Response to Catholic Article

19 10 2012

in respsonse to http://ericandjasonshoaff.wordpress.com/ Scholarly article.

This blog post states that it is morally wrong for a catholic woman to use birth control because all life is considered sacred. In my opinion this is only partially right. All life is sacred, but it is not safe to say that life is there before birth control is used therefore the argument made is invalid. Birth Control is used in order to prevent pregnancy not get rid of an already conceived baby. If the baby had been conceived that would be a different story. So if a woman prevents pregnancy she is just being responsible if she cannot support a baby because if a woman were to have a baby at the wrong time it could ruin her life.

In response to the part about Obama forcing hospital to give out birth control to people. This is an argument that i do not necesarily believe in but for the sake of this assignment will argue anyway. Some people are not finincially capable of supporting a baby and if this is the case babies should not be concieved if they couldnt be cared for properly. If somebody cannot support a baby they are not very likely to be able to use birth control so in this case it would be good for it to be provided for them.

Advertisements




Delineating Validity and Facebook

17 10 2012

http://mccarttpeng111.wordpress.com/

I can see where Facebook can be bad because of their use of information that we didn’t know they were taking. I can see why people would want to keep everything completely private and would dislike Facebook for taking this info. However, it seems kind of extreme to resent them for giving this info to companies that want to advertise to us. They aren’t really using this information for anything truly sinister they just want to make some money selling your personal info to companies. Using Facebook’s new ability to track your location is a bit of a stretch to say that someone can use it to rob your house when you’re. You would have to be friends with the robber in the first place in order for them to get that info. While it is true that maybe someone could hack into Facebook and get the info but it seems if they have that level of skill they wouldn’t be using it to rob peoples houses. They even point out how Facebook is very convenient but the costs are possibly too high. I don’t really think there are huge costs to Facebook and if people seem to get what they want out of Facebook and are happy with it then I believe they should continue to use it.

Damien Hutton





Animal Testing

17 10 2012

Animal testing is a necessary evil in order to ensure the survival of the human race. Although using animals in ways that or non-beneficial to the health of humans should be considered taboo. Animal testing with cosmetics is unethical on many levels. It does not help ensure the safety of humans and does not have anything to do with health related goals such as attempting to cure or treat major illnesses. However, when used to promote better medicines for the sick is a proper use of animal testing. So even though I fully believe in the proper usage of animal testing I still believe we should have certain limits on it and regulations in order





Animal testing is necessary

17 10 2012

http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.184.html

Human trials could be disaterous if animal testing is not tested on animals first. As a result of the animal testing there has been a drastically reduced number of negative side affects of medical and cosmetic products. Products such as antibiotics, cancer treatments, surgeries and much more have been created as a result of being able to test on animals. If the prior tests had not occured all the failures of the  treatments would have occured on human beings. Loved ones would have been lost or severely injured due to the experimental procedures or products. For example a medicine to cure a severe skin condition caused birth defects and that was caught by animal testing.

Alternatives to animal testing would be great to have and everyone is sure to agree on that so the government has been giving money to finding alternatives. Some vaccines and hormones can be synthetically created to act as a replacement for animals. Skin can be artificially created limiting the number of animals needed for that and some advanced scanning and imaging improvements have been made to give a large amount of information without the use of animal testing. However, in the cases where alternatives are not available animal testing is still needed.





Pros? Cons?

15 10 2012

On thebeautybrains.com an argument is made that animal testing for cosmetics has positive outcomes and the article I found to argue this was from a website named the Indepentent. The article for animal testing for cosmetics says it is necessary at this point to continue to make advancements. The Independent is argueing for animal testing for cosmetic testing is cruel and even gives vivid details that exaggerates what happens suhc as “animals continue to have cosmetic chemicals forced down their throats, dripped into their eyes and applied to their shaved skin”. The scientist from Beauty brains says that he loves animals too but he would rather have humans be taken care of. He said if there were alternatives to animal testing he would do it in a second but for many types it just isn’t possible yet to safely avoid. I believe what the scientist says, animal testing is not necessarily a good thing but if we want to further advance the cosmetics then we need to keep testing until alternatives are found. The scientists that test know that animal testing can hurt animals and they dont like that but they would prefer humans to be safe than have animals be slightly uncomfortable.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/wendy-higgins-animal-testing-is-the-beauty-industrys-wellkept-ugly-secret-7987460.html

http://thebeautybrains.com/2009/01/19/scientists-speak-about-cosmetic-animal-testing/





The Pros and Cons of Animal Testing

10 10 2012

The first article I read was from PETA. This article focused much less on fact than the emotional connection the reader has with animals. I didn’t see  really any specific “facts” besides how they pointed out that the Animal Welfare Act doesn’t cover birds and mice which I do believe to be a flaw. They also point out the testing of harmful household cleaners and cosmetics on animals. I personally believe that we should only pursue animal research when it comes to health-related goals for humans. However, looking at PETA’s arguments we can see that they rely heavily on emotion from their audience hoping that they are die hard animal activists like them. Which assuming most people aren’t die hard animal activists their argument seems unintelligent and may get a negative view of PETA itself. In fact PETA uses the logical fallacy of using emotion to replace a valid or compelling argument. Looking at the other article we can see the heavy usage of facts in their article. The side represented in this article is AMP or Americans for Medical Progress. Within this article they go into specific diseases that have been aided in some way by animal testing and what the benefits to humans are. They go into great detail about the number of lives saved from certain diseases like leukemia and heart disease. AMP talks about how with the advancements due to animal testing something such as childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence as it once was and is now treatable. On this side they successfully pair a heavy use of facts with an emotional appeal to the reader.  So I believe that we should continue animal testing but we should retain a tighter hold on it especially when it comes to cosmetics testing which I believe should not continue.





Ethical and Scientific Considerations Regarding Animal Testing and Research

10 10 2012

http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=f4c30a03-feb1-4fd6-8064-b9bce2b6740e%40sessionmgr112&vid=4&hid=20

 

Within this article the author goes in to deep detail about multiple accounts of animal testing and articles in the past. These cases aren’t limited to the U.S.A she even goes into deep analysis of one in Britain. She talks about how 90 years after the British start enacting laws regarding animal cruelty the US decides to enact a few of its own. Although in the beginning they would exclude purpose-bred animals such as birds and mice. Which according to the author was 90% of the animals used for testing. They also go into the difference between animal research regulations and human research regulations. For the human regulations we see much more influence put upon the interests of the research subject and not the scientific question. While with animal testing we see the scientific question commonly being put above the concerns of the animals. Usually it is determined by whether the supposed benefits are achievable and whether or not they are significant enough to research. They usually don’t concern whether the cost to the animal is to great for the research. According to the author animals that are not killed in the process of testing usually have many other side effects that negatively impact it with other animals. They are not able to fulfill natural behavior and face social deprivation.