Animal Testing: A Logical Contradiction | Teen Ink

Animal Testing: A Logical Contradiction

April 20, 2021
By mizukisaito_ BRONZE, Kuala Lumpur, Other
mizukisaito_ BRONZE, Kuala Lumpur, Other
1 article 0 photos 0 comments

Everyone loves cute animals. They can be our best friends who stay loyal whether it’s a good day or bad. Now, imagine our beloved pets being injected with needles and suffer a painful death while scientists record the days it took for them to die. 

Animal testing does exactly that. Animal testing is vile and horrid. Animals are forced to inhale toxic gases, removed organs surgically, and are force-fed toxic substances. While you’re complaining about having to go to work, millions of animals are locked up in cages for these inhumane experiments.

The question isn’t whether you support science. It’s whether you support the massacre of animals.

As Professor Charles R. Magel at Moorhead State University puts it, “ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are like us.’ Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: ‘Because the animals are not like us.’ Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.”

A large portion of the people who praise animal testing deems that it makes the products safer for humans to use. Research done by the NCBI proves otherwise; they claim that animal models cannot mimic the complex system humans have. Therefore, 92 percent of drugs that actually pass animal tests fail to proceed to the market. These animal experiments are so inaccurate, even when the drug tests as effective and non-toxic, it fails other types of tests and can’t actually be used on the human body.  The psycho experimenters with cold hearts might as well toss away the animals instead.

There is no necessity for animal testing in the first place. PETA states that researchers can use human cells and tissues, advanced computer-modeling techniques, and human volunteers to test products instead. We humans only use animals because they are so easy to test. We pick on inferior subjects who can’t protest against us to go through barbaric experiments even though there are other more accurate options to test chemicals and products. The 100 million lives and sufferings of animals were a waste.

What if the roles were switched?  If humans were to be the subjects of these testings involuntarily, everyone would be upset. It would be a human rights issue. Protests. Riots. Boycotts. So why not do the same for animals? Believe it or not, animals subjected to animal testing each have their own brain, unlike the people who support animal testing. 

 

There are human rights. What about animal rights? You’re so right! The USA has animal experiment regulations called the Animal Welfare Act. It’s a federal law to protect animals in labs. However, Cruelty Free International Organization states that “Shockingly, in the USA, rats, mice, fish, amphibians, and birds are not defined as animals under animal experiments regulations”. 

How disappointing. 

The leading country in the science field has a federal law to protect lab animals, except they reject animals from being categorized as animals? Where does the logic even come from? These animals make up 85% of animal experiments, yet the law doesn’t actually protect them. The Animal Welfare Act is just a title the government made just to make us believe that animals are being experimented in ethical environments when they clearly are not! 

Pets are no different from lab animals. Would you send your pet to be experimented on? If your answer is no, then take action! Use products that have “cruelty-free” labels on them. This way, you can use the products knowing that no animal was experimented, harmed, or tortured in the making. Ah, inner peace at last. 

We are all earthlings, and our eyes are wide open to the pain and suffering of animals. Be the person who advocates for a change. Your teaspoon of change has the potential to make a great impact on the world.



Similar Articles

JOIN THE DISCUSSION

This article has 0 comments.