Animal Rights And Animal Testing And Abuse

Animal testing harms and violates the rights of the animal itself. Some people say it is okay because the animal does not know the difference between right from wrong. Animal testing creates a traumatizing experience for the animal. Their bodies become damaged from all the burning and allergic reactions they have to undergo from the chemicals. The animals do not know what is going on, nor do they know where they are because they have been taken out of their natural habitats. The change in environment is new to the animals, making them forced to accept the new area they would call home. Animal testing prohibits an animal from being free. Is it okay to test on animals because they lack the ability to know if the testing being done to them is moral or not? Animals do not have the ability to make their own moral judgment. It is not fair to harm an animal because they are living organisms that play an important role in the ecosystem.

Cohen argues that humans may morally use animals for biomedical research, the study of biological processes and disease, because animals lack rights. He defines rights as moral claims that one human can hold against another, which are bound in both law as well as in comprehension of right and wrong. As animals lack self-conscious placement in a higher ethical order with the ability to weigh needs of self against the needs of others, they therefore lack the ability to have rights. (Cohen 1986: p. 215) To support the morality of animal research, I will show how it has led to many successful treatments of disease in humans, due to the common physiology that we share with other animals. Furthermore, I will argue that the pain caused on research

Animal Rights: What Everyone Needs to Know is a book written by Paul Waldau, president of the Religion and Animals Institute but also a former director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy. Waldau is an author with experience in studying animal law and the treatment of animals. He served as lecturer at the Harvard Law School, regarding animal law, four times between 2002-2010. His book describes the many different issues presented in animal testing and the animal rights movement and how these issues are regarded in society.

As I have progressed through this journey, I feel as though I have gained a much greater insight into an issue, which is of far bigger global concern than I had initially realised. The basis of this investigation was to examine the social and ethical perspectives on animal testing and within that the tendency for human beings to classify and categorise forms of life, placing themselves at the top of the ladder. Through the use of primary and secondary methodologies I have been able to appreciate many differing opinions, ranging from passionate objections to uncertainty and then those in full support of continuation.

As human beings, we all have basic rights. Animals, on the other hand, do not get a choice in what is done to them. Animals being used for research dates back to the 1500s. It is estimated that 26 million are used for commercial or scientific research every year. People often disagree on whether animals should have rights. Though they are without a voice, they still have feelings and suffer from pain just as humans do. There are better alternatives to animal testing, such as ones that do not include the suffering and torture of defenseless animals. Although animal research benefits humans in numerous ways, animals have feelings and should have rights just as humans do.

There are many debates about whether or not animals such as mice and rats should be experimented on. The organization Psychologist for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believes in observing animals instead of experimenting on them (Meyer). Another known organization is People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). An organization that is in favor of animal experimentation is called Pro-Test and is located in the United Kingdom (UK). This organization thinks that experimenting on animals may help humans. About 95% of animals are not protected by the Animal Welfare Act like reptiles, birds and mice (“Animal Testing”). Experimentation on animals should not be permitted in any country, including the United States, because it is cruel and inhumane, because we have developed new technology that can replace these experiments, and because sometimes the results that are found are not directly relevant to humans.

I buy a great deal of your products. I have spent more than I care to admit. Now I hear your going back to animal testing. If this is true, I suggest you STOP! I know many many people who use your products and I have talked with all of them and we have decided to boycott your product until you go back to cruelty free makeup.Now I know what you are thinking, your thinking a few people wont make a difference on your bottom line. I suggest you think about the 17 people whom I have convenced to boycott your product, each one of them knows more than a couple of people to convince and then those people know others and so on. You see how this will become a huge problem for your

Even though I think the movie is really persuasive and it is good to raise awareness for animal cruelty, I did not enjoy it. I found it very hard to watch the whole movie. However, overall, it is really informative, and I knew a lot after watching this movie. Before, I always thought that animal testing on drugs are necessary for our safety, but it is not. I also did not know what the animals have to go through everyday while being tested and observed. It was also heartbreaking to see how horrible the trainers train animals to perform on circuses. Before I thought the animals do trick, paint a painting, because they wanted to, but now I realized that they are being forced into doing all of these activities. I had always wanted to go to a circuses

As many of us know MAC is one of the most popular makeup brands used today. For so many years MAC has been a cruelty free company but that did not last long. MAC started testing on animals and everyone including celebrity Pamela Anderson was upset. Animal cruelty really effects the animals being tested. These animals can die during the experiment do to the chemicals they use. It performs test that are not necessary reason being, the makeup sometimes does not even launch. Also, it cost a lot of money just to have these animals in the laboratory. With this being said, they should not use animals for experiments to harm them or think that it is okay to let them go on with their lives after the harm.

There’s been a significant amount of legislation passed into law based on honoring crime victims in Tennessee. Some of these include the examples I listed above, which include Amelia’s Law, the Kelsey Smith Act, and Erin’s Law. There are many more to include the Channon Christian and Chris Newsom Acts, Victim’s Rights Photo Act, Mabry Kate Webb Act, and Dustin’s law, even though this particular legislation has been delayed being passed into law.

It is cruel for animals to continue to be tortured when it is unnecessary. It has been proven that the tests performed on animals have different effects on humans. Companies are using animals to test the safety of their products using old methods that were created back in the early 1900s. There has been enough scientific advancement for these companies to use other methods using 21st century technology. Unfortunately, there are not enough laws or regulations in the U.S. to protect the safety of all animals. The penalties for companies who violate current laws on animal cruelty do not outweigh the economic benefits companies reap from their research. The U.S. should outlaw all animal testing by passing the Humane Cosmetics Act

Animal experimentation is the use of non-human animals in experiments. Animal experimentation also known as animal testing had established way back into the second century A.D. A Roman physician, named Galen started to perform endless animal experiments. (Safer Medicines.) On the other hand, the first major animal experiments occurred in the nineteenth century. Luis Pasteur administered anthrax to sheep. Anthrax is a bacterial disease that affects the skin and lungs in sheep and cattle, so Pasteur was responsible for this bacterial disease in these animals. Another man known as Ivan Pavlov conducted experiments on dogs and tested how their memory works with repetitive tasks. (Murnaghan)

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as som e peop le supp ose, to lead us to be veg etarians and to se riously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific' experiments designed to benefit us? To fully ap preciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.' Well, that's not q uite right. There are som e

Animals all over the globe are being abused and mistreated on an everyday basis by people who have no sympathy for them. In addition, not as many people are striving to protect these animals, whether they are farm, wildlife, or domestic animals. Should animals of every kind have some sort of “Bill of Rights”? A way of laws protecting animals, separating them from the cruel and giving them more rights than they already have. I will be asserting why animals do need a “Bill of Rights” and I will be explaining the positive and negative outcomes of what may happen if animals do actually get fundamental rights and privileges.

In many religions it allows for humans to be dominant over animals for example in the Bible, Genesis 1:26 is says that’s God let humans have dominion over fish, fowl, cattle and all insects. Many different religious teachings actively encourage animal experimentations as long as there is no pain inflicted on the animals and the experiments will be beneficial to humans (Peek et al. 1997). In Hinduism cows are worshiped, in fact cows are not eaten and local villagers do not harm monkeys, there are now laws to protect these species in India (DeMello, 2012).