An approximated 26 million animals are utilized every year in the United States for science and commercial testing (CBRA). Currently, there is only one law that protects and regulates animal testing, The Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The AWA was passed in 1966; it has been amended seven times, and is enforced by the USDA, APHIS, and Animal Care agency. The AWA defines "animal" as "any live or dead dog, cat, monkey, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warm blooded animal." The AWA excludes birds, rats and mice for research, cold-blooded animals, and farm animals used for food and other purposes (Animals). Testing animals is used to develop medical treatments, determine the toxicity of medicinal drugs, check the safety of products intended for human use, and other biomedical, commercial, and healthcare roles. The earliest recordings of animal studies date back to Aristotle, who discovered the anatomical differences among animals by analyzing them (Introduction). Advocates of animal testing say that it has enabled the growth of numerous medical advancements, tests to see if new products are save for mankind, acquisition of new scientific knowledge, and because it is accurate (B). Opponents of animal testing say that it is cruel and inhumane to try out on animals, many animals die from the animal testing, it’s unethical, animals don’t have a say in it, the accuracy is in question because they are testing animals and not humans, and the toll of animal testing is high (B). Through the pros and cons of everything, it is bad to test animals because animals are very different from human beings and thus make poor test subjects and are unreliable, the cost and upkeep of it is expensive, and because there are alternatives to animal testi... ... middle of paper ... ...n, n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2014 "Costs of Animal and Non-Animal Testing." Fact Sheet. Humane Society International, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014 “Introduction." Use of Laboratory Animals in Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1988 "More Than $16 Billion in Taxpayer Money Wasted Annually on Animal Testing."PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, n.d. Web. 16 Apr. 2014 Perkel, Jeffrey M. "Animal-Free Toxicology: Sometimes, in Vitro Is Better." Life Science Technologies. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 02 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Apr. 2014 "The Tragedy of Thalidomide and the Failure of Animal Testing." AFC. Animal Friends Croatia, n.d. Web. 18 Apr. 2014 Watts, Geoff. "Alternatives to Animal Experimentation." Ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. National Center for Biotechnology Information, 27 Jan. 2007. Web. 27 Feb. 2014
She sits alone in a threadbare, chilly, metal cage. Her eyes dart around wondering when the next torture will commence. If the testing fails to kill her, the stress definitely will. Entering is the doctor who plans to perform an eye irritancy test. The rabbit’s eyes will be held open with clips for at least three days if she survives that long (“Frequently Asked Questions”). Similarly, if these procedures would be performed on a human, they would be considered illegal. Yet, scientists continue to make harmless animals suffer incessantly. Annually, countless animals are abused in American test labs; however, alternative practices should be implemented in order to participate in worldwide trade, save innocent lives, and provide more accurate data.
The information that animals have provided scientists over the past decades has changed society, and is still changing society for the better. Millions of lives have been saved with the use of animal testing and many more will be saved with continued research. However, there are many who dismiss this monumental achievement completely and oppose the use of animals in laboratory research. Though many find this practice to be
Over 100 Million animals are burned, crippled, poisoned and abused in testing labs every year. Animals are used to test the safety of products, advance scientific research, and develop models to study disease and to develop new medical treatments, all for the sake of mankind. Animals should not be used for scientific research because animal testing is inhumane, other testing methods now exist, and animals are very different from human beings. While animal testing has led to many life-saving cures, animal testing is cruel and inhumane because it involves inflicting pain and harm on the test subject to study its effects and remedies. Testing involves physically restraining, force-feeding, and depriving animals of food and water.
For over two centuries abortion has been an issue of controversy within the United States; furthermore, at the heart of this debate lies the standoff between advocates of pro-life and of pro-choice. Individuals who identify as pro-life strongly oppose abortion, believing it to be unjust and illegal. The argument pro-life advocates often put forth is that the fetus in question qualifies as a human being; therefore, to end its life prematurely is akin to murder. Pro-choice advocates, on the other hand, are strong supporters of placing the power of decision within the mother’s hands and allowing her to determine what is best for both her and her unborn child. (Hopely)
Women who have become pregnant should take the responsibility for their actions in becoming pregnant. This excludes the argument of “What if the woman was raped?” In the case of a rape, I still believe abortion is not the right way to handle the grief, guilt and depression that a woman may experience after finding out that she has become pregnant after being raped. To abort the baby won’t get rid of the pain a woman has been feeling as a result of the traumatic experience she had been through. I believe that aborting the baby will make things even more difficult. There is always the opportunity to give the child to a loving family who may not be able to conceive a child on their own. Abortion to me though, in my opinion, will always be wrong. I believe that the act of aborting an unborn baby is to be considered murder. I have many reasons as to why I feel this way. First, I believe that an unborn baby is still a human being and their life is as precious as anyone else’s life. Most women do not know they are pregnant as soon as their baby starts developing. 3-4 weeks, or as early as 18 days, after conception, a baby’s heart will start to beat. This to me means the baby is a living creature, a human being at that point. According the website beginbeforebirth.org, it is stated at about 17 weeks
Overtime there has been a debate over whether or not the act of aborting a baby should be a legal option. This controversial issue continues to divide America. Many individuals that are pro-choice believe that choosing to have an abortion is a woman’s right that should not be judged by governmental or religious authorities. Many individuals that are pro-life believe that abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. According to opponents, it is unfair to allow abortions when couples who cannot conceive are willing to adopt a child. There are many pro and con arguments over whether abortions should be legal.
