Animal Cruelty Letter
Dear Editor of the Los Angeles Times,
My name is Aaron Lai, and I am a civilian writing this letter to you as a complaint against your recent article, “Animal Testing is Great!” You, in your article, kept on repeating that animal testing is good for all society, which is actually not confirmed yet. Animal testing is inhumane, and actually has almost no benefits for animals. Also, animal testing is still in debate, so you can’t say that is good.
Why is animal testing bad for society? It’s really obvious, because it is done every day! Animal testing is just another word for animal cruelty, and I can give you many examples of that. In the University of California, a researcher got a grant to experiment for vision tests on thirty monkeys. After each monkey was experimented on, it was euthanized, which means to kill an animal by giving them a shot.
Is animal testing needed? There are many other alternatives to animal testing, like using experimental equations. Those equations can be inputted into a computer, and the computer will calculate the result of an experiment. Here’s another question: Why are animals tested on? Yes, it is more efficient to test on an animal, because it takes less time, and animals are somewhat expendable. However, animals have done almost nothing to us, so why should take them, and abuse them?! It isn’t right.
People who support animal testing share a common answer to why animal testing is good – though there may be negatives in animal testing, it will be positive in the end. That is wrong! Animals don’t really see a light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, it is hell for them. This hell is there, all because of our tax money. Our taxes lead to animal cruelty, and none of us know that!
Do you see your mistake now Editor? By making that one article, you passed on to the newspaper a very big mistake. So please make amends to the article, and make the proper article. This is my letter. Thank your for your time and cooperation.
Sincerely,
Aaron Lai.