Salon in New York, which offers installation Completely Bare hair on the vagina. The feathers are used of which came from the feathers of birds and foxes. Fur is not just asynthetic fur, but the real fur of the animal.

Accessories fur is quite attractive woman is now being drawn protests from the communityand the organization’s patron animal rights, PETA. Cindy Barshop, owner of the salon with a good response to the protest was filed salon.

Cindy immediately replace the original animal fur with fake fur. ”I appreciate the opinionsthat exist. I have the intention to substitute a fake fur fox fur,” says Cindy.

PETA considers accessory Miss V by wearing fur from animals is an act of ’evil’ and cruel.PETA is now relieved and very happy with the decision of Cindy Barshop who want toreplace real fur with synthetic fur.

Completely Bare salon is renowned as a salon for Miss V. Salon is frequented by fur forinstallation in lieu of the pubic hair. Fur were attached with special glue.

Installation of the feather in the price of U.S. $ 140 or about USD 1.2 million. Not only furaccessories, Completely Bare also offers tattoo for intimate areas in the body.

Model Sophie Barrett protested for PETA against the consumption of meat

As part of a PETA demonstration against the consumption of meat in London on Thursday gave Sophie Barrett falling shells.

Nude Protest in London

With a butcher’s diagram on her body, the young Briton drew attention to the motto of the demonstration. Covered by a makeshift sign saying “All animals have the same parts – no meat,” and a scanty panties, Sophie caused a stir with their Action in the City of London.

The young woman was from the police at London’s Picadilly Circus asked several times to re-tighten as this posed almost nude for photographers and passersby.
PETA preaches renunciation of meat

The animal rights organization PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) wanted to do with the action on the “World Week for the Abolition of Meat”, the “World Week for the absence of meat,” attention. Model Sophie Barrett should have become known in any case a lot.

You can read my other Article Naked Girls Protest in Davos World Economic Forum

  The reason I say that it is macabre is not so much the real fur part but in the way he gets his fur, skulls and skins, by means of roadkill. Yes you read right everyone road kill is the next fashion trend according to designer Jess Eaton from the UK. Now maybe some morbid people don’t mind wearing the carcass of an animal but I for one do. Especially if it was taken of off my local highway and not treated the way that normal high end fur is treated before becoming fashionable. Now I know that sounds awful to some that I would wear fur but hey I know most people do and our ancestor wore fur constantly to help keep warm.

  Now this artist claims that the roadkill fashion is going to be all the rage in the years to come and has went so far as to make a whole webpage full of her designs. Grant it I do love some of the designs but I would never wear them as they are road kill and it just seems morbid to wear. Below are a few pics that I have gotten to show you what she makes out of her kills that she finds.Of course this photo is from her website and I have saved it to use here to show you what exactly she does with her creatures.

 Grant it this is one of her more macabre pieces that she has done and believe me she has done some amazing pieces but still not for me. Now my question to everyone else is would any of you wear these fashion items and where would you wear them too? I mean it’s not like these are everyday pieces that you can wear to your local market and not get looks.

There are a few of factors of why animal testing are used by the researchers. Teo (2006) has found that most animals share many similar features with humans. This is due to the animal’s mind reading in which their understanding of the minds of others are probably implicit rather than explicit in adult humans. The similarities between animals and humans are also their digestion systems and skeletal systems. Scientists found that most of the animal cells are recognizable that we can found in human body. Although the cells have different functions, animal’s cell is also used for them to gain energy, to grow and to reproduce which is similar like human body cells. For example, “The Ape-Human Connection” (n.d) states the cytochrome C of a dog is similar to human. Second factor is to ensure the growth of human and animal population, which is another research carried out by National Office of Animal Health have been discovered that animal need a medicines to prevent from being affected by a number of diseases. If treatment is not effective, death can be resulted. While animal tests cannot predict all of the reactions a human may have to a given substance, broader question about effects on the heart, liver, lungs or skin are answered through animal studies.

