Although, this isn’t the case because there are laws that regulate how the animal should be cared for such as the Federal Animal Welfare Act. To add to this, not only do animals have to be treated well because of the laws but also because they would make inaccurate results otherwise. Procon.org argues, “stressed or crowded animals produce unreliable research results.” This means that the scientists have no choice but to make sure the animals are well taken care
Animal testing is defined as “the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, especially for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as food or drugs” (“Animal Testing”). Unfortunately, some cosmetic companies treat animals unethically during testing; this brings into question whether or not the practice of animal testing can be considered ethical, or even necessary, in regards to cosmetic purposes. Those with pro-animal testing views may argue that the practice of testing cosmetics on animals is necessary for human safety, however, with modern advances in technology, there are now more options for alternatives than ever before. With support from major companies and governments, alternatives to animal testing could potentially become the standard in the near future. Those who support animal testing argue that animal testing in cosmetics is necessary to ensure that the product is safe for human use.
and how do we know when this will stop sure right now they are doing it on animals and crops but theye could do this on humans EG if you are born with a problem thats not your fault you wont be allowed to reproduce and only the best of the best can same goes with animals. and its not fair that animals dont have rights. and on farms really all we do is do selective breeding to get the most out of the crop or animal to get money and for our own needs we dont care about the animal. Pure Breeding Is The Racism of The Animal Kingdom in other words we are racist if we want a pet most people would not want a disabled dog or cat or want a specific breed and that one dog that has a problem will never be loved and we are being
Analysis: Animal Liberation by Singer Animal rights is a controversial topic that doesn’t seem to be taking any significant strides towards its goal. However that does not mean that there are not any individuals trying to stop mass animal abuse throughout the world. Peter Singer is one of those advocates for animal rights and his voice can be heard through his essay titled, “Animal Liberation.” Singer expresses how cruelly animals are treated for the purpose of humans and expresses a number of eye opening comparisons. Animals can not fight for their rights like humans can. Singer had compared animal rights to the fight for civil rights and gender equality.
You may think it depends. But let me tell you a story. When asking experimenters why they experiment on animals, the answer is “because the animals are like us”. But when asking experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, the answer is “because the animals are not like us”. (relate to audience) II.
The direct duty view is separated into two views. The first is the cruelty-kindness view. This view is simply being kind to animals and not be cruel to them. But just like the case of abortion’s morality, ethical treatment of animals is not something the cruelty-kindness view would be able to satisfy. Then there is utilitarianism.
Mistreating animals as if one does not care for them is the same as mistreating humans. By mistreating poor doubtless animals it affects them and can sometimes lead into suffering stress. If humans are able to protect each other from harm, then why cannot animals do the same thing by having rights? This question is usefully asked for those who try to protect the rights of animals. In the article Of Primates and Personhood the author Ed Yong, a science journalist, contends, “I feel we should extend rights to a wide range of nonhuman animals… ‘all creatures that can feel pain should have a basic moral status’” (5).
list of cons of animal rights Prevents safety testing Is it enough to save animal lives when the cost is a human life placed in danger or lost? new products and medications that could save people but are considered harmful until tested on certain subjects will never be used if animal testing is no longer allowed. It would be even more immoral if test subjects used or human themselves. This may have been going on with clinical trials, but the only difference is that medications used in these trials have already been tested on animals and are considered safe. Stunt research development Animal testing open doors in research of new products and medication that will significantly speed up the development in the medicine field.
In addition, the IACUC cannot actually prevent the laboratories from causing suffering in animal experimentation if the scientist deems the experiment as a scientific need. This means that if the experimenters claim that the use of procedures that subject laboratory animals to pain and distress is necessary to further human health, then the IACUC will approve the experiment. This is a problem that needs to be fixed because it allows scientific experimenters to conduct any procedure that will cause suffering to the animals. This needs to change because these committees do not protect the animals, it is only a weak barrier to lessen animal suffering (Rowan).
If some countries have come up with the idea to take care of animals and have made even groups and organizations against animal abuse why do, they inhumanly abuse animals for testing. Experimental tests on animals its something unessential, and what if results are erroneous and in animals works perfect and on human results badly. As well, we know that the human body its pretty similar to an animal's body. Some doctors say that animal testing can slow down he results for a research or for a product. Some years ago, they inferred that animal testing cannot speculate how high the risk can be of a product or drug on