Charles Magel Animal Testing Rhetorical Analysis

Down With Animal Testing There are certain things about animal testing that the community doesn’t know. Some people know what happens to those animals and they don’t want to face what happens. The inhumane treatment of animals used for research is well documented. There are many pros and cons considering the use of the animals in medical research. Animals shouldn’t be used for testing because it’s inhumane and it will make the population go down.

Animals are or needed for testing in order to keep humans out of harm's way. Using animals prevents people from dying and could save more depending on the medicine being tested. Animals must be used in cases when ethical considerations prevent the use of human subjects. When testing medicines for potential toxicity, the lives of human volunteers should not be put in

This information will help me talk about the other side of my argument. It 's good to touch base

Looking at pets for example, society implements laws protecting these animals because becoming aware of a pet in pain would lead to human discomfort due to numerous facts such as the strong friendly bond people have with their pets. Though if we look at the case of eating meat, most of society does not extend their moral code to protect the animals farmed or hunted for food because they are protecting their interests such as the pleasure they enjoy from the taste of meat or the energy it gives their bodies. The interest of not having to pay more than required is also a strong contributing factor to the way animals are treated. Here human moral code is not extended to look after these animals. Because even though farming and hunting animals has extreme consequences to the environment and the animals suffering on farms, it has little direct discomfort to humans such as seeing a mans best friend in pain.

Perhaps giving animals the likeness of a machine is to far. However, the concept of animals only being able to learn from experience and not from teaching the way humans do helps serperate the two parties and further push the idea that we are different and should not hold the same rights. Another argument used by the supporters of animal testing is the notion of voluntary consent. Human beings have the mental capacity to personally volunteer themselves for experimentation for the advancement of modern medicine if they so desired. Animals, on the other hand, lack this mental capacity.

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. So whether animals are like humans or not?

Are Zoos Unethical By:Kalynn Deppe An issue that has been hotly debated since the brink of zoos has been whether they are ethical or not. Although some believe that zoos can be beneficial to animals, thousands of research has shown this not to be true. The main reasons zoos are devious is because, there artificial environments are harmful, the animals are more prone to diseases, and it can damage children's views on society.

Therefore, rather than basing rights off of those traits make it a vulnerability discourse. There are two main animal equality arguments, Peter Singer’s Utilitarian theory, and Tom Regan’s moral recognition theory. Singer argues, “human preference for humans rests on an unsupportable biological distinction vis-a`-vis all other animals”. While Tom Regan states, “that all beings who are ‘‘subjects-of-a-life” should receive the moral recognition and legal protection that rights afford”. The problem with the

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 there is the LD50 Test: A toxicity test used in animal testing that is performed until 50 percent of the animals are dead. Animals should not be required to be tested on before the use of a medical drug, cosmetic, or food additive. The use of animals in cosmetic experiments is immoral and wrong. The immoral and wrong practices can be shown through “the use of bunnies to test eye irritation to make sure the makeup is safe for humans, though testing is not required by law.”

Animals should not be used in experimentation. It can be seen as cruel and inhumane. Alternative methods can also replace the need for animals in testings. Additionally, animals are unalike from humans, possibly creating poor

The most important reason why circuses should not be allowed to capture wild animals for entertainment purposes is because the animals are abused. Around the world, "[...] circus[es] [...] [have] been cited for violating the [...] standards of care set by the United States Animal Welfare [...]" ("11 Facts About"). Studies that are produced have made the horrific treatment of animals hard to ignore. The AWA has cited many circuses for having scraps of metal that can cut the animals, and wood that can easily cause splinters near the animal 's cages. The Ringling Bros Company had to pay the AWA $270,000 for putting the animals in a

For some animals this is the case, but not all meat distributers follow the rules of the Department of Agriculture. More importantly, birds do not apply to the law that states animals must not be able to feel pain when being killed. They can be paralyzed and drowned while still conscious(Cruel Slaughterhouse

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

The scientists and doctors treat the living beings with such disrespect, ignorance, and cruelty. They treat it as if it is a test object, but not a living being. Also, animal use cannot always be reliable and accurate. For example, many drugs that appear safe and effective in animals fail in humans, or cause significant harm and sometimes even death. A 2004 study from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that 92 percent of drugs entering clinical trials following animal testing fail to be approved.