Vivisection: Is it for you? Essay -- Animal Testing Papers

Vivisection: Is it for you? Animal Research has become a heated debate over the past few decades, reaching a high point around the end of the twentieth century yet it still continues through today. There are two main ways to look at this topic: the logos pro side and the pathos anti side. Those who are for animal testing realize the amazing benefits that can come out of such research while those against animal testing stand up for animals’ rights and try to find ways to better such research without killing so many innocent, defenseless animals. While both sides seem to carry their argument well, those against animal testing ruin their ethos by making their argument an emotional one while those who are for animal testing build their ethos by giving logical reasoning for testing animals. Exploring both sides deeper should help provide a clear stance for each one. Those who stand behind animal testing usually tend to be groups of scientists as well as animal testing companies. One such company, Huntingdon, argues that animal testing is a necessary evil. While nobody enjoys killing animals, Huntingdon suggests it is necessary by showing us that millions of people have been saved through various operations that would not have been able to have been preformed if it had not been for animal testing. On one if its web pages, Huntingdon stated: [H]ere is a list of the average number of operations performed in the UK in a year: 3,000,000 operations under general [anesthetic], 90,000 cataract operations, 60,000 joint replacements, 13,000 coronary bypasses, 10,000 pacemakers implanted, 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements, 4,000 heart defects corrected, 2,500 corneal transplants, 2,000 kidney transplants, 400 heart/lu... ...mbine our ideas and use computer simulations when possible and animal testing only when necessary, miracles can happen. Works Cited Michael, Mike. â€Å"Views From Behind the Barricade: Animal Rights Campaigners Have Left Researchers Feeling Under Siege.† New Scientist 134 (4 April 1992) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A12410157. Sandler, Jessica. â€Å"PETA Says No to Testing.† Earth Island Journal 17.3 (Autumn 2002) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A89392654. Lewis, David. â€Å"Molecular Modeling as an Alternative to Animal Testing.† Manufacturing Chemist 63.12 (December 1992) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A13522944. Huntingdon Life Sciences: Working for a better future: The benefits of animals in scientific research. 31 March 2003. . Vivisection: Is it for you? Essay -- Animal Testing Papers Vivisection: Is it for you? Animal Research has become a heated debate over the past few decades, reaching a high point around the end of the twentieth century yet it still continues through today. There are two main ways to look at this topic: the logos pro side and the pathos anti side. Those who are for animal testing realize the amazing benefits that can come out of such research while those against animal testing stand up for animals’ rights and try to find ways to better such research without killing so many innocent, defenseless animals. While both sides seem to carry their argument well, those against animal testing ruin their ethos by making their argument an emotional one while those who are for animal testing build their ethos by giving logical reasoning for testing animals. Exploring both sides deeper should help provide a clear stance for each one. Those who stand behind animal testing usually tend to be groups of scientists as well as animal testing companies. One such company, Huntingdon, argues that animal testing is a necessary evil. While nobody enjoys killing animals, Huntingdon suggests it is necessary by showing us that millions of people have been saved through various operations that would not have been able to have been preformed if it had not been for animal testing. On one if its web pages, Huntingdon stated: [H]ere is a list of the average number of operations performed in the UK in a year: 3,000,000 operations under general [anesthetic], 90,000 cataract operations, 60,000 joint replacements, 13,000 coronary bypasses, 10,000 pacemakers implanted, 6,000 heart valve repairs or replacements, 4,000 heart defects corrected, 2,500 corneal transplants, 2,000 kidney transplants, 400 heart/lu... ...mbine our ideas and use computer simulations when possible and animal testing only when necessary, miracles can happen. Works Cited Michael, Mike. â€Å"Views From Behind the Barricade: Animal Rights Campaigners Have Left Researchers Feeling Under Siege.† New Scientist 134 (4 April 1992) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A12410157. Sandler, Jessica. â€Å"PETA Says No to Testing.† Earth Island Journal 17.3 (Autumn 2002) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A89392654. Lewis, David. â€Å"Molecular Modeling as an Alternative to Animal Testing.† Manufacturing Chemist 63.12 (December 1992) Online. Expanded Academic Index. Article Number: A13522944. Huntingdon Life Sciences: Working for a better future: The benefits of animals in scientific research. 31 March 2003. .