings for animals. Sorrowfully animal lovers cannot fight for their side, yet they still combat to save animal lives. Animals used as their companions while others view that animals are for scientific survey course only. Several scientists only think how to making their test flourish without knowing that animal they use are being abused and maltreated. Not all tests are relevant to human health.
By considering both sides of the issue, the best solution is to use the results from previous animal experiments and the new technology in testing medicine and cosmetics; however, in other cases where animal testing cannot be replaced researchers could do so. There are several reasons proponents of animal testing declare to prove their arguments. For decades, animal experiments have provided solutions and have been one of the ways in which scientists found cures and treatments for many diseases. With this in mind, it is necessary to keep using animals in experiments to continue this success. According to Sun (2012), the Nobel Prize for medicine winner Dr. Joseph Murray said, ““None of this could have been done without animal experimentation”” (p. 83).
Throughout that time these animals become so unadapt to their new surroundings, they become less likely to return to their natural state which gives those experimenting more reason to test them. Most of these senseless experiments are funding by the federal government using the public’s tax dollars and by health charities, which are wasting precious dollars on irrelevant experiments on animals instead of spending the money on promising human-based research (Peta). Norfleet 2 A few companies have banned the use of animal testing, but often the companies that continue to test animals produce inaccurate or misleading results. These results are giving the okay to more and more products being sold to you. Why continue to test animals that may give inaccurate results on products that can still be sold to the human race?
Many companies use animal trials to test out the safety of new drugs, pesticides, medication, food additives, packing materials, and anything else with chemical ingredients. Testing the toxicology of these substances would be impossible (at least ethically) to do, as it would be