Imagine growing up with a pet, one who became your closest confidant, someone you would call your brother. Now imagine that a family member was taken to a testing center and given a cancer cell to see if the latest cancer treatment would work. During your stay at the experimental facility you are allowed to visit them. However, as you wait outside your assigned room, you hear loud yelps and low growls coming from your closest friend. Thinking that this experiment can help thousands or maybe even millions, you just hope that it is worth it and that they are okay. But unfortunately it doesn't work and your pet dies. The historical tradition of animal testing began in the 4th and 3rd centuries BC by the ancient Greeks and has continued to the present day with the aim of improving human life. However, it is quite difficult to determine where the line should be drawn in these experiments, which is why the topic of animal testing has become so controversial. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay In 1966, the Animal Welfare Act was implemented to regulate "handling, shelter, space requirements, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, veterinary care" care and transport" of laboratory animals. This means that the law guarantees the right of animals to have a safe and comfortable environment during testing. However, the law is not broad enough. Despite these regulations, some species are left behind – not covered by the AWA – leaving mice, rats, birds and cold-blooded animals, which make up 99% of animals subjected to experiments vulnerable to potentially inhumane treatment. And while many experiments are legal, they shouldn't be. In the article “All animals are equal...” by the philosopher of moral rights, Peter Singer, he states that precisely because animals do not have the ability to speak, they still have the ability to feel emotions and pain. One analogy he uses is comparing men's and women's rights. Stating that “The differences that exist between men and women are equally undeniable… Many feminists argue that women have the right to abortion on demand. It does not follow that, since these same feminists fight for equality between men and women, they should also support men to have abortions. As the act of aborting would be rendered meaningless as men would have no need for it. This same concept can be applied to animals because, although humans and animals are distinctly different, they both share some of the most basic similarities. For example, they are also living, breathing things and can suffer when injured and feel comfortable when treated properly. This doesn't mean that animal rights activists are calling for the right to vote, but just some of the most basic rights that can lead to a happy life: being treated fairly or even just getting help with the most basic needs like food and water. So really, if animal testing continued, it would go against the philosophy of moral rights. Since both their negative and positive rights would be violated because not only do human beings go against their inalienable fundamental rights but also their right not to be interfered with. However, many still argue that animals should not be given rights since they cannot determine their actions from right to wrong by applying moral judgments. But alsoIf they do not have rights, isn't it our moral obligation to ensure that animals are not mistreated? As the Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said, regardless of animals' understanding of natural rights “they are endowed (...) [with] participation [in] natural rights” and Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher, “ would famously declare: 'The question is not: can they reason? Nor, can they talk? But can they suffer?'” So, by allowing this form of abuse for the sake of our selfish needs, humans are violating animals' right to live happy and fulfilling lives. It is therefore unethical to allow animal testing because it harms animals, is of little or no use to aid human research, and kills millions of people. Harming animals in the petty interest of human well-being is immoral to say the least. In animal testing laboratories, animals are known as “time- and resource-intensive,” meaning that they must be exploited to test on their bodies as many substances (i.e. chemicals) as they can handle during their lifetime. These tests are said to help find “medical treatments, determine the toxicity of drugs, verify the safety of products intended for human and other biomedical… and healthcare uses.” However, a consequence of discovering the toxicity of chemicals through the prescription of large lethal doses in processes such as inhalation and skin contact is the possibility of experiencing intense stress that can sometimes lead to death. During these tests, animals are subjected to extreme conditions which, as a result, can place their bodies under great stress. The tests can “…cause some animals to develop neurotic behaviors such as spinning incessantly, rocking back and forth, tearing at their fur, and even biting themselves. After enduring a life of pain, loneliness and terror, almost everyone will be killed.” Bearing these effects in mind one should understand that the enormous sacrifice of animals would be rendered useless since many of these experiments provide little information on how these chemicals react on humans. Taking into account the well-being of these animals, humans should also understand that they, like us, are living, breathing creatures and have the capacity to love and understand pain. Therefore, humans should stop these sadistic acts and find new ways to fight diseases since animal testing is a Pyrrhic victory that has more losses than gains. Animal testing is a practice of the past that should remain in the past as it is largely ineffective in helping. of human research/development. With the long history behind this controversial practice, people have become accustomed to contributing to tradition rather than developing better, more humane ways to test vaccines, household cleaning products, and other chemicals to see the results/symptoms when put in contact with humans. Despite this, these tests are not even accurate as different species respond to chemicals differently. So in reality, the side effects vary depending on the test done on a different animal, which also means that the harm done to the animal will not even reflect the symptoms shown on humans. And although “…we share many similar characteristics [with animals] (and even genetic material), the biological composition of humans differs significantly from that of other animals. The same goes for other members of the animal kingdom. A disease that can be incredibly deadly for monkeys may not have any kind of impact on frogs or humans.