In line with Abraham Lincoln’s viewpoint, I strongly denounce animal testing for its lack of ethical acceptability and support the rights of animals and humans for individual development.
Opposition to animal testing arises from the fact that animals are being forced to undergo tests against their will, leading to serious illness or death. Approximately 70 million animals in the United States are taken from their natural habitats and subjected to harmful experiments for scientific purposes. This includes private institutions, household product and cosmetics companies, government agencies, educational institutions, and scientific centers. Morally speaking, this is unacceptable.
Many animals endure pain and suffering without any means of alleviating it, which is both unfair and unjust. According to the Humane Society, registering a single pesticide involves over 50 experiments and affects up to 12,000 animals. This statistic not only angers me but also raises concerns about the potential harm inflicted on animals through ongoing testing.
It is disheartening to think that certain cosmetic products like makeup and nail varnish contribute unnecessarily to this pain and suffering. Animals cannot make choices for themselves; therefore, making decisions on their behalf becomes crucial.
My opposition to animal testing is based on several reasons, one of which is the existence of alternatives. In today’s world, there is no morally justifiable reason to continue subjecting animals worldwide to immense pain and suffering caused by animal testing. It is crucial that we embrace alternative methods such as using synthetic skin for drug absorption measurement or employing human cell structures and cultures in drug testing.
The laws mandating animal testing for drugs and cosmetics should be replaced by these alternatives. It is my hope that the United Kingdom provides adequate funding for the development and implementation of these alternatives. Additionally, I believe in a global shift towards replacing animal testing with these viable options, as it would benefit numerous animals without causing harm to humans.
Why should we persist with animal testing when we have the ability to prevent and replace it? Does the government wish for these innocent animals to perish? If not, then why do they continue supporting a system that inflicts such suffering upon them? Perhaps their priorities lie more in personal wealth rather than preventing this unnecessary anguish.
The argument about animal testing has two sides. Some believe that it is crucial in finding drugs and treatments that can enhance health and medicine. Animal testing has played a vital role in the development of important medical treatments, including cancer treatment, HIV drugs, insulin, antibiotics, vaccines, and others. However, it is also essential to recognize that alternative methods exist for discovering these drugs and treatments.
Animal testing often results in the death of animals without yielding significant new discoveries. Therefore, using animals as a means to an end is both irrational and unnecessary. Fortunately, preventive measures can be implemented.
To sum up, I am against the current compulsory animal testing system as it imposes tests on animals without their consent and puts their lives at risk. I strongly believe that there are numerous alternatives to animal testing that would not cause harm to animals or humans. In the words of Jeremy Bentham, “The question is not can they reason nor can they talk, but can they suffer?” This response is straightforward.
