Vivisection is Both Immoral and Unjustifiable

688 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Arguments about animal rights

Vivisection is Both Immoral and Unjustifiable

I am strongly against vivisection. In this modern world there is no

place for this barbaric practice that is 'animal testing'. This is a

highly sensitive issue on which many members of the public are

un-decided. Animal testing sounds so innocent and may appear to be

necessary, however the reality is quite different.

Supporters of vivisection argue that animals are anaesthetised during

procedures. Polly Toynbee from 'The Guardian' states that "animals in

experiments are anaesthetised" whereas the 'Animal Aid' leaflet

informs us that "two thirds will receive no anaesthetic during

procedures". The 'Guardian' article offers little or no evidence to

substantiate its claim, and offers us no statistics, un-like the

'Animal Aid' source. It is based on opinion not on fact. The 'Animal

Aid' leaflet gives us numerical evidence (two thirds), and also offers

pictures, to add weight and back up its argument.

The next claim is again from Polly Toynbee and 'The Guardian'. The

journalist makes her point that vivisection is morally justifiable by

saying "Sorry, I think a dying people are more important than dumb

animals". This is a poor argument as it is purely based on opinion

with no source of evidence to back up her argument. The 'cats

backache' article quotes "many (cats) are dying this way in

excruciating pain". This is well backed up by a Mr Hamilton stating,

"Most of these tests are unnecessary". This also shows us that the

tests are carried out with little, if any success. This also shows us

that these tests are not morally justifiable, and are barbaric and

cruel. A Mr Bill Dyer quotes "the results have never been published".

This shows that the results must have been of no use.

The third argument is if there is an alternative to experiments on

animals. The answer from the 'Guardian' article by Polly Toynbee is

simple- NO. She states clearly "there is no other way". The 'Animal

Aids' answer is completely different. They explain, "There are

numerous ways to explore the causes and cures for human illness

Show More
Related

  • My Response to Jeremy Rifkin's "A Change of Heart about Animals"

    541 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Marna Owen, from "Animal Rights; Yes or No? claims that each year 80,000 animals are used and often killed for the sake of medical research. He describes experiments in which puppies are burned, cats eyelids are sewn shut, and baboon's heads are crushed. A fiery debate arised and according to the book 6 people chained themselves to the psychol...

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: We Must Eliminate Animal Testing

    613 Words  | 2 Pages

    There is a moral blind spot in the treatment of animals that enable us to justify the cruelties for the perceived benefits of humans. Animals are living things. They have lungs which breathe, hearts which beat, and blood that flows. In fact, animals sense of smell, sight, and sound is much more acute than our own. Therefore, we can assume that their sensitivity to pain is at least equal to ours. According to Hippocrates, “The soul is the same in all living creatures, although the body of each is different.” This can go with the Duty Theory that states that every individual gets treated the same. The intentions of animal testing is not to harm the animals, but that is exactly what it does.

    Read More

  • Michael Hanlon's Vivisection Is Right?

    884 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals

    Read More

  • Annotated Bibliography On Animal Testing

    1631 Words  | 4 Pages

    4. Goyal, Rakhee. "Animal testing in the history of anesthesia: Now and then, some stories,

    Read More

  • The Necessities of Animal Experimentation

    1270 Words  | 3 Pages

    Writing this paper did not affect my original line of thinking in regards to the topic. I support animal rights in every way, and am extremely against any sort of testing. Observing the “necessities” of animal testing did not, in any way, alter my negative view of animal experimentation.

    Read More

  • The Euthanasia Program: Life Unworthyy Of Life

    2945 Words  | 6 Pages

    “Life Unworthy of Life”: How the T4 Euthanasia Program Set the Stage for the Holocaust

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Animal Testing

    1983 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...e outrageously painful and sometimes deadly to the animals. How on earth is that humane? Some animals even end up having permanent disabilities from all the chemical testing. The findings and conclusions from animal testing rarely work the same way on humans and an enormous amount of money is spent on failed attempts. The rate of success of transferring test results to humans is too low to justify the expense. Taxpayers would be wise to invest this money in alternative methods such as technological advancements. While it may not be possible to completely diminish animal testing, significant reductions need to be made in order to advance the state of technology and improve overall results. Advancements in medicine must be made without perpetuating needless suffering to helpless creatures. Testing needs to stop; animals don’t deserve any of this painful punishment.