Abortion is unlike any other subject debated today; millions of women have aborted a child, and the loss, pain, and emotional need to justify what was done, both on the part of the mother and on the part of her loved ones. Abortion is a gut-wrenching debate that has been going on for centuries, and does not plan to cool off anytime soon. The Supreme Court case in 1973, Roe vs. Wade, placed abortion on the map for the United States. The result of the Roe vs. Wade case legalized abortion to protect women’s health, however the good intentions of the ruling opened the doors for people to take advantage of the case outcome. Approximately 1.06 million abortions took place in the United States in 2011, which goes to show that women maybe abusing the privilege of the rules set in place to protect their health and practicing abortion as a form of contraception. Abortion is not only a dangerous procedure for women to endure, however it is also unethical to abort a child. Abortion is immoral because life begins at conception, people need to live with the consequences and not take the easy way out, and there are other available options.
Animal testing is a controversial topic with two main sides of the argument. The side apposing animal testing states it is unethical and inhumane; that animals have a right to choose where and how they live instead of being subjected to experiments. The view is that all living organism have a right of freedom; it is a right, not a privilege. The side for animal testing thinks that it should continue, without animal testing there would be fewer medical and scientific breakthroughs. This side states that the outcome is worth the investment of testing on animals. The argument surrounding animal testing is older than the United States of America, dating back to the 1650’s when Edmund O’Meara stated that vivisection, the dissection of live animals, is an unnatural act. Although this is one of the first major oppositions to animal testing, animal testing was being practiced for millennia beforehand. There are two sides apposing each other in the argument of animal testing, and the argument is one of the oldest arguments still being debated today.
Abortion is the untimely and early ending of pregnancy. Thirespondedss can be carried out by the will of an individual or can occur on its own because of any abnormality or disease. Abortion ending due to any abnormal condition is referred as ‘spontaneous abortion or miscarriage.' Abortion, as a term, is specifically used for the ending process of pregnancy by the will of the mother. This process can be carried out in a variety of ways depending upon the gestation period, the condition of the fetus inside and preference of involved mother.
The practice of using animals for testing has been a controversial issue over the past thirty years. Animal testing is a morally debated practice. The question is whether animal testing is morally right or wrong. This paper will present both sides of this issue as well as my own opinion.
Johnson. It is the only Federal Law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. This act requires all animal dealers to be registered and licensed, and if they break any of the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act, they will be fined $1,000. The act was amended eight times (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007, 2008, and 2013). All these different times that it was amended, more and more animals were brought justice and helped from being mistreated and poorly taken care of. August 31, 2015, the announcement of the Federal tracking of cruelty crimes changes, have brought forth new statistics of animal abuse. 64.5% (1,212) of the crimes were dog related, 18% (337) were cats, and 25% (470) were other animals. Just about one million animals are abused or killed yearly in the U.S., and if caught are fined under the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. The Animal Welfare Act has granted lab research and use of animals, it regulates care and the use of animals in research, but excludes cold-blooded animals, and limited protection on other animals such as mice, rats, and birds bred for research. Conservative estimates indicate that over 25 million animals are used annually for animal research. The U.S.D.A is in charge of enforcing the AWA (Animal Welfare Act). The USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Animal Care program administers
In this paper, I will discuss the pro- abortion argument presented by Judith Thomson. The main idea of Thomson’s argument is that abortion is morally permissible. In supporting her position, Thomson presents several arguments regarding the implications of the right to life that she believes the anti- abortion might have dwelled on. As I explain her arguments, I will also attempt to criticize her view on the topic.
You don't want to live miserably, so it cannot hurt to try and change it. For instance, there is an abundance of controversy surrounding abortions, but it can save someone's life; you should stand up for what you believe any any risk.
According to Margaret Sykes from her article “Rape Justifies Abortion,” “If a 14-year-old [rape victim]…can’t have an abortion without being dragged through the courts…and having people trying to stop her left and right, who can?” (Sykes 130) Sykes believed that the 14 year old girl who had been raped had every right to abort her child. She believed that abortion should be legal for rape victims no matter what stage of the pregnancy they were in. She didn’t believe adoption was an alternative to murdering the babies either. Sykes complicates the matter further when she discussed how children in foster care didn’t believe that they could raise a child on their own, but also believed that giving to someone they didn’t know was a bad idea as well. Unplanned and unwanted pregnancy are reasons that women abort babies, as well.
No woman should want to kill a child let alone anyone. Murder is wrong and there are plenty of facts to back up that matter. Father 's should have a right as to where or not they want their child aborted and if they chose to abort them they would be wrong as well. If a woman gets pregnant after consensual sex abortion should not be an option since obviously planned parenting and contraception was not. If a woman was to become pregnant in cases of rape and incests there are plenty of places that would provide care and support during and after her pregnancy. The child should not become a victim and be punished for the mistakes of it 's father. Terminating a pregnancy to prevent the mother of becoming ill is moronic. Aborting a child will cause more harm to the mother both physically and emotionally as well as emotional trauma to the father. Abortion is never a reasonable solution. When face with choosing as yourself abortion for