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
Darryl Phillips Mr. Leggett English 4 28 April 17 Behind the Scenes In Animal Testing Animal experimentation is a serious issue that many people oppose, whereas others try to justify the inhumanity behind it. Because of the controversy surrounding this topic, it has caused much frustration in companies and labs that test their products on animals. There are currently many organizations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatments of Animals) and IAAPEA (International Association Against Painful Experiments On Animals) that oppose animal testing and try to resolve this issue by providing people with knowledgeable information about what is really happening to these animals. Over one-hundred million animals die in labs worldwide every
How important for the prevention of disease was Edward Jenner’s discovery of the smallpox vaccination in 1796? Edward Jenner took the first step in understanding and preventing infectious diseases by developing a smallpox vaccination in the year 1796. This was important as he saved many lives with this new discovery and improved previous methods of preventing disease. Future scientists such as Pasteur and Koch were also able to use Jenner’s work to develop vaccinations for other serious illnesses. However, it was also a limited discovery because it merely tackled one disease and his idea was only gradually accepted by other doctors.
An estimated 10% of these specimens receive absolutely no anesthesia. Animal testing is an extremely controversial topic. In fact, it is so controversial that the biases on either side of the spectrum may skew the true definition of the practice. Those against animal testing generally argue that it is nothing more than blatant cruelty and the causation of pointless suffering of living creatures. Those for it tend to define it as using animals to benefit humans and save lives.
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.
These primates are used in research into neurological studies, behavioral studies, genetics, to help better surgical procedures like brain and heart surgery , vaccine and drug testing, and for reproduction studies. Many feel that nonhuman primate research is critical in gaining insight and helping to advance in human medicine. In this post they state, “Many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life” (Animal Testing). This research helps to learn and ensure the safety of drugs and other substances to humans (Animal Testing). Not only does some of this research help human lives, but it is also essential in helping animal lives as well.
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
26 November 2012 Christian Flores 28000 Wolverine Way, Aliso Viejo, 92656 Davan Maharaj Los Angeles Times 202 West 1st Street Los Angeles, CA, 90012 Dear Editor, In Jeremy Rifkin’s article “A Change of Heart About Animals,” he speaks about how we should treat animals better because they are more like humans than what is commonly believed. In the article he says “many of our fellow creatures are more like us than we had ever imagined,” to show his argument. Rifkin makes many points about how animals should be treated humanely in his article and these arguments are, for the most part, very reasonable. I agree, to an extent, with Jeremy Rifkin and his arguments. In the article, Jeremy Rifkin shows that it would be illogical to disagree that animals have human-like qualities through studies.
When a person is unsure on whether or not that they will live to see their next birthday, the last thing that they are worried about is if the treatments that they are taking, that is fighting a war inside their body, was tested on the animals in a humane way. Animal testing is a benefit to society. It has saved countless lives with the how much it has contributed to medical research and has ensured the general public’s safety with how it has played a major role in the rules and regulations of food, drugs and cosmetics. The abolishment of animal testing would mean that researchers would not be able to find drugs and treatments for medical purposes. Animal research has played a pivotal role in virtually every major medical advancement for both human and animal health in the last century.
More humane non-animal testing methods have been used by hundreds of companies such as “Clarins, Dermalogica, Estee Lauder and Clinique”. [http://beautyfool.com/animal-testing-beauty-brands-that-do-not-test-on-animals/] The companies that test on animals normally would like to discover the most appropriate manufacturing solution for common problems like skin irritancy, eye tissue damage and toxicity levels which is performed on animals in order to improve their product. “The Draize eye irritancy test has been used since 1944. Liquid, flake, granule, and powdered substances are placed into the eyes of rabbits, and then the eyes' progressive deterioration is recorded. This test is responsible for the suffering and death of thousands of rabbits each year in the United States but does not prevent or help cure human injury.” [http://www.geari.org/faqdraize.html].