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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ethical Treatment of Animals Animals have played an important role in many aspects of this world; some look upon these roles with favoritism, some with disgust. Animals give live birth and are considered different from humans by some people because of their behavior. Some animals are consumed as food by humans and other animals or trapped for their furs. Many times people get animals as pets and neglect them. Some animals are pulled out of their habitat and are used as research; yet some humans think they do not deserve any rights because they are animals.
Drug manufacturers test medications on animals after they have been injected with viruses and diseases to see if the medications work on the animals. There are many companies who use animal research to test their products; unfortunately these organizations do not look for alternatives besides animal testing. If these atrocious acts were committed outside laboratories, they would be felonies. But animals suffer and die every day in laboratories with little or no protection from cruelty. It is immoral to
The quality of the experiments was necessitous. In this study, Roberts (2007) states that, The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings. Drugs that pass in animal test are not successful in human clinical tests. Animals as their matter are not germane to human health. Several can cause human diseases that can damage us instead of helping us.
These tests are not required by law, so why would companies continue to torture peaceful animals? They claim they only conduct tests for two reasons. One, to protect human health. And two, to provide customers with harmless products. Although this sound good for us humans, think about the hundreds of animals killed a month, just so a major cosmetic company such as Maybelline can test a new batch of lipsticks.
[12]And in these cases, Using Drugs Directly on Humans Involves a Great Deal of Risk. Fourthly, Testing on animals is not as casual a phenomenon as it might sound. The license for testing on animals is granted only when it is sufficiently proved that there are no available alternatives to animal testing. Besides, these tests and laboratory experiments are conducted under the expert supervision of a panel of professionals that include veterinarians and members of various public and animal welfare