The Use Of Animals For Food And Scientific Experimentation

. "No such Thing as Humane Animal Experimentation." The Ecologist, vol. 35, no. 1, 2005., pp.

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court, in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976), and Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) held that the discretion to impose the death sentence for specific crimes was to be bi-furcated into two separate trials. The first to determine guilt or innocence; the second to determine the aggravating and mitigating factors. The State of Oceana adopted the findings of the U.S. Supreme Court in People v. Wende, 600 P. 2d 1071 (Cal: Supreme Court 1979) In

The Court found that Georgia’s system for applying the death penalty was “judicious” and “careful.” Gregg had gone through two trials – one to determine guilt and one for sentencing. Further, specific jury findings of “aggravating circumstances” were necessary to impose the death penalty. There was therefore no Eighth Amendment violation, and the death penalty was constitutional. The Court ruled, “The imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder has a long history of acceptance in the United States (n.d.,Web).

Regan used the word “mature mammals” which doesn’t include fish, reptiles or birds (chicken and turkey). He should also have included mammalian babies because even though veal is a delicacy no one would ever consider doing that to the human baby then why a cow’s baby? I just wish he would have clarified that in his

1972, Furman v. Georgia. The opinion said, “[t]he Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.”

In the United States, 36 states participate in capital punishment in one or more of the five different forms, including lethal injection, electrocution, gas chambers, firing squad, and hanging (“Description of Execution”). After being banned in 1972, several states sought to bring back capital punishment by providing sentence guidelines for both jury and judges when deciding the fit case in which to impose death (“Introduction to the Death Penalty”). These guidelines proved the punishment was constitutional under the Eight Amendment, proving it wasn’t “cruel and unusual” punishment under the correct circumstances. Three procedural reforms were approved by the case Gregg vs. Georgia, including bifurcated trials (separating guilt and penalty phases of trial), automatic appellate reviews of court decisions, and proportionality review to help eliminate sentencing disparities (“Introduction to the Death Penalty”). Ever since these changes in 1976, the death penalty

Gregg v. Georgia was a case of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of murder. The jury was recommended life in prison or death sentence. The petitioner was sentence to death sentence but without any evidence on why he did what he did. The death sentence he received was a violation of eighth amendment and was considered cruel and unusual punishment,

For example, PETA supposes that “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. To abide by this principle, we must leave animals free to overrun and destroy our property, to eat our food, even to kill our children” (586). In my opinion, I do not think PETA means to let the animal destroy the human’s properties or kill children. PETA just wants to let the animal have the free life, but we still put them under control. I cannot agree how the authors explain PETA’s principle, the authors approach that principle negatively and think PETA as a bad association. The Vice President of The Humane Society Michael Fox explains, “The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration” (586). This principles is impossible true, we have to compare the value between human’s life and animal’s life. In some case, using a mouse to test vaccine can make a curve rescue million people. If the scientists do not test their vaccine or medicine on the animal, how can they see the effect of those medicines in a live body? We have used an animal to support our life for a long time. In some situations, we should use animals to make the interests of

The two most prominent current defenders of strong status for animals are neo-Kantian philosopher Tom Regan and utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer. Although they undertake this defence from two different theoretical perspectives, as neo-Kantians defend this position in terms of rights, and utilitarians tend to avoid talking in terms of rights, they arrive at the same conclusion: there is no difference between humans and animals which can justify the conclusion that a human life is of greater value than an animal life.

Since Ancient Greece, humans have used animals as means of learning more about the world. The first known vivisection was done by a Greek philosopher, Alcmaeon, in 450 B. C. E (“Animal Testing” NP). Since then, animals have had invasives tests performed on them, been killed, and been experimented on in the name of science or for profit. Some experiments are in order to demonstrate already known facts to students, others are to further medical knowledge, and some are to test drugs and cosmetics (“Animal Testing” NP). Scientific testing on animals has led to many medical discoveries. Animals are used, and have been used for millennia, in order to make products, procedures, and life in general safer for humans - stemming from the belief that human lives are more important than animals’. In order to moralize animal experimentation, people tend to draw attention to the benefits of animal experimentation and draw attention away from the cruelties and injustice committed towards animals. To lessen the suffering and lack of fairness of animals, people should find and use alternatives to animal experimentation.

The Vancouver Aquarium uses dolphins and belugas to provide entertainment and utilizes the profit gained, to aid them in research. In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan’s moral principles state that there should be total abolition of the use of animals in science as well as for entertainment purposes (337). Moreover, he claims that humans and animals have equal values and rights. Based on this principle, I argue that the practices of the Vancouver Aquarium of using belugas and dolphins for scientific and entertainment purposes is immoral and thus unjustified.

The issue of animal experimentation has been hotly debated in regards to many aspects of the problem, such as the rights of the animals and the beneficial results that come from animal experimentation. In the year of 1989, the United States Supreme Court ruled the first victory for pro-animal welfare in the Silver Spring Monkey case when seventeen monkeys had been held captive under inadequate living conditions, and were subject to experimentation that was deemed animal abuse (peta.org). For several decades, animal experimentation has been a controversial issue in the medical world and has made little progress to either side of the spectrum. Although animal testing has developed cures and treatments for several different illnesses that once wreaked havoc across nations worldwide, the animals involved in these tests to produce the medicines may not have been treated humanely. These concerns revolve around the animals environment in the lab, how often they are fed and given water, whether they are enduring any form of physical pain, and if the animal is suffering any serious psychological effects from experimentation (peta.org). Many scientist differ, however, by claiming that animal lives in the laboratory are much healthier and humane than they used to be in the past. These statements are backed by laws that have been made to create standard health

Likewise, R.G. Frey, who wrote a book titled Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals, said that even though animals can experience unpleasant situations, they have no true desires, preferences, or memory (?Right from Wrong? 26). If we consider their arguments, it is possible to conclude that animals are not on the same level as humans, which morally allows us to use them for experimentation. Clearly, if everyone agreed that an animal is a member of the moral community?meaning on the same level as humans?then we would not have an ongoing debate. Perceiving an animal to be on the same level of humans in terms of moral implications would then mean that we must treat them as equals.

Who is to say that an animals life is more or less valuable than a humans life? Beside, “the equivalent case against is that the level of suffering and the number of animals involved are both so high that the benefits to humanity don’t provide moral justification” (BBC1). Mr. Harlow conducted his studies in order to find out about love… the conditions of which the rhesus monkeys were put in do not justify for his curiosity of love. The AWA, or animal welfare act, was only passed in 1966 which is why Harry Harlow’s got away with the environment in which he placed the monkeys in. It is astounding that there were no restrictions on how animals should be humanely treated and cared for during experimentation. Animals are meant to be free and in the wild, so putting them in cages stresses them out which scientists or researchers should know might affect their study.

Animals should be used for research and Experimentation because if the animals get sick or show any signs of acting abnormal then the scientists know it isn’t safe for humans to use. Animal research has played a big role in nearly every medical breakthrough over the last decade. Animals have the same organ system that perform the same task, which helps determine if what is being tested is safe for humans to use. Most of the medicines animals use the same medicine as humans like antibiotics, pain killers, and many more this helps to see if the medicine cures the animals without any harmful consequences then it would be safe and useful for humans to use.