There are good and bad consequences on animal testing. The scientists will make sure those animals which have been used in experiment to stay alive as best as possible. Besides, animal testing is to help saving peoples’ lives (Animal Experiments, 2002). Without this animal research, we do not know if a product is safe to use or not. There are also bad consequences in which most animals’ experiments do not contribute meaningfully to medical advances. Killing animals for the sake of product testing is completely unethical. When there are failures in experiments, there is complete loss of animal life and can be considered as wastage of life. Moreover, most of the animals die due to human mistake occur either in the concentration of new drug or the amount.

            This animal testing should be prevented by showing supports against animal cruelty from most people in this world. There are several animals that are maltreated. However, there are only few concerned citizens that are aware of this crime. Example of preventing starts from the change within us. Show loves and cares towards animal among humans. Support organizations against animal cruelty by stopping animal abuse and neglect also a step of preventing an animal research (LLC, 2009). If there are cruelties happening, file a report to the responsible bodies to take serious actions. An alternatives technique in basic research also a prevention of animal testing where the research must be done by finding the replacement of an animal test by using non-animal. In fact, obtain information about how a substance behaves in a whole organism, especially in the case of pharmaceutical compounds which aimed at determining whether a compound is able to produce a desired effect.

             It can be concluded that animal testing is a controversial issue that has many supporters as well as non-supporters. Animal rights activists form groups that try to stop animal testing while scientists around the world argue that it is an important procedure that has led to many discoveries. Although the society has always differed in opinion of this issue, what is commonly known is animal has been used in experiments for hundreds of years. There has been a lot of positive progress from researching with animals. It has led us to medical improvement, and has made it possible for medical doctors to perform miracles on their patients. Researchers have learned to cure animals afflicted with many different diseases. But due to fact that not all testing done is to save a life, the scientists should put equal effort into inventing new testing methods and save the innocent animals.

REFERENCES

Animal Port, Complete animal portal (2003), Animal Testing, Retrieved on July 24, 2011), from http://www.animalport.com/animal-testing/animal-testing-facts-figures.html

Annenberg, LLC. (2009) Explore: Who We Are. Retrieved on July 25, 2011, from http://explore.org/about/who_we_are/

Mun, T.K  (2006), Treatments and Testing, Unit 2 : Selection and Organise Information, 27. Longman EAP Crossing Borders, Retrieved on July 24, 2011.

National Office of Animal Health,(January 1, 1986). Animal in Veterinary Medicine Research. Retrieved on July 24, 2011, from http://www.noah.co.uk/issues/briefingdoc/04-exper.htm

Plaisted, D. (2006, March). Of Apes and Men : The Human Ape Connection. Retrieved on 24 July, 2011, from http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/apes.html

            Vivisection, which means the dissection of live animals, has more recently been used to refer to any type of live animal testing (Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group [LPAG], 2004, para. 1). A second century Roman physician named Galen has been named “the father of vivisection”, because while he may not have been the first to dissect a live animal, he was known for comparing dissected animals to what he knew of the human body. Though it wasn’t until around the 18th century that animal testing became popular, and it is currently a growing trend. Today it is estimated that nearly 23-25 million animals are used for research purposes in the United States each year (LPAG, 2004, para. 3). This number includes mice, rats, birds, dogs, cats, primates, hamsters, rabbits, and a number of different types of farm animals. Animals may be tested for any number of reasons. For cosmetic and food purposes animals are tested to determine the safety of the product prior to it being released for use by humans and household pets. Animals are also used in a variety of medical and scientific studies, including determining the safety and effectiveness of a particular drug or procedure that may cure an illness or disease.

PRO:

Animal testing is necessary because “unlike cell or organ cultures (animals) provide the complex biological system needed for certain studies” (Varga, Harangi, Olsson, & Hansen, 2010, para. 4). Meaning, if a physician wanted to test a drug to determine its safety and effectiveness, testing it on an animal would be the only way to provide the desired information. Delivering a drug to a single cell may show changes to that cell, but it will not provide information on side effects or how the organism as a whole responds to the drug. The use of animals may also illustrate how the human body may react to a particular illness or disease. “Unfortunately, there are still many experiments that cannot be done on “animal substitutes” like tissue cultures or on computers. There are still experiments that can only be done on either animals or people” (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals [ASPCA], 2011, para. 27). Without using animals, scientists and physicians may only hypothesize the effects of a disease or drug on the human system, which could be severely inaccurate, causing pain, suffering, and even death in humans.

