Ever since the time of the Greeks, scientists have used experiments and tests on animals to attempt to learn more about humans. Now many animal rights activists claim that this testing is morally wrong and inhumane. Despite these arguments, the benefits and advances in medicine and human healthcare due to discoveries in animal testing are undisputable. Anyone who has taken painkillers or antibiotics has experienced the advantages of animal testing. The polio vaccine, developed in the 1950’s, was tested on at least 10,000 animal subjects before use in humans. Drugs and medicine can be very dangerous when they are first developed, and experiments on animals are worth the human lives that would be put at risk from new drugs. Some people would argue that scientists should use other methods, but alternatives such as stem cells, tissue samples, and computer models are not effective. If scientists ever hope to cure Alzheimer’s, HIV/AIDS, or cancer, then animal testing will be a necessary means. Actually, most scientists would prefer that animal testing not be used, but they agree that it is the best method currently available and therefore the only solution to advancement in medicine.
Many animal rights supporters would also argue against hunting and the breeding of animals for food. Although these issues receive less attention than animal experimentation, they cannot be overlooked. Factory farms provide the nation with large quantities of affordable meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products. Whether animal rights activists like it or not, the nation demands these products, and until this nation becomes entirely vegetarian, it will necessarily need factory farms to produce food its people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Not too bad. I think you cleared up some of the questions I had about your initial topic. Make your statements more active. The way you set up the last sentences in both paragraphs ALMOST leads me to believe you are going to advocate against animal testing/rights. Let me know if you have questions.
While Nathan makes a good point that it is necessary to test many drugs before use in humans to prevent harmful side effects, there are various alternatives to animal testing that protect the lives of many animals that are killed in animal testing. While I realize that testing is very necessary for important medicines that save human lives, it is immoral to harm animals for the mere testing of cosmetics or household products.
Also, I realize that the nation will never become completely vegetarian, but there are many ways to ease the suffering of many farm animals, including slaughter-free eggs, slaughter-free dairies, and organic milk. The egg industry could also get rid of battery cages. There are also many ways to remove some of the worst cruelties, such as: “1) Provide either prompt veterinary care or euthanasia to all downer cows and pigs, 2) kill every male layer chick using a gas other than carbon dioxide, 3) improve standards for stunning poultry and livestock at slaughterhouses, 4) ban farrowing and gestation crates for breeder sows, and 5) provide a local anesthetic to calves and piglets prior to castration” (Marcus 55). Animal agriculture is extremely hostile and these basic reforms could eliminate some of the cruelties.
Works Cited:
Marcus, Erik. Meat Market: Animals, Ethics, and Money. Boston: Brio Press, 2005.
Very strong, Brittany. Keep the negotiation going. Your tone and approach to refuting some of the facts from Nathan's perspective are well developed. You come across informed, yet willing to listen. Very nice.
Post a Comment