Could you correct my essay in terms of grammar and structure ? Thanks

Should animals be used for research?

The rhetorical struggle between supporters of animal rights and apologists for using such living organisms for medical and scientific researches is now one of the highlights of the political and ethical scenario in most of the countries. Should animals, like human beings, have a right for their physical integrity and freedom? Wouldn't such massive changes on this delicate topic cause losses for human technological development? As we shall examine, animals have been, since the dawn of civilization, an important instrument that humans can and must freely manipulate, in order to reap from the rational usage of them results which will serve as increasers of our happiness and well-being, besides the fact that only rational beings can be bearers of political rights and duties.

Due to their physiological structure similar to ours, animals – specially mammals - are useful guinea pigs that can be used in different fields of experimental enquiry, such as biochemical and genetical researches, capable of providing us with vital pieces of information about the processes underlying our own biological arrangement. The access to the great variety of drugs, cosmetics and medical procedures which are available and give us better conditions of life, is only possible because of the usage of animals in professional labs; otherwise, humans would have to be placed at scientists' disposal, instead of animals, if any progress and, subsequently, any improvement of our health and society were intended to be reached. Clearly, this would be an affront to human rights and dignity, since humans' lives are more valuable than those of mere animals. Therefore, even if the experimentation with living organisms, other than humans, means their eventual death, it is worthwhile inasmuch as it will be carried out for serving our rightful purposes.

Another aspect misunderstood by advocates of animal rights is that of equating the properties that humans possess and enable them to be moral agents, accountable for their own acts, with those possessed by animals. Such properties are the rationality and the free will to opt for one specific behavior rather than another one, the very traits that make us, indeed, humans. Thanks to these characteristics, humans can form and maintain social relationships, thus setting for themselves and for the ones surrounding them, rights and duties for the proper functioning of those relationships; animals, by contrast, are not able to exercise the type of social agency stated above and, therefore, cannot be hold accountable for their acts. It would be non-sense to delegate to animals the duty of "you must not kill", since they lack the capacity for deliberating whether they will follow or not such law. Simply put, if something cannot be the subject of a moral requirement, then it cannot, likewise, be the holder of a right for something that itself could not be accountable for. What this really means is that animals cannot have political rights since they cannot, in first place, respect and act accordingly to their duties in relation to others; they can, therefore, legitimately be used for researches without a single right being disrespected.

To sum up, the demand by animal rights supporters who wish such researches to be forbidden is inconsistent with the aims of bettering human life and with the adequate approach to the matter of social rights and duties. The employment of living organisms, other than humans themselves, is not only a methodological imperative, but also a moral and legal, unrestrained possibility.