Proud To Be Speciesist Analysis

“Animal Testing Is Bad Science.” Animal Rights, edited by Noah Berlatsky, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints In Context, http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010954207/OVIC?u=scschools&sid=OVIC&xid=96434ce4. Accessed 25 Apr. 2018. Originally published as “Animal Testing Is Bad Science:

In this book wars article, I will be comparing two books on the commonality of their main characters. They are both young adults, although one is a boy and one is a girl. Book one is Evolution, Me, & Other Freaks of Nature by Robin Brande. Book 2 is Erak’s Ransom: Ranger’s Apprentice Series, Book 7 by John A. Flanagan. They are both about a young adult facing varying challenges in life, and becoming an adult.

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated” (Mahatma Gandhi). Scientists have been using animals for biomedical research for centuries. They provide a source to get information scientists can not get without harming humans. A lot of debate is spread about whether it is good or bad. Animal experimentation is a controversial topic because it is helpful to humans, but it is also cruel and inhumane.

In discussion of animal rights, one controversial issue has been whether or not animals should be use for medical testing. On the one hand, some scientists argue that animal testing has contributed for many cures and treatments. On the other hand, animal rights activist contends that alternative methods now exist that can replace the need for animals. Others even maintain that animal testing is an essential part in medical research. My own view is that animals should not be used in medical testing because is no longer necessary now there are methods that are safer and have better results than animals do.

Approximately 225 million animals are used for testing every year. Billions have been killed in the process. ("Questions and Answers About Biomedical Research.”) How can this be allowed? Isn’t it cruel to use animals to test products for humans? Many animal rights activists say, “yes” to this question. However, scientists argue it is necessary and animal research can help save human lives. There are probable arguments for both sides. But the dangers of using animals to test products for human use weighs an even greater risk than not using the animals. Alternatives are much more ethical.

An estimated 25 million or more animals are used yearly in the U.S. These animals are commonly used in biomedical research as “models” for human disease, they are also used in basic biomedical research which is research for general understanding. Not only are animals used in biomedical research but, behavioral research as well, such as psychology and addiction studies, military, space, and agricultural research, product development and drug testing, as well as science education. Animals shouldn’t be used for such testing, these tests are unethical, inhumane and completely unnecessary. Thousands of animals suffer and die every day in laboratories around the world. In most states, abuse or cruelty towards animals is illegal. A person can face up to 7 years in prison and a fine of maximum $235,600. If it is illegal for cruelty to be conducted on animals why does it make it okay in the name of science?

To begin with, animals ' rights are abused when they are utilized as a part of research.  Animals and individuals are similar in numerous ways; they both feel, think, act on, and encounter torment. Therefore, animals should be treated with the same dignity as people. However animals ' rights are disregarded when they are utilized as a part of research since they are not given a decision. Animals are subjected to tests that are again and again agonizing or cause lasting harm or even death, and they are never given the alternative of not taking part in the experiment. Animals don 't freely give themselves up for the progression of

When discussing the issues faced from an ethical standpoint of animal rights it is important to consider the benefits animals bring to people and then question what rights animals are entitled to due to this (Fisher). Taking that into account, one must ask if giving them rights could possibly overstep on human rights and would animals even be able to enjoy rights (Fisher). It is often debated that the benefits and knowledge through experimentation of animals have led to life-saving advancements in the field of science and medicine (Fisher). The other side of the debate argues that even if these past benefits are justified, these type of experiments are no longer necessary and it is deemed unacceptable that wrongful treatment of animals is done for this purpose (Fisher). When it comes to the question of

Asking just about any animal rights activists on the thoughts of animal testing, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of them would address crucial flaws in many of the laws in regards to animals and how animals are supposedly “protected” by these laws. Trained scientists and researchers take on the key role of testing on animals in laboratories and facilities throughout the world, using the excuse that we are expanding knowledge and furthering medical research. In the United States alone, there are very few laws truly protecting animals from the unnecessary amounts of suffering the research forces upon them with many exceptions. Additionally, in reference to the scientists who perform these tests, the author of the article,

An estimated 30 million animals are used per year in biomedical and research experiments ("Update: Animal Testing" 1). In particular, about 75,000 dogs, including thousands from homeless shelters, are abused every year in laboratories in the United States ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). “Man’s best friend” is a preferred choice by scientists for use in toxicology experiments. Dogs are tormented as they undergo tests involving overdoses of pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals, pesticides, or household products, gradually poisoning them and sometimes resulting in death ("Dogs in Laboratories | PETA.org” 1). In what way does treating animals with such disrespect seem ethical at all? Animals were not put on the earth to be destroyed for research in the name of “science.”

Many scientist are violating animal rights when they use them in research. Animals rights have been violated when used for research such as being tortured, in excruciating pain and having a slow death.​ Tom Reagan, a philosophy professor states that animals should be treated with respect and not be reduced to trash for the use of experiments. "Animals have a basic moral right to respectful treatment, this inherent value is not respected when animals are being reduced to mere tools in scientific experiments."(Reagan, 26)​ When animals are being used for research many rights of the animals have been violated.​

The animals in research, teaching and testing is an important issue. Most of the discussion is revolving around the relative value, often referred to as moral value, of humans and animals. (Burrell) How do you decide what is right when the needs of animals and humans come into conflict? It’s difficult to have decisions when so many people have

Roughly 26 million animals every year are turned over for animal testing (Procon.org). It has been practiced for thousands of years, with the first instance of animal research dating back to around 500 BC (and even then many frowned upon it). People who are for animal testing voice that it has created life-saving treatment for humans as well as animals. Those who are against it say that it’s an inhumane and cruel form of research, and there are better, safer alternatives scientists can use to continue with their

In our world, protests occur each day on the issues of animal cruelty and human rights, but when the issues are put together which will reign over the other? The author Peter Singer of “All Animals are Equal” and “Tools for Research” presents his argument for determining when animal experiments are justified. The author starts his paper with a counter argument, questioning if one would be willing to let thousands of people die if those people could be saved by experimentation on a single animal. The answer is a unanimous no; in our culture we value human life over everything else. The author follows by asking the reader if they would be prepared to carry out their experiments on humans who are mentally retarded or orphaned babies, if that

People have animal, especially dog and cat, as a pet. They take care of animals and spend their lives together. However, sacrificing animals is necessary to survive human’s life. Moreover, using animals as a laboratory table is become common because this can improve our health. Therefore, argument about animal experimentation often leads to vigorous debate. Animal Experimentation Is Unnecessary by Sarah A. Millar pointed out that animal experimentation wastes money and brutalizes. Animal Experimentation Is Unethical by Robert Garner asserted that the social status of animals is on a par with that of mortals. Animal Experimentation Is Necessary by Carl Cohen claimed that vaccines about diseases, such as polio, have not practicalized unless animals were used as a trial of side effect. Animal Experimentation Is Ethical by Henry E. Heffner argued that animal experimentation profits not only humankind but also animals. On the surface at least, arguments about animal experimentation seem different such as