Against Animal Testing Essay Example

Imagine this: you are sitting in a cage, because that has been where you have been your entire life, and that is all you know. You hear footsteps. They slowly stomp towards the cage that you lay in. An animal double your size says something in a peculiar voice and language to some other giant animal. Then, your cage door opens. Which is surprising because it has not been fully opened since the day you were born. The animal grabs you with its bare, non-furred fingers, and takes you to a separate room to be slaughtered. This is the perspective of animals that were born in captivity, to be murdered for humans’ benefits, and tested in painful ways, even though there can be alternatives and solutions instead of murdering innocent creatures. Only 3% of animals survive testing every year. So, if you were in their paws, would you like the feeling of never secure safety? 

First of all, every second, 1 or more animals die from testing, according to (If I Can’t Speak, It Doesn’t Mean I Have No Rights.) Would you like to know that one of your family members dies every single second? (About Animal Testing) says that 115 million animals are used for testing every year. That is six billion nine hundred million animals that could have possibly died in a year, at least. And 92/100 tests are ineffective on humans, meaning that the results that scientists get on animals don't have the same result on humans. So the animals die for nothing. 

Other people may believe that animals aren’t moral, so they shouldn’t live, have rights, or be worth saving. Moral means to be able to tell right from wrong. Well, how do people know that animals can’t tell the difference between right and wrong? We can’t understand them, and talk to them, so why do people jump to conclusions? If 92/100 tests are ineffective, what is the point of continuing to test on animals? There are also alternatives nowadays. Computers are getting more advanced, and humans would volunteer to be tested on, which would make the results more accurate, and save innocent creatures' lives.

In conclusion, animals shouldn’t be tested on, since the tests are ineffective, killing innocent animals, and there can be alternatives such as volunteered humans, and computer generated tests. Maybe if we even reduce the animal testing, and just use injured animals that were found in the wild, (instead of breeding animals just to be killed) then we could help the environment and make it better. Animals are a key point in nature's survival. What would a nature hike be without animals to watch? So, what do you think? Should animals still be tested?