            For this reason, 62% of Americans believe that animal testing for medical purposes is morally acceptable, while only 32% believe it is wrong (Mason, 2004, para. 3). Even the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals does not completely disagree with animal testing. “We must weigh the benefits of the discoveries we hope to make from the research with the costs of making animals suffer” (ASPCA, 2011, para. 2). The benefits appear to be quite outstanding. By using animals as test subjects, scientists throughout history have not only learned more about how the human body works, and the diseases and ailments that affect humans, but they have also been able to create vaccines and cures for so many illnesses and diseases. In fact, vaccines for polio and Hepatitis B were created through animal experimentation (ASPCA, 2011, para. 13). “Without the ability to use animals in their research, scientists’ efforts would be massively hampered” (Pycroft & Marston, 2011, para. 2). Through current and future animal testing, scientists will continue to cure diseases that currently baffle them, saving millions of human lives. “Nearly all of the scientists who do research on animals do it because they hope that making a few experience pain now will help prevent many from feeling pain later” (ASPCA, 2011, para. 12). For the ASPCA and the majority of Americans, animal testing is worthwhile based on the lives saved and cures found due to animal research and testing.

CON:

Though, not everyone believes that animal testing is worth the benefits. The organization called PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) calls animal testing “barbaric” and “senseless” (PETA, 2011, para. 7). Jacques Derrida believes the positive results of animal testing are merely a justification in order to exploit animals that have no basic rights (Oliver, 2010, para. 2). This is most likely due to the way animal test subjects are treated. Most animals used for testing are housed in confined spaces. Small rodents like mice are kept in boxes the size of a shoe box. Larger mammals are kept in wire cages, generally alone and rarely leaving the cage unless they are being experimented upon (ASPCA, 2011, para. 7). The experiments are also often very painful and distressing, and many times nothing is given to the animal to alleviate the pain. Basically they are tortured, and this torture often results in death. If the animal survives the experiment, it is generally not used again. Instead it is euthanized (ASPCA, 2011, para. 18). For many, this inhumane treatment far outweighs the benefits received from animal testing.

“Certainly, philosophies and sciences of man have treated animals as specimens for study, more often than not for the sake of discovering something about humans and not for the benefit of animals themselves” (Oliver, 2010, para. 24). PETA would certainly agree with this statement. PETA does not view animal testing as necessary or beneficial. Instead, PETA believes these tests are “training exercises and curiosity-driven experiments that are funded by tax dollars and health charities” (PETA, 2011, para. 5). For many people and organizations such as PETA, there are no apparent benefits of animal testing, and such testing should be abolished.

Ethics:

            As previously stated only 32% of Americans believe that animal testing for medical purposes is unethical. Considering the often cruel treatment of these animals, one must wonder why more Americans do not find animal research unethical. The answer, simply put, is that what is considered ethical can vary from one person to the next.

“The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior” (Fieser, 2009, para. 1). What is considered right and wrong can be different for each person. There are countless different types of ethics including ethical subjectivism, utilitarianism, ethical relativism, and deontology (Boss, 2012, p. 283-288). Each form of ethics is based on personal opinion, background, environment, culture, and religion. This is why different people may view the ethics of animal testing differently. Some people have the personal belief that animals have no feelings or rights. To them, there is no reason why animal testing would appear ethical. Others may believe that animals do have feelings and rights, but the value of the research far outweighs the animal lives lost during the research process. Finally, there are those who place a much higher value on animal’s lives and feel that animal testing is completely unethical regardless of the positive results. Though, if one removed emotion and personal opinion, one could only arrive at the natural conclusion that while the results of animal testing are positive, the treatment of these animals is certainly unethical. This is not to say that animal testing should be avoided, as it has proven to be necessary in education, medicine, and science. Though, the treatment of the animals before, during, and after the experiments needs to be adjusted to become more ethical.

