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
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.
He does convince me that there is an issue with us assuming things for the nonhumans because we do not know what they want. In order for us to have the luxuries we have today, for example, make-up and shampoo they needed to be tested before the products were official and ready for use. Singer cites two experiments and they are not very nice when they experiment on the animals. He
He tries to prove how animal testing affects animals, but the evidence that he gives us was some kind of violence and lacking police protection. These evidences do not match with the idea that he tells us that “lacking adequate police protection, fearing for the lives of their employees… bringing it to the brink of bankruptcy”. I feel that the writer uses red herring. He keeps bring up criminal issue instead of talking about how animal testing effects on animals. Moreover, the writer gives evidence that I feel it does not make sense “the crime against Huntington are not isolated incidents; animal rights terrorists commit more than 1,000 crimes annually”.
How is it that humans can test on animals, while the animals feel everything that humans feel? It shouldn’t be okay to test on animals because they have the same pain tolerance as humans do. The testing on animals is dangerous and it is harming the animals; it is cruel to the animals by keeping the animals locked up in cages, humans use the animals for testing the products that the humans use for the use of humans only, and it is unfair to the animals by keeping them in the lab and not letting the animals run around. Humans shouldn’t be able to test on animals. The humans that say testing on animals helps the United States with the problems that are going on and make sure the product is safe to use so it can be tested on animals to see if it will harm the humans before the use.
Rhetorical Analysis of The Evil of Animal Rights “The Evil of Animal Rights” is an article that was written by Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook. The article addressees the medical testing that is being done on animals. The author of the article talks about the medical advances that have been done using animals as testing. Without the animals, there wouldn't be as many new medicines and new cures that there are now. The author also talks about the protesters and the problems they have given to the companies that have any relation with animal testing.
Also, people feel that t is unnecessary to clone mammals. The final reason is political problems. The first reason that I mentioned above was that some people don’t agree with cloning because it is killing babies. This is true because it can kill potential babies, but not newborns. Also, it is not killing the potential baby, it is just reducing the possibility of having a baby.
Are they convincing? Are its criticisms similar to the timeless of business mentioned in the chapter? One of the basic criticisms that PETA makes of KFC is that they held KFC responsible for cruel treatment of chickens. They created this criticism with the hope that with KFC’s market power that they would be able to change the way chickens are slaughtered. PETA did not agree with the
I would not clone my dog because it can be dangerous, it can affect adoption rates, and if it fails the animal suffers. The first reason of why I would not clone my dog is because it could be dangerous because the cloned animal can turn out to be different than the original animal. For example, if the cloned animal was meant to do good to the society it does the exact opposite of that. Another example is that the animal can also have a complete different attitude towards you. Cloning my dog can not only be dangerous but it can also affect adoption rates.
The states need to come up with strict laws that will cut numbers of animal abuse. The animals in the factories are getting treated terribly. “They call their revolution (animal rights), but the changes PETA has won for farmed animals, while numerous, are not victories for animal rights so much as for animal welfare: fewer animals per cage, better-regulated slaughter, less-cramped transport, and the like”(Unknown author). PETA stands up for animal welfare and want to raise awareness so they can pass new laws on how the animals are treated inside