Throughout the years there has been controversy over animal testing. I am arguing against animal testing because I believe it to be inhumane to harm animals for the sake of marketing a new household product or cosmetic. There are many alternatives to animal testing; therefore, they should be used with the possibility of sparing millions of animals. Animals have a right to life just as human beings do. Deaths through testing cosmetics and household products are unnecessary because there are various alternatives that prevent testing on animals. These alternatives are known as the "Three Rs." "They replace the use of animals in a scientific procedure; they reduce the number of animals used in a procedure; and/or they refine a procedure so the animals experience less pain, suffering or discomfort" ("Animal Testing"). Therefore, if there are alternatives to animal testing, why would we not use them and spare the lives of many animals?
The Humane Society of the United States. "Animal Testing." 2007
<http://www.hsus.org/animals_in_research/animal_testing/>
The Result of Animal Testing
1 comment:
Like I told Nathan, make sure you have narrowed down "animal rights." You take the approach of being against animal testing, and Nathan seems to be focusing on general animal rights. There are a bunch of qualifying approaches to this argument, and animal testing is one of them. Make sure you cite your pictures. If you need help with this, then let me know.
Post a Comment