Many animal rights activists and groups have demanded that laws be set to ensure the fair treatment of animal test subjects, and so guidelines were created for research facilities to adhere to. The Animal Welfare Act, passed in 1966 (most recently amended in 1985) requires that all warm-blooded animals except rats and mice bred specifically for research, have clean and adequate housing, food, and water, are protected from extreme temperatures, and receive veterinary care (ASPCA, 2011, para. 23). Another law passed in 1985 called the Health Research Extension Act also sets guidelines for the ethical treatment of animal test subject, which includes the coverage of rats, mice, and birds. Activists continue to work to make further changes in the way these animals are treated during testing and experimenting. The hope is that someday it will become completely ethical, though some believe animal testing should be eliminated completely. 

To readdress the essential question: is animal testing ethical? The answer is no, not completely. Is it morally and ethically right to conduct tests on innocent animals? In most cases it is for the benefit of all mankind that these tests be conducted, so that proper studies can be conducted to understand how human bodies may react to different substances or diseases, and also to help invent cures and vaccines. The tests themselves can be considered ethical. Though, the inhumane way that the test subjects are treated will always be a hot debate. Laws have not yet succeeded in ensuring these animals are not tortured, abused, and then killed unnecessarily. Such treatment of any living creature should never be considered ethical, even if it is for the benefit of thousands if not millions of other living things, human or otherwise. Understandably, animal testing cannot yet be avoided and is necessary to further advance medicine and science. Though, there is no doubt that animal rights activists will continue to strive for more ethical treatment of these animals. Perhaps someday animal testing will be completely ethical, or other testing sources may be found eliminating the need to conduct testing on animals completely.

References

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (2011). Animal Testing. Retrieved from http://www.aspca.org/aspcakids/real-issues/animal-testing.aspx

Boss, J. A. (2012). Think. (2nd ed.). New York, NY:  The McGraw Hill Companies, Inc.

Fieser, J. (2009). Ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/

Laboratory Primate Advocacy Group. (2004). History of nonhuman animal research. Retrieved from http://www.lpag.org/layperson/layperson.html#history

Mason, H. (2004). Americans Unruffled by Animal Testing. Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing, 1-4.

Oliver, K. (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research In Phenomenology, 40(2), 267-280.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2011). Animal testing 101. Retrieved from http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/animal-testing-101.aspx

Pycroft, L., Marston, H. (2011). Is animal testing necessary to advance medical research?. New Internationalist, (444), 34.

Varga, O. O., Harangi, M. M., Olsson, I. S., & Hansen, A. K. (2010). Contribution of animal models to the understanding of the metabolic syndrome: a systematic overview O. Varga et al. Animal models and the metabolic syndrome. Obesity Reviews, 11(11), 792-807. doi:10.1111/j.1467-789X.2009.00667.x

Animal Rights, para.Animal Rights: Right or Wrong?I do not personally agree that the rights of animals always outweigh their benefits to humans.

Ultimately, Owen is saying that the closure of animal research organization will only take away the benefits that people receive.Unfortunately, some of these acts are taken too far.Ed Owen, the author of The Dangers of Cuddly Extremism, believes that the interruptions and acts of animal rights activists regarding research will greatly hinder the benefits offered to humankind.On one side of the anti-animal rights argument is that animal rights activists are doing more harm than good.Some ideas that animal rights activists would support include prohibiting horse racing, circuses, animal research, petting zoos, marine parks, consuming animals, hunting, and use of animals for industry (Animal Welfare vs.Animal rights is the idea that all animals should be treated equally to humans and that all animals have the same rights as humans.Anti-animal rights activists consider that unnecessary actions are taken by animal rights activist.Some incidents carried out by animal rights activists include inappropriate writings, masked activists terrorizing a researcher’s home while he was hosting a children’s birthday party, the flooding of homes, and combustible devices placed under UCLA researcher’s cars (When Animal Rights Turns Ugly 1).An extreme minority has managed to force the closure of a number of establishments connected with animal research and will continue to target others” (2).While some are convinced that animal rights are only fair and that animals are now treated poorly, others maintain that animal rights are taken to the extreme and hinder benefits for humanity.

Abraham Lincoln once said, “I am in favour of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a whole human being.”

