Animal research and testing impacts the environment because of the large amount of waste that requires disposal. Things like chemicals, cages, feces, used bedding, and hazardous materials are things that either take up room in landfills or require special methods to properly dispose.
when people starts killing animals as they wish and they name after killing it to devote for a god and when they do not folllow the rules of kiiling the innocent dump animals then the animal crulety becomes popular
Paracetamol was tested on animals before human testing took place. Paracetamol is capable of causing liver damage in humans and is fatal to most animals.
yes they do, the the company the owns Suave (Unilever) has other brands that also test on animals. Here is a link with a list of companies that do and don't test on animals, or fund tests on animals. http://www.caringconsumer.com/resources_companies.asp
They're called predators; animals that eat meat are carnivores.
There are a number of animals that are known to be solitary animals, and thus, are pretty disloyal. However, the animal that is considered to be the least loyal would be the Tasmanian devil.
If I were giving a speech on animal cruelty then I would discuss how the animals are treated, what is really done to them, and end with saying . . . "if this isn't cruelty then what is?"
Yes, animals that have been abused in the past sometimes can be aggressive toward the sex that abused them. (For example if a dog was abused by a male owner that dog may tend to be more aggressive toward males in the future.) The animal may also have problems with being nervous in certain situations.
Probably killing them slowly and painfully. I would say that if you were to cut off an animals ears and tail by yourself that would be a bad case of animal cruelty, but also dogs that are used as bait dogs is very sad.
Cruelty to animals can come in a variety of forms. Some say that medical testing on animals is cruel; the other side of the debate is that diseases such as polio and smallpox would still be rampant had testing not been done on animals. Some say that killing an animal is cruel, yet organizations back by PETA and the ASPCA euthanize several million animals a year. In the strictest sense, any treatment of an animal that is not necessary for the greater good of humans or is for the enjoyment of the perpetrator would likely be cruelty.
I am not sure I understand what you are asking, but for me there is an ethical dilemma in the fact that anything not first tested on animals, is first tested on people.
Animal cruelty is not good. Never was, never will be. Animal cruelty is horrible and just think of those poor little animals suffering from abuse. How would YOU like it if somebody locked you up in a cage and beat you with a metal pole? You might even bleed to death. you wouldn't be fed and you would starve. No animal or person wants to be treated like that. hundreds, maybe even thousands of animals die each year because of these awful, horrib
Animal cruelty is viewed as negative treatment and abuse of animals. The opposing view would be people who debate what exactly define cruelty. Some animal cruelty behaviors are obvious, while others are opinions.
I would go with Cannibal Holocaust. Wikipedia states that there are 7 killings of real animals for the movie. As well as Platoon, a Vietnam war movie, had some animal cruelty in it as well. Although arguments have been made from it being fake, others say it is real cruelty and the dispute continues.
Why the heck are you asking this? Are you for animal cruelty? OMG Why the heck are you asking this? Are you for animal cruelty? OMG
"He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." -Immanuel Kant It is often said that if someone will hurt an animal they will also hurt a human, so our society is often judged by how we treat our animals. The better a country treats its animals the better it is normally looked upon.
animals do not speak the same language as humans. Animals need a human to speak for them! If no one spoke for an animals rights, most animals would be extinct! Animals experience pain and torture just the same as us, someone has to speak up for them.
No. Rights come with responsibilities. You have them, I have them, everybody has them. I think that lately the rights have been going down and the responsibilities up, though! An animal can have no responsibilities, so handing them rights would in fact elevate them above us in the scheme of things. We would have to "pay" for what they get for free. That doesn't mean that being a bad steward is acceptable. Undue cruelty is wrong. But we have dominion over them, which means it is moral for us to put them to reasonable use. If we eat an animal that would otherwise never have existed at all, at least it had a life first. Same with medical testing. Anything not tested on an animal first, is obviously, then, tested on a person first. Absolutely unacceptable! Some like to pretend that they can "test" things in a test tube (maybe someday!) but that still leaves the fact that anything not first tested on an animal, is first tested on a human.