This quote can not justify animal testing, because these products are tested on animals that sometimes will not show the same side affects as humans. This alone is a reason why we should end animal experimentation because it is pointless in the first
Medical research or product testing could no longer be performed on animals. Also animals could no longer be hunted. This leaves us back to the problem at hand since everyone cannot agree on either choice. At this point we have met in the middle saying that we will treat animal as humane as we can. We will not make them suffer long painful deaths.
Animals do not have the ability to speak, have a thought process that can be communicated nor do they understand the human civilization. They deserve compassion and gentle treatment but not rights as far as humans go. 2. America has enough domestic issues of our own that we should be taking care of first. Defending other countries or invading other countries that we have no business interfering in causes us nothing but more problems.
It is wrong when it tends otherwise." He supports the idea from two perspectives. First from the utilitarian point of view, he explains that not attempting to conserve wild species jeopardizes resources that humans depend on. The second view, the bio centric position, he emphasizes that wild species have an 'inherent right to exist. I think that to him there are just no other options and he does not want readers to begin to consider not intervening in the lives of wild animals in order to conserve them.
Vivi-section violates animal freedom. And since animals cannot volunteer themselves, they are chosen for scientific purposes with no voice in the matter whatsoever. If us humans go swimming we have to sign waivers but these poor animals are being signed up for torture, which will lead to their inevitable death with no say in the matter. Vivi-section is used for scientific purposes, for finding cures that benefit the human population, sure a few animals will be saved using these cures but in the end it’s the human population that benefits more from the deaths of these helpless animals.
Another reason is that people find cloning unnecessary. They think it is unnecessary because if you are infertile and unable to have a baby you can just adopt instead of cloning. Also, because if you are able to have a baby, it is a waste of time and money to clone a child. All in all, it is unnecessary to clone for a few reasons from an outside person’s perspective. Additionally, cloning is found politically wrong too.
However, the activist believes survival is not enough. On PETA’s website, they make a firm stance by stating that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any other way” (1). Subsequently, what are animals to humans then? What function do they serve to humans other than the right to live without suffering? In this analysis the activist approach to animal rights is too extreme.
Animals have the right to live without being at any point, confined, exploited, tormented, or eaten. It’s wrong of people to use animals to experiment. The thought of them making fun out of them makes me sick because there is no need for it. A couple of the things I wanted o mention that I agreed on was
The morality of humane treatment or imposing the parameters of human rights as a moral imperative where animals are concerned should be based upon the idea that as an enlightened human being, animals should be treated with dignity. That animals do not deserve humane treatment because they cannot reciprocate is not a rational idea. Neither is the argument that because they cannot be taught relevant. It is not about the creature who is being treated in a certain way as much as the morality involved in using power over other creatures to deny their
To make the case that equality is based on equal consideration, Singer shows that arguments for not extending rights to non-humans are inconsistent. He does this by noting that equality does not require equal rights. The point of this is to show that claiming dogs aren't equal because they don't know what voting means and therefore don't have a right to vote doesn't lead one to find they are therefore not deserving of equal consideration. For instance it doesn't follow that men and woman will always have similar rights--the claim that men have a right to an abortion is just as incoherent as dogs having a right to vote.