People in the cosmetic industry say that they test on animals to make sure it is safe for humans. But humans and animals differ significantly making product testing inaccurate and dangerous. For example animals have much more sensitive skin then humans. They react differently to things. Sixty one percent of the cosmetics that are tested on animals and there is no affect and it is put on the market, people have gotten killed or seriously injured by it.
What many people do not realize that a large portion of products that use on a daily basis from cosmetics and household products to drugs and foods are tested on animals prior humans use. Animals testing basically consist of utilizing non-human animals in scientific or commercial experiments in order to determine the safety of substances, for instance, drugs, food, cosmetics, vaccines as well as assess the beneficial and effective of medicines. Proponents of animals testing see it as cruel yet necessary for medical progress as well as it has a great role to find a remedy for dangerous diseases namely Breast Cancer, Childhood Leukemia, and HIV/AIDS. Whereas, opponents of animals testing say it is possible to replace animals testing with
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 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”.
Some people say these experiments are cruel, and animals should not be used. While others say they would rather see these experiments done on animals instead of humans themselves. b. Thesis statement- Animal experimentation for medical purposes should be carried out, instead of scientist performing human tests. c. Main points- My main points are; medical advances for humans due to animal experiments, medical advances for animals due to animal experimentation, how the animals are really treated, laws that are enforced, and why animals are used. 2.
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
Why continue to test animals that may give inaccurate results on products that can still be sold to the human race? Now there are groups who say that there is no alternative to animal testing, and that animals have saved many human lives, but if the
Animals welfare, not animal right Animals are used in many different scientific tests. It has remained to be a controversy in the past century. “Cruel” and “inhumane” are the two most common words to be used in describing animal testing. Animal activists question the necessity of it, claiming it to be an abuse to animal. They believe that animals should be granted the right against suffering at the hands of humans.
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.
While the arguments against animal testing are numerous, it still has a tremendous amount of benefit towards humans as a species. One cannot just look at the life expectancy as a measure of how well people live, but instead, we must also look at the quality of life. Should animal testing be eliminated, or, as the article suggests, put under the same ethical code towards the treatment of humans, we will experience a sharp decline in lifespan, and a decrease in the quality of life. The loss of animal testing would result in a sharp decline of lifespan in humans. The one thing most people understand about viruses and bacteria is that they evolve at an extremely rapid pace, leading to what can be called an evolutionary “arms race” between humanity and the diseases we contract.