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
Yet, people still can think rationally that none of these god’s creature willingly or voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the advancement of human welfare and new technology. Humans do not have the right to use animals for their own ends because animals are also a creation of god which makes them equally entitled to the same rights as humans. According to Bentham (2015), the questions that bothers when deciding on animal are not ‘Can they reason?’ nor ‘Can they talk?’ but ‘Can they suffer?’
This means that animals can still be taken out of their homes and experience great suffering as long as the owner is not physically abusing them. On the other hand, animal rights says that animals should not be kept in anyway or by anyone that takes them out of
Primates should not be entitled to basic civil rights due to the advantages that society reaps from animal testing. “Rights” and the understanding of imposed actions are a concept that can only be grasped by the human mind. Humans are the only species that can compose themselves with cogent and sensible thinking.. Giving basic human-rights to primates, including life, protection, freedom from torture, slavery, and freedom of movement, etc. is a ridiculous idea because they are unable to reciprocate these rights onto others, due of their lack in rational thought. We, as a society, are unable to teach primates to go against their natural instincts, you cannot, for example, teach an animal not to hunt for survival or kill for protection.
also animals have rights we are taking them away from theme. And some dogs are breed to be compition dogs they dont care about the dog they just want the best dog. the dog’s personality barely matters. 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.
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.
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.
The pit bull is a breed of dog with a reputation that has been skewed by misrepresentation of evidence and flat out lies. The pit bull has no inherent dangerous characteristics and banning it would make no progress in safety. It is common knowledge that all animals are controlled by their instincts. Dogs may bite or growl at a person to warn them, but if a person doesn’t listen to that warning, it is the person’s fault. Banning pit bulls will not change an animal’s natural instinct and make people safer.
Furthermore, animals have different demands, wants and needs compared to humans as they are different species that live under different conditions, where humans do not know what the animals want as there is no communication between the animals and humans. Therefore, each species should have a different type of lifestyle and different rights, so the authors argument towards animals and humans having similar rights is irrational. In addition, the authors are against the property of animals by humans yet have six dogs as pets which make them hypocritical since these pets are considered their property. They cannot set an example towards the issue they are discussing, which is the rights of animals not to be property, when they are going against their own argument by having six animals as their
People say that if u test on the animals nobody would care if they died. The also say that it won’t harm the animals but it really does. Some people also say that animal testing is bad because of the danger you are putting the animals in. The animals are going extinct because of the testing.
This helps implement the idea there is an anthropocentric view for not torturing animals for it can lead to harm with humans. Premise 4 shows that any suffering is characterized as unnecessary. Premise 5 believes all animal for foods use unnecessary suffering, which is a false premise for not all use suffering on animals to make food. An example would be a slaughter house for cows that use euthanasia to kill them to avoid suffering. The conclusion then states human consumption of any products is justified.
There should be laws to protect these animals like there are laws to protect us. They deserve the respect and humanity we receive, imagine your own household pet being take from you to be tortured and starved to the point of death, these animals may have never belonged to someone or had a real family but they should be given the right to have one. The test are not always valid and have no reason to be used if there are other methods using actual human cells which are more reliable. These animals have no voice over what’s happening, animal activists and large organizations try every day to give them what they deserve. Stop killing our animals and take a stand against Animal Testing
Some of these experiments would never be used because some of them do not work or they are too dangerous for human use, but still the animals used those experiments would die. Also, animals are not used only for medical testing, it should not be done because medical testing at least had help us improving medical treatments, but cosmetic testing and other kinds of products like detergent does not. Animals should not be used to test these kind of products because this only harm the animals and does not leave us with anything that would truly help to improve our living conditions, the thing it does is to torture a lot of
However, by doing so, this can decrease and possibly eliminate animal experimenting all together. This conflict can potentially setback the advancement of medicine, but it does reach a consensus for both sides of deciding whether animal experimentation is beneficial or not. Both sides win in this case and civilization can benefit from it as