Why should animals have rights, especially in regards to lab animals?

Question

Animals are lesser beings than us therefore giving us the authority to test products on them that will benefit us. If it will possibly help the life of a human, it shouldn't matter how many rats, mice, or bunnys should have to be tested on to do so. Animals may feel pain during the test, but the reality of it is that 80% of all animals in labs will die there or be euthanized after ward, therefore it does,t matter much if they are in pain becuase they are going to die anyways.Animals are lesser beings than humans, so they should not have the same rights.

Do any of you own a dog?? It is a lesser being than you. YOU OWN IT!! you walk it on a leash and scold it when its bad. Animal ARE lesser beings.

Answer 1

Animals are alive and capable of feeling pain and suffering just as you would if toxic substances were put on your skin, in your eyes, or injected in you. Housepets deserve to be loved, fed, and housed in a caring and comfortable way. They cannot speak for themselves, so organizations and compassionate others speak for them.

Your question shows you to be unfeeling and uncaring about these gentle beings. You need to take a long, hard look in the mirror and realize that you are not the only important lifeform on earth.

Answer 2

I think you are missing the point. It is not a question about "lesser" and "greater" species. You could make a very valid argument that the AIDS virus is much more adapted to its environment than humans are to theirs, and thus must be the "greater" species!

Animal research is an ongoing dialogue of situational ethics- not black and white, right vs wrong. In most countries, any scientist who opts to perform testing on any vertebrate animal must completely justify the use of that animal to a panel of people who answer to the government. That panel is obligated to undertake a cost/ benefit analysis of that exact situation and proposed use, and answer the hard question: is requiring this particular animal's contribution justified by the knowledge that will be gained from this experiment, as it is written? The scientist must prove, among other things, that using animals is necessary, that the species used is appropriate, that all possible measures have been taken to avoid the animals' discomfort, and that the research is designed well enough that each animal's individual contribution is justified. There are actually far more regulations on animal experimentation than on human!

There is a hierarchy based on level of consciousness. Thus, it is preferable to perform research on the least number of least sentient animals that will provide the necessary answer. Basic research is performed with computer models, cell cultures, and the like. Fruit flies are often used. Fish and amphibians are next in the hierarchy, followed by rats and mice. And so on. With each level, more justification is required. With each level, more complex understanding can be gained. Only after the research is well understand in animal models is human testing allowed.

And for those who say, just use criminals, shame on you. Since when are criminals less human than you? Where would you draw that line? Offer a real alternative, and people can stop utilizing animal models for life-enhancing research. As the old saying goes, if you can't stand the heat... Better yet, it is 100 times easier to criticize than to create. Build me a computer model that can predict how well a novel flu vaccine will work as it interacts with the 100 million cell types circulating in the immune system, and guarantee it will catch all possible interactions and side effects. Then we will talk. Until then, we have work to do.

There are people everywhere who act as the voice of the animals. They do not view the animals as lesser species; rather as sentient beings making important sacrifices on the behalf of humanity. These are not, "test tubes with tails". The responsibility undertaken is huge, and the commitment is genuine. There is nothing malicious about it, nor is there any condescention. We still have a long way to go towards human rights, in a world that values the life a person without money less than one with. Talk about "lesser" species.

Answer 3

I disagree with you saying that animals are lesser beings. How did you come to that conclusion? They are living creatures and should be given the right to live. I do understand people testing medicine on animals, but many pharmacutical companies are cranking out medicines that are not always necessary. And some of the time, they wasted those animals' lives and didn't even find out if the medicine would have negative effects on or be fatal to humans (Vioxx.) Furthermore, I am against testing on animals for luxury items like makeup, lotion, and shampoo. None of those are absolutely necessary and do not necessarily improve the quality of our lives. I personally choose companies which do not test on animals.

I suppose that if another life form appears on this planet that considers us "lesser beings," you would be okay with them using us as lab rats.

Answer 4

They could be lesser beings, but thats no reason to torture them! What if people inflicted YOU with diseases, and cut you open. Many cases are also there where people dont care about the animals and perform the expirements recklessly. Many animals experience pain, some extreme pain. People dont take enough precautions with the experiments. Maybe if the animals were ALWAYS killed humanely it might be okay with overpopulated species like rats.

Think about this carefully, how you would feel to be in one of the many hurt animals position.

Sincerely, Ryan mills

Answer 5

I disagree that animals are 'lesser' beings, but I would agree that animals should not get the same rights as a human.

Unnecessary cruelty or torture of animals should not be allowed, especially if the outcome is for cosmetic or frivolous ends, rather than for say, medical research.

Of course, I would also support human experimentation - especially on volunteers, such as prisoners who want to reduce their sentences, or terminal patients who don't have much to lose by trying something radical and untested anyhow. It could also be used a form of sentence for serial child molesters, mass murderers, people who talk on cell phones while driving and other individuals who should not be allowed to re-enter society in any case.

Answer 6

Well, how would YOU feel if you were in their position? While it is true that animals are not capable of expressing themselves in the same way that we do, they do have feelings, and can feel pain. While some animals are less intelligent than others, they all deserved to be treated with respect.
By the way, you mispelled 'bunnies'

Answer 7

& i have an IQ way above yours....making you a lesser being than me......therefore. we can get rid of the rats..& use you instead..... but before we start...& just out of curiosoty....I would like to know one thing...who is giving you AUTHORITY...

Im the only one aloud to give authority to people over lesser beings...& I DONT REMEMBER GIVING IT TO YOU

Answer 8

Oh man...you are so very ignorant, aren't you? I feel really sorry for you. Read a book girl! Geez! They should put you in a lab for testing.

Answer 9

Bible says the good man is kind to his animals, they deserve rights in as much as they should not suffer for us, die for food yes--but not suffer, even the wild animal kills quickly,

Answer 10

they are not lesser beings! testing products on critters is inhumane!