Because I agree with: Abraham Lincoln, I stand in affirmation in today’s resolved which is: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

My value in today’s debate is the Categorical Imperative which states that anything that is rationally considered immoral, should be considered immoral by every rational person. This value achieves the resolved because as I will prove, there are things humans ought not do to animals because they are immoral, and therefore animals should have the moral entitlement to not having those things done to them. When humans are doing things they ought not to do, Justice is being violated. If animals had no rights at all, humans would be admitting that there is no abuse toward an animal worthy of their consideration, and in-turn state that it is impossible to be immoral towards an animal.

My criterion in this round shall be Protection from Immorality, because my value can will be achieved when I rationally prove that abusing animals is wrong.

I will now move on to discuss some vital definitions and later proceed to discuss some of the current harms being done to animals that are definitely immoral and deserve action.

Definitions: (Oxford Dictionaries):
Right – A moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way:

Animal – a living organism that feeds on organic matter , typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli:

Justice – The quality of being fair and reasonable.

I, in my following contentions, will prove that animals deserve some moral entitlements as the definition of rights requires.

1: Animals Deserve the Right to Not be Treated As They Are in Factory Farms

Farm factories are vast areas where farm animals are brutally harvested for their body parts. These factories don’t care about their animals or the environment they are harming around them. For example, we can examine the treatment of chickens in these farm factories. According to farmsanctuary.org Male chicks are not worth anything because they don’t produce eggs. To dispose of these male chicks, they are either chucked in a can to die there slowly, or ground up alive and put in fertilizer. Sometimes they are not killed immediately in these grinding situations, and they experience unspeakable horrors because of it. Different situations, just as extreme, occur towards pigs, cows and sheep. In addition to the ridiculous methods of disposal of unworthy farm animals, these animals are also treated with terrible breeding methods, constant painful disease, tortuously small spaces, constant bleeding and bruising from sharp wire cages, and severe mental conditions from unnatural living.

The harmful treatment of animals in factory farms is horrid and therefore is not just by any means, because causing pain and suffering in that way not just. I believe chickens deserve the right to a less painful death, and pigs; cows deserve to live in a non-disease ridden environment. To argue that animals don’t deserve rights at all would be to argue that it is okay for them to be ground up in vats or shoved into a cage too small to move in and which cuts into their skin. Even if they get these minimal rights, which would be the moral thing to do, we can have justice.

2: Animals Deserve Moral Entitlements Simply by Sharing Similar Characteristics to Humans

According to Animal Planet,  Chimpanzees can make and use tools, hunt collectively, and are capable of advanced problem-solving. They are also able to learn sign language to communicate with humans and can remember the name sign for individuals they have not seen for several years. Does this sound like a mindless creature to you? Chimpanzees are self-aware and are able to love and make decisions which makes them the slightly dumbed down version of humans. Simply because we have better brain power makes us slightly better at surviving, but it doesn’t make it right to hurt the lesser species. For instance, if a more advanced species came along than humans, it would not be okay to start killing us off. The same should go for chimpanzees who are simply a less advanced version of humans. Furthermore, chimpanzees use their intellectual gifts to maintain their complex social groups, where they form strong bonds and observe elaborate hierarchical structure. Strong bonds mean they develop friendships and have emotional connections to each other, which to sever would be immoral.

Chimpanzees are not the only animal that deserves rights because they have all of the characteristics that make humans worthwhile, because according to Animal Planet,  dolphins are extremely social animals. Schools of dolphins can be observed in the world’s oceans surfing, racing, leaping, spinning, whistling and otherwise enjoying themselves. They also have a sophisticated “language,” though humans have only begun to unravel it. Furthermore, dolphins use tools in their natural environment.

Obviously, many animals have qualities that merit moral entitlement simply because they share some of the characteristics that humans value.

Conclusion:
It is because of my belief that no animal should be treated as those mentioned in factory farms, and that it would be  immoral to deny moral entitlements all animals that I stand in firm affirmation in today’s debate.

Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Value: Justice because the resolved gives us what we are trying to accomplish in today’s debate which is Justice, my case will be focused on accomplishing the resolved, and therefore I must choose Justice as my value which means the quality of being fair and reasonable.

Criteria: Utilitarianism which refers to the most good for the most living creatures. When it comes to matters of the treatment of all living creatures, it is important to make a choice based on the option that is the most fair and reasonable, which can be determined by utilitarianism.

