In David Suzuki’s, “The Pain of Animals” (2002) he attempts to highlight how for many years, scientists have utilized animals to examine the effects of experimental diseases, drugs, and vaccines as a way to skirt around the ethical consequences of experimenting on humans. As a geneticist, environmentalist, and award-winning academic Suzuki’s attempt to increase public awareness for various issues is apparent within this article. Suzuki utilizes ethos, pathos, and logos throughout his article to express his discomfort on the subject of testing on these animals. Suzuki’s interest in this subject is unending, no matter how many illnesses are destroyed through extensive scientific testing and research. Furthermore, Suzuki effectively discusses the quality of life for the animals being tested, and the depressing and deprived realities that these helpless animals survive.
Running head: ANALYZING AN ADVERTISEMENT Module 2 Lab 2 James Crouch ITT Technical Institute EN1320 Module 2 Lab 2 Instructor: Lincoln Schreiber 7/5/15 The commercial I chose for this assignment is the SPCA Rescue the Animals commercial. The commercial shows the horrors that pets are subjected to by careless owners or just their day to day struggles to survive. The commercial shows actual footage of animals in cages that have not been fed or severely beaten and neglected. These images are heart breaking and disturbing. The commercial is designed to attract its target audience which is animal lovers.
The author also talks about the protesters and the problems they have given to the companies that have any relation with animal testing. The authors clearly support the testing done to the animals. Alex Epstein and Yaron Brook constantly use ethos, and logos to support their argument of animal rights groups acting like “terrorists”(Epstein & Brook 604) and their support of animal testing. Yaron Brook is the president and executive director of Ayn Rand institute. Brook is a philosopher who works for Ayn Rand Institute which is an organization that advertises Ayn Rand's philosophy and novels of objectivism.
Grace Cueva Mr.King ERWC October 29, 2014 Los Angeles Times 551 Burning Tree Rd. Fullerton, CA Dear Editor, Jeremy Rifkin declared in his article,” A Change of Heart About Animals” Los Angeles Times, September 1, 2003 that animals are capable of emotions just like any human being is, and is requesting that all people treat animals with a sense of empathy to animals just like you would to any other human being. His ideas are a bit too farfetched and absurd and if you really examine the idea itself it is really badly supported. This stems from the fact that one of the topics that differentiate human beings from animals is their ability to feel regarding the lives of creatures outside of their own kind. Rifkin tries to persuade us by telling us that animals understand and experience the whole idea of mortality by using observation for example,”Elephants will often stand next to their kin for days, occasionally touching their bodies with their trunks.”(Rifkin, 11) I think that just because animals can feel grief does not mean that we should treat them how we treat other humans.
Some companies have a strong belief that animal testing is essential in order to make sure that consumers are protected during the use of their products. For the fact that we allow this to happen in our world is pathetic, and it all comes down to pure selfishness’, an ugly trait in which human’s possess. How can it be rational to take the life out of something because it can’t show or tell someone if they’re in agony? Over the years there have been numerous amounts of companies that have stood strong on not participating in animal cruelty; realistically it should be the only way. Humans are at fault here; before it’s too late we must realize that each living creature has a choice and should never be taken away by pure
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.
Some people argue that keeping animals in zoos is cruel as animals are kept away from their natural habitat and there would be no chance for animals to socialize with each other. Before we come to a conclusion perhaps we can examine what cruelty means. In Wikipedia, ‘cruelty to animals is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals, for purposes other than self-defense or survival.’ Keeping animals in the zoo may not be ideal, but that does not mean that zookeepers in zoos are treating animal cruelly. For example, many zoos try to provide animals with an environment that is closest to their natural habitat. Zookeepers give the animals their food, while vets will provide the animals preventive medicine, quarantine and many more.
If a doctor wants to use animals for research they have to prove that the harm of the animal equals the benefit it will give the human, also, through legislation all lab animals must be protected form cruelty of mistreatment. In addition, millions of animals are killed each year for food, does this benefit humans to the extent that animal research for life saving cures does? Surely medical research on animals is a more worthy cause of death. This is another reason why people are pro- animal testing. God made man in charge of animals and to rule over them, “rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every other living creature that moves on the ground” Many Christians do not have an issue with eating animals, as they believe that god made animals for humans to eat.
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.
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?