Animal Testing Satire

Imagine a world without testing on animals. Thousands maybe even millions of animals die for the simple need of cosmetics. Cosmetic testing on animals is wrong because animals waste their lives away in cells of torture just for personal entertain. It's wrong because poor animals are being wrongly treated and abused.
Next is how they don’t get adequate nutrients and they die inches away from food. The ability to experience pain is a sufficient condition for a being to be morally considerable. But the ability to feel pain is not a necessary condition for moral considerability. Organisms could have possibly evolved so as to be motivated to flee danger or injury or to eat or drink not by pain, but by 'pangs of pleasure' that increase as one fills the relevant need or escapes the harm. In such a world, 'mattering' would be …show more content…
Its should change because when you eat enhanced food the “chemicals” the animals are injected with can sometimes get into you. It also limits they way the animal lives. What i mean by this is that poor animals that are injected with “growth hormones” die just inches away from the food and water they need to live. The Franklin defence of meat-eating is the claim that meat-eating is morally permissible because animals eat other animals. I examine five versions of this defence. I argue that two versions, claiming respectively that might is right and that animals deserve to be eaten, can easily be dismissed,and that the version based on a claim that God intends us to eat animals is theologically controversial. I go on to show that the two other versions -- one claiming that meat-eating is natural, the other that it is inconsistent to condemn human meat-eating without also trying to prevent animals eating other animals.” What this quote is saying is that being a vegetarian who doesn't eat meat is a good thing because you have a much lower chance of getting those hormones you don't in your