Animal Testing Right Or Wrong
Should testing on animals be legal? Should there be a limit to how far we can test on them, such as make-up, or should we be allowed to go farther, should we be able to attach chemicals in their bodies. On the other hand, should we not be able to test on them at all. Should there be certain animals we can test on?
First of all, there are many pros of testing on animals. We can save human lives or make the lives of others better. Without the past use of testing on animals, many of the current medications and way we do operations would not be the same, therefore, humans were able to evolve mentally and prolong our lives. Imagine how far we could continue to fetch with animal testing, but without it, medicine development could be brought to a halt. Testing on animals doesn't always help humans; it can help the animals we test the medicine on, such as the heartworm treatment for dogs, this was originally meant to be a product for humans, until we found he great use of it for destroying heartworms in dogs.
We do have other ways of testing products, but they unprejudiced aren't as advanced as animal testing. Animal testing is done in a safe environment, with few injures and casualties, with the maximum outcome results. It's very little cost to test on animals opposed to humans, or other forms of product testing. People also say that the animal lives are valued highly, but are they valued higher than the human life? Should we risk something of more value?
On the side of the argument, there is morality. Animals have the right to live their lives peacefully. What makes their life worth less than a human life, every living being should net equal treatment, and animals should be able to live their lives peacefully. Why should we get to meddle with, their chemical structure and their lives just because we can, and have the knowledge to do so?
People also say that the benefits are not as good as the outcome. This means, is blinding a animal worth trying to create a new eyeliner. Others say that these drugs effects on animals have different effects than these on humans, which would completely eliminate all purpose for testing on animals, because you wouldn't find the true outcome. This makes testing completely unnecessary and worthless because we damage an animal and at the extinguish of the day, we have no new information about humans. Animals also used for testing don't live in the wild, so they are not "natural", this meaning they would react differently to the chemicals used opposed to animals in the wild.
So that's the pros and cons of testing on animals, should it be allowed? Or should it be eliminated as a testing procedure? Leave a comment with your plan on animal testing.
http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/83190/Animal-Testing---the-pros-and-cons
Related Posts
Filed under Heartworm Treatment by on Jun 7th, 2011. 