    Read More

  • Essay On Animal Rights And Vivisection

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    Vivisections, medical research that harms the research subject without providing any benefits to them, is supported by philosophy professor R.G Frey on the basis that the using and killing of animals is morally permissible because humans' quality of life exceeds animals' quality of life. Frey does not disregard the fact that vivisections harm animals, he sees no difference in the pain felt by humans and animals; nonetheless, Frey does not believe that all members of the moral community have lives of equal value. He believes that sacrificing the lives of those with less value is better than sacrificing the lives of those with higher values. Therefore, Frey defends the act of vivisections on the basis that humans' lives are of greater moral value

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Animal Testing

    771 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animal testing is an immoral, heinous, atrocious act. One should never put an animal before his own life; we are all here on earth due to some strand of evolution or the other, making prejudice and other discriminations (man or not) obsolete and meaningless. Those who would think themselves above another creature are each failures in their own individual way. The rights of animals cannot be questioned, it is an inalienable fact that most do not understand, when given thought that is free of bias and the plague of arrogance, as Arthur Schopenhauer once said: “The assumption that animals are without rights and the illusion that our treatment of them has no moral significance is a positively outrageous example of Western crudity and barbarity. Universal compassion is the only guarantee of morality.” In a society as unquestionably advanced as man, a society in which even the consumption of meat is an indulgence and in no way necessary, the duty of treating all life with anything more than a central nervous system is nothing less than a law.

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Animals

    1436 Words  | 3 Pages

    For thousands of years scientist have been performing vivisections on animals to find information on new chemicals, drugs, and vaccines. Vivisection is when scientist perform dissections among living animals mostly for the purpose of educating and retrieving information. Experimenting on animals has become the tool that has helped us comprehend the body functions of an animal and how a disease transforms the bodily functions, but over the years it’s caused animal rights activists to question the usefulness and the sincerity of using animals for this purpose. Although animal research has been helpful in the past, it is morally wrong in the sense that experimenting on animals is not the only way to collect information. There are other alternatives

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Animal Experimentation

    1261 Words  | 3 Pages

    Point of view: Web. 14 February 2016. The article provides specific examples of illnesses and diseases which have been cured by animal testing that both humans and animals have benefitted from. This supports my topic of animal experiments being used for medical advancements. Pointing out that law often requires that products be tested before being sold to the public, George and Wagner additionally help prove my claim that product testing is a purpose of animal experimentation.

    Read More

  • The History of Animal Experimentation and Testing

    964 Words  | 2 Pages

    The history of animal experimentation and tests, and the argument surrounding it, has an expansive and somewhat extensive history. Some of the first medical research that was conducted on living animals was done by Aelius Galenus, better known as Galen, in the second century C.E. There have been examples of animal testing in earlier dates, but Galen devoted his life to understanding science and medicine, so he is attributed to being the father of vivisection. In the twelfth century, an Arabic physician named Avenzoar introduced animal testing dissections as a means to better understand surgery before preforming the operation on a human patient. Edmund O’Meara made one of the first opposing ar...

    Read More

  • Cosmetic Testing with Animals is Cruel

    1300 Words  | 3 Pages

    This is just one of the countless barbaric tortures forced upon animals. Studies show that in 1994, over 3,500 animals were killed in the United Kingdom, with almost another 21,000 more used in France for cosmetic purposes only (Celebrities, 95). These numbers reflect totals in only two countries. Research by Congress estimates that as many as 22 million animals are used annually for experimental research (Testing, 96). This research is funded by over $5 billion in tax revenue (Bio-Med, 97).

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    “Animals were used in early studies to discover how blood circulates through the body, the effect of anesthesia, and the relationship between bacteria and disease” (AMA 59). Experiments such as these seem to be outdated and actually are by today’s means, scientists now commonly study for three general purposes: (1) biomedical and behavioral research, (2) education, (3) drug and product testing (AMA 60). These three types of experiments allow scientists to gain vast amounts of knowledge about human beings.... ... middle of paper ... ...& Co.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing Should be Banned

    1000 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals are used in research to develop new medicines and for scientists to test the safety of the medicines. This animal testing is called vivisection. Research is being carried out at universities, medical schools and even in primary and elementary schools as well as in commercial facilities which provide animal experiments to industry. (UK Parliament) In addition, animals are also used in cosmetic testing, toxicology tests, “defense research” and “xenotransplantation”. All around the world, a huge amount of animals are sentenced to life in a laboratory cage and they are obliged to feel loneliness and pain. In addition scientists causing pain, most drugs that pas successfully in animals fail in humans. It is qualified as a bad science. Above all, animals have rights not to be harmed even though the Animal Welfare Act does not provide them even with minimal protection. The law does not find it necessary to use current alternatives to animals, even if they are obtainable. Animal testing should be banned due to animal rights, ethical issues, alternative ways and the unreliability of test results in humans.

    Read More

More about Vivisection is Both Immoral and Unjustifiable

Open Document