Injection Or Protection?

Injections OR Protection

Although testing on animals seems the only way to further advance our medicine, technologies, and prevent products from harming people, it doesn't necessarily make it right. I think we can all agree that injecting defenseless animals with dangerous chemicals resulting in serious side effects or possible death is cruel and unusual. Coincidently, in the U.S. we consider such acts as illegal forms of punishment. Yet in the case of animals, it's called science. Which leads to the question, what rights do animals have? Aren't animals and humans different which therefore lead to a different set of rules? So what exactly separates the two species? The answer might lie in searching for the differences between man and beast. Let us test the senses in order to see a difference there. Sight, smell, hearing, touch, and taste are all common characteristics that both species share, except for a few instances in certain animals and certain disabled humans. Moving on, both are able to sense danger, evade danger, feel pain, sense positive and negative emotions, display affection and dislike. The fact that we even test on animals is an admittance of the distinct similarities between the two. If man and animal were so different, there would be no gain in knowledge due to experimentation. This supports my claim that animals share the same intrinsic rights as humans. Therefore, animal rights should be protected somewhere in our nations constitution. Is it something so minute as having less legs, a set of thumbs and the ability to walk upright? Some would argue that animals are soulless beasts that walk the earth and exist only to serve man's purpose. So why would there be such a thing as wild and untamed animals? They do not exist for the purpose of man and are able to carry on their lives self sufficiently. It is now obvious that animals can exist and thrive without human intervention. This refutes the possibility that animals are here only to serve under and function for the betterment of man. It is only through our intervention that we have dominated and controlled animal nature. Through our own perceived superiority, man has decided that animals are expendable for the greater good.

As necessary as it may be to preserve human life, I don't think it's ethical to use animals as the testing ground for vanity products. When I say vanity products I'm referring to hair, body, and make-up accessories. These things are not essential to our survival, in the hunter/gather sense of the word. So why will we maim and sacrifice animals for our own vanity? In a recent case study concerning toothpaste tests on animals, 200 baby rabbits are hooked up to "medieval stereotaxic devices are clamped onto animals' heads so that chemicals can be smeared on to their teeth". (http://www.peta.org/liv/animaltimes/a199/tests.html ) In other cases, it seem that through testing, we have discovered things like insulin that have served as important breakthroughs in medicine. Although we have discovered great things, how many little