Persuasive Speech On Animal Testing

Magel said? Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is, "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. Animals are living creatures that have feelings just like a human being.

Through research, outreach, education, legislation, and policy change, NEAVS advocates for replacing animals with modern alternatives that are ethically, humanely, and scientifically superior. This article was written to inform and persuade those who are using animals as test subjects that there are many alternatives available, which are more effective and more reliable than animal testing. The article mentions several different alternative methods that can be used as opposed to animal testing. It mentions that in-vitro testing isn’t the only form of non-animal alternative testing that exists, as most commonly thought. It also gives multiple cases where animal testing was strictly unreliable and caused great mishaps among many communities relying on this treacherousness.

If scientists want animals so badly for tests, why not the animals that these tests were designed for? If the products are intended for human use, than other animals shouldn’t suffer for being innocent. Clearly, animal experimentation is immoral, unnecessary, and animals have rights too, so they shouldn’t be tested on and they most definitely shouldn't have to go through agonizing inhumane procedures that will scar them for

Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals. Scientists say that banning animal experiments would mean either an end to testing new drugs or using human beings for all safety tests.

“The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?’”(Jeremy Bentham, 1832) .Whether we should use animals for testing or not. Some would say it’s beneficial for the human race while others look at it as a form of cruelty. A high number of people, according to polls, state that they would rather like to see an alternative to testing.

It is now a law that scientists must use any alternative than animal testing. The Animal Welfare Regulations explains that researchers or scientist have considered, and will use any replacement. Now that this issue has come more into tact, scientist and researchers are now taking action. They are realizing the potential treatments and alternatives to animal

The biggest reason of those who are against dissection is animal rights. Behavioral studies of diverse animals shown that some animals, including dogs, magpies, and elephants, while not as advanced as humans, animals do have a sense of self-awareness. If some

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’”

Countries like: European Union, Israel, Norway, and India. While some countries are still considering it, they have not been approved. Other alternatives have been making a huge difference in the cosmetic world. Propaganda and other forms of media are always being released to fight against cosmetic testing allowing another genre of audience seeing these inhumane acts on these animals. Major companies use well known alternatives such as “In Vitro and In Vivo” are a few of the biggest testing alternatives known in banned animal testing countries.

Animal testing is a highly controversial subject, disputed among many. It is evidently not pleasant to animals, but it is extremely beneficial for scientific findings. Some say it is a necessary evil, and some say it is animal cruelty. Others cannot simply make up their minds about this subject. Although many people are against animal testing, it must continue due to medicine development, advantages of testing animals over other subjects, and the regulated experiments for the animals’ safety.

Although the idea of testing with animals may sound horrible, animal testing is extremely necessary to keep developing new medicines, and treatments. The benefits of animal testing outweigh the cons of hurting animals for our own wellbeing. These benefits include, many long found treatments and cures that has helped many people throughout the years. Animal testing is also the only way that scientists can properly test on. And lastly, whether many people believe it or not it also benefits animals as well.

We humans think we are more superior over other species, but from the viewpoint of an insect, they believe that they are more superior. So that’s why humans believe that it’s ok to test animals whenever they feel like without their consent. They should have the right to have consented because they are living species just like us, but just not the same type. The scientists honestly have no sympathy of taking away a life of a living organism. These reasons have brought the animal rights group’s attention to criticism.

It also may be claimed by animal rights activists that the only important factor is that animal testing harms living creatures, but the only other option is to harm humans. Andre and Velasquez pointed out that “While we may have a duty to not cause animals needless suffering when we are faced with a choice between the welfare of humans and the welfare of animals, it is with humans that our moral obligation lies” (7). Though animal testing is not the most popular