The argument that sing animals for testing is wrong and should be banned

Debate: Should humans own pets

Eliminating animal testing of cosmetics is entirely feasible. In a Guardian article he titled, "Fish: Animals have similar structures in their anatomy and biological processes to humans so by watching how their bodies work can give us the insight needed to protect ourselves if something harmful spreads and how to combat such difficulties to our way of living.

The animals become immobilized in restraining devices to prevent them from struggling. Humans, though categorized as an animal, are a completely different species than a rabbit, dog, cat, rat, or monkey. Animals are living beings just like humans, but people seem to think that animals are nothing but mere tools at their disposal.

We must to put an end to this cruelty and torture because just like humans, animals are living beings. While the animal is put through rigorous testing, laboratories are required to make sure experiments are performed in as humane of a way as possible.

Animal Testing Essay

In fact, it is our power of discrimination and reasoning and sensitivity that actually makes us superior. Researchers look to see if they can use the least amount of animals possible. Tweet on Twitter Animals being used to test cosmetics is a topic near and dear to many hearts.

If, however, we insist on believing in divine creation, we are forced to admit that the god who made the world cannot be all-powerful and all good. Additionally, he endorses Derek Parfit 's view that there are object-given reasons for action.

Universalisation leads directly to utilitarianism, Singer argues, on the strength of the thought that one's own interests cannot count for more than the interests of others. They take on the perspective that a lot of what we know about diseases stems from human research such with what we know about smoking and cancer, cholesterol, heart disease, and even AIDs.

Cosmetic testing is not only abusive to animals, but also highly expensive. Out of the recorded number of deaths attributed to medical treatment via drugs passed post-animal testing, the truth is that majority cases were hospitalized due to faulty procedure adopted and wrong method of application.

As an example take the drug Thalidomide. Episkin is one of these alternatives. The product range is as diverse as skin creams and shampoos to cancer prevention drugs and vaccines. Death Of Animals While some trials are painless and the animals are able to return to wherever they came from afterwards, this is not true for every trial.

The pain by no means is minimal. In Defense of Animals. An interesting as well as an utterly gross fact to be digested, is that an estimatedanimals are not administered with any medication to cease partially or completely, the pain caused due to animal testing. Providing food, shelter and care for the animals is costly.

Both sides of this debate are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, making it increasingly difficult to come to an agreement of any sort. He argues in favour of voluntary euthanasia and some forms of non-voluntary euthanasia, including infanticide in certain instances, but opposes involuntary euthanasia.

This universalising step, which Singer traces from Kant to Hare, [22]: He supports this using the drowning child analogy, which states that most people would rescue a drowning child from a pond, even if it meant that their expensive clothes were ruined, so we clearly value a human life more than the value of our material possessions.

Singer himself adopted utilitarianism on the basis that people's preferences can be universalised, leading to a situation where one takes the "point of view of the universe" and "an impartial standpoint".

The fact that students are cutting open another persons pet is just wrong. Nonhuman animals are abruptly and painfully deprived of their lives after having been deprived of most of the positive experiences they could have had, and after having been made to suffer terribly.

It is a proven fact that animals feel pain just like humans do, but we still think it is okay to torture and kill animals in the name of science. Share via Print Although the U. Although this example was for a drug, the same thing can happen with cosmetic products, and has infact.

Effective altruism Singer at an effective altruism conference in Melbourne in. Dec 08,  · The case for animal rights. Philosophers have usually avoided arguing that all non-human animals have rights because: the consequences are so limiting for humanity. Animals have been used in circuses for generations, and while the sight of a lion jumping through fire, an elephant standing on its hind legs, or a monkey riding a bicycle may seem entertaining to.

Animal testing essay thesis When it comes to creating an essay over animal testing a writer can either writer in support of it or opposed to it. Animal testing has been a hot topic for the past few decades and has shown no signs of resolution any time soon.

scientific disadvantages of animal testing pg. 4 chance of a successful transition of results from animal to humans can lead to the harming of humans or even death and ends with a loss of time.

However, both sides of the animal testing argument, in favor of animal testing and against animal testing, prove points that people should see. Nevertheless, despite the belief that animal testing is beneficial, testing animals is actually morally wrong and should not be carried out.

Some people argue that all animal experimentation should end because it is wrong to treat animals merely as tools for furthering knowledge. According to this point of view, an animal should have as much right as a human being to live out a full life, free of pain and suffering.

The argument that sing animals for testing is wrong and should be banned
Rated 0/5 based on 36 review
Animal experimentation up 73 percent, study says - CBS News