Injection or protection? :: essays research papers

Injections OR ProtectionAlthough testing on animals seems the yet way to further advance our medicine, technologies, and prevent products from harming people, it doesnt necessarily bear it right. I compute we can all agree that injecting defenseless animals with self-destructive chemicals resulting in serious side effects or possible remainder is cruel and unusual. Coincidently, in the U.S. we consider such acts as illegal forms of punishment. so far in the case of animals, its called science. Which leads to the question, what rights do animals commit? Arent animals and universe different which in that respectfore lead to a different set of rules? So what exactly separates the two species? The answer might lie in search for the differences between composition and beast. Let us test the senses in hostelry to see a difference there. Sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste are all green characteristics that both species share, except for a few instances in authoritative a nimals and certain dis able-bodiedd humans. Moving on, both are able to sense danger, sidestep danger, feel pain, sense positive and negative emotions, display affection and dislike. The circumstance that we even test on animals is an admittance of the distinct similarities between the two. If man and animal were so different, there would be no gain in knowledge due to experimentation. This supports my claim that animals share the same intrinsic rights as humans. Therefore, animal rights should be protected somewhere in our nations constitution. Is it something so minute as having less legs, a set of thumbs and the ability to walk vertical? Some would argue that animals are soulless beasts that walk the earth and survive only to administer mans purpose. So why would there be such a thing as wild and intractable animals? They do not exist for the purpose of man and are able to carry on their lives self sufficiently. It is now obvious that animals can exist and thrive without h uman intervention. This refutes the possibility that animals are here only to serve under and function for the betterment of man. It is only through our intervention that we have dominated and controlled animal nature. Through our own perceived superiority, man has opinionated that animals are expendable for the greater good. As necessary as it may be to preserve human life, I dont think its ethical to use animals as the testing ground for emptiness products. When I say vanity products Im referring to hair, body, and make-up accessories.