As Richards points out, human testing is an only solution to replace animal testing. Although human testing is the most accurate method to test the efficiency of the product, it is a taboo subject and it is not allowed. For this reason, animal experiment must be continued in order to have the new treatment of HIV and cancer. Many people, however, are opposed to the idea of animal experimentation because it is cruel and inhumanity. Scientists care only about their research and achievements, not the animal.
Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. Animal testing is the best possible option. Animal testing is necessary to safely keep up with the growing market of products and pharmaceutical drugs. The animals used for testing often turns into a lethal result. Animal testing is not required by the law, but it is done by the companies to protect itself from consumer lawsuits.
[animal-testing.procon.org] Researchers in Aston University have made it known that it is not worth taking the lives of these animals for testing, because the things we’re trying to make happen with human bodies is very different from the animal body. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. There is a big percentage from the 1950’s up till now that animal testing is flawed by not being correct when it is given to the people it is for. So why not just stop the animal experiments that are not just killing, but also torturing the animals.
Ethical Treatment of Animals SOC120: Introduction to Ethics & Social Responsibility Instructor: Raeven Chandler October 3, 2012 When someone mistreats an animal this is considered wrong. This can be considered an illegal act and a morally wrong act. Animals are innocent creatures that have no voice of their own and therefore need to have someone speak on their behalf. The use of deontology can resolve the issue of the ethical treatment of animals. Deontology resolves this issue by focusing on ways that we can treat animal fairly and creating laws that protect animals.
Those groups of people think that it’s too cruel for animals and it’s unfair to deprive animals’ rights, to let them bare pain. I do realize that it’s not a good thing for those innocent animals to pay such a huge sacrifice to help humans develop their science; however, it dose not represent that I disagree using animals. Using animals for research can be forbidden entirely in the future? If it becomes true, how can we develop science without testing animals? Since the level of scientific technology haven’t reached sophisticated enough to let scientists abandon using animals entirely, I have to say that it’s necessary to use animals in some meaningful experiments.
Animal testing should be banned When picking out your mascara or eyeliner, do you even stop to see what kind of makeup you are using? You could be supporting animal cruelty and not even know it. Today many makeup products, such as mascara, are being tested on animals. Helpless and defenseless animals are being performed on for different types of experiments all around the world. Most of the things being performed in these labs you could never imagine one human being doing to another.
FOE answers them, dogs are not companion animals everywhere, dogs are no more mentally sophisticate than many other animals, and the taboo on eating dogs is local, limited to our culture. According to the FOE, people should consider the practical implications of adopting canines as a food animal. On the other hand, weakening the taboo on eating dogs could indeed cause great harm. For many people, the love of a dog is their introduction to affection fro animals, their gateway, in a sense, to see the animal world as something other than objects for us to use. Making dogs as a food object would make it impossible to many people to have those feelings for animals.
Singer argues animal rights issue in three different aspects including moral equity, cruel experiment and inhuman factory farming; however, from a scientific perspective, these three arguments are not solid. Singer claims that although human and nonhuman are not equal in factual level, they are equal in moral level. Singe using analogy compare animal liberation with black, women and gay liberation to prove that animals are entitled to have their own rights. However, even in the moral level, animals cannot equal to human. In human society, consanguineous marriage is forbidden.
In contrast, animal welfare takes the position that it is morally acceptable for humans to use non-human animals, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. The debate between those who support animal research and those who don’t is often portrayed in such a way that one group appears to care about animals while the other group doesn’t. This isn’t the case at all. Fundamentally, the issue is about how to reduce the total suffering for both humans and animals and it can be done by raising concern over
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.