Definitions according to Oxford Dictionaries:
Require – specify as compulsory.
Recognition – acknowledgment of somethings existence, validity, or legality.

and my final definition which may be the most vital in today’s debate is:

Animal Rights – Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.

If you put this all together, to affirm this resolved is to say that all humans should be legally obliged to not hunt animals or use them for medical research. I will tell you why this is wrong in my following contentions

1: We Must Test on Animals for Medical Purposes
Sub Point 1:
If we were to require the recognition of animal rights, multiple human lives would be lost because medicine would not be tested. Since diseases are constantly evolving, not producing new medicine would mean a new pandemic every time a new strain of disease comes into existence. It is a small exchange to hurt a few animals to protect millions of human lives from even worse suffering. According to the National Academies Press, “By infecting animals with certain microbes, Koch, Pasteur, and other researchers were able to identify the germs causing anthrax, rabies, diphtheria, and plague. These discoveries have allowed scientists to develop vaccines for animals and people made from weakened germs. “ These tests gave way to the salvation of millions of people.

Sub Point 2:
Furthermore, many surgical advancements arise from the testing on animals. According to the NAP, Organ transplants and coronary artery bypasses require that blood vessels be sewn together. The technique of sewing blood vessels together was developed through surgeries on dogs and cats by Alexis Carrel, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1912. Carrel tested on dogs and cats because these organs had a chance of being rejected and the animals had a chance of dying. The whole world, knowing the consequences of the testing on those dogs and cats tested on, decided that Carrel’s research was worthy of a Nobel Prize.

2: The affirming of this resolved would eliminate animal services such as the police K-9 unit.  
This is because the definition of animal rights includes living free from other services to humans, and therefore the K-9 sector of our executive branch would be nullified.
According to the the El Dorado California Police Department and agreed upon by Police Departments across the US, Police service dogs are currently being used nationwide for high risk searches for suspects hiding in buildings or areas, tracking, search and rescue locating victims, jail/prison systems officer protection and cell extraction of inmates, evidence detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, accelerant detection, disaster search locating victims, human remains detection, locating victims of avalanches, locating suspects for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and lately, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection.
As you can see, these K-9’s entire lives are spent as a service to humans, but it is completely worth it.

3: The affirmation of this resolved would eliminate hunting, causing societal chaos.
In almost every society, meat is used as a source of food. In some, meat is necessary for survival, especially in areas of harsh climate where plants don’t grow abundantly. These societies would be forced to abandon their hunting and move to a less extreme climate, causing overpopulation and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, societies which contain a population of people who’s economy is based around the meat industry would be crushed because an entire sector of the economy would be eliminated at once. Farmers would be out of luck, and all of the people involved with the production and transportation of meat would be forced to find a new lively hood.

It is vital, in order to be fair and reasonable, for people to be able to hunt, use animals for law enforcement and transportation, and above all to be used for medical testing. For all these reasons I stand in firm NEGATION of today’s resolved.

Image via Wikipedia

Experimentation on living things borders on immoral anyway, even if it is done to improve our lives or cure diseases. Honestly, I believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest over cure-all medications that pharmaceutical companies are coming up with. Natural solutions such as a healthy diet, drinking water, and exercising would make so many drugs unnecessary. The main problem is that people have gotten too lazy to care for themselves properly, so they turn to pills to make them healthy. Although I agree that some medications certainly have benefits, but weight-loss pills, sleeping pills, and so many others do not seem legitimate to me. If we were living the way we should, with respect for ourselves and knowledge of how our bodies work, then we would not need so many of these drugs.

Image via Wikipedia

If all of these drugs were gone, then there would be a significantly reduced need for testing them on animals and people. People cringe at the thought of human testing or stem cell research because it feels wrong; they can relate to how the test subjects might feel and they many argue that stem cell research is unethical. However, people do not feel guilty about animal testing because they assume that animals do not experience the same emotions and pain that we do. Just because animals do not speak our language does not mean that they do not feel the same things as humans.

How does animal testing make you feel? 

Publish your writing on Triond and earn money!

Want more great reading? Check out these articles:

Horses: A Necessity in Life

With Dogs Comes Happiness

Family Dog Breeds

Breed Profile: Arabian Horses

Five of the Best Guard Dogs