I need a counterargument
2007-09-14 05:07:24 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Psychology
Frequently the research involves confining the animal for life, subjecting it to unpleasant, if not horrendous conditions that shorten its lifespan and otherwise make its life miserable. The death involved in killing for food is quick and relatively painless; the suffering is over quickly. For experimentation, it is death as well, but it frequently takes years of torture before it mercifully comes.
2007-09-14 05:18:30 · answer #1 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To some extent, we can do research on them. However, there is a limit - when the benefits of the research outweigh the costs (submitting an animal to ongoing tests that threaten its life), the research is no longer permitted. However, many animals can even be killed in research as long as the benefits of doing so promise to outweigh that cost. For the most part, killing animals to eat them benefits us by giving us good nutrition for sustaining life; this is why killing animals only for sport, not for food, has been outlawed in many places.
2007-09-14 12:42:19 · answer #2 · answered by Aria T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The motivation is different and the outcome is different. Food is a necessity. Animals in labs are used to test the latest shampoo - not a necessity. We already know what chemicals are safe to use on humans for washing hair etc. The testing continues to maintain company profits by persuading us to buy new products that we don't need. And by the way, WOMEN have a lot to answer for, because of the billions they spend on cosmetics which are tested on animals.
2007-09-14 12:27:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The pain associated with killing an animal is very brief whereas the pain associated with research is on-going and often limitless. A brief moment of pain when the animal is going to be used to sustain our physical life is acceptable. Subjecting long-term pain on an animal that will never be used to sustain our physical bodies is not.
Why not use the prisoners who are on death row or have no possibility of parole for research? They can vocalize their experiences much better than a rabbit can.
2007-09-14 12:17:49 · answer #4 · answered by Loves the Ponies 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because you wouldn't eat a mexican sewer rat would you? and people believe that they live in filthy and terrible conditions, getting squirted in the eyes with shampoo... etc. Do you think a cow would be happier eating beef to test mad cow disease or eating grass :)
Thats what i would assume the argument is.
2007-09-14 12:15:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