Please help with this, not sure what she is asking.

Her reply: I see that you have resubmitted your assignment. However, you still have not used one of the ethical theories to support your position or the counter position. You have made it more difficult to read and added a lot of unnecessary language, but you haven't really talked about the ethical aspects of the situation. You may use your original submission--just add a discussion using the theories to support the two positions. The theories are: Ethical Egoism, Utilitarianism, Ethics of Care, Kantianism, Prima Facie duties, Natural Law Theory, Divine Command Theory, Virtue Ethics, and John Rawls' Theory of Justice

The submission: Should creatures be utilized in clinical exploration? In your reaction, consider which sort of creatures (assuming any) would be ethically passable to use in clinical exploration and what thought ought to be given in regards to torment. Creatures ought to, in my view, be utilized in clinical tests with adequate assurance and moral protections. Some may differ with me; however, I accept that this is the best way to do clinical examinations prior to putting them on people. I comprehend that any life is important, yet by utilizing those creatures for this respectable purpose, we will save a huge number of living souls, so I don't perceive any reason why rodents, pigs, hares, birds, and bugs cannot be utilized consequently. While doing as such, we should take great consideration of them and show them the best procedures for limiting any torment or uneasiness they may insight during the cycle. Basic entitlements are presently enough ensured under rule and enactment, and this ought to be finished creature experimentation in veterinary examinations. Human existence is important, on the grounds that we can't do coordinate clinical examinations on them until we have some exploration-based evidence of viability, and there could be no other choice except for to utilize creatures for this reason. Feelings and moral standards won't bring about new science, anyway a reasonable methodology will, and along these lines, we will actually want to profit mankind by staying away from terrible things and advancing sound clinical practices. My thinking for assuming creatures like rodents, pigs, hares, and a few sorts of birds and creepy crawlies is that these creatures are bountiful, and using any of them would adversely affect the environment or their turn of events. Creatures ought to, in my view, be utilized in clinical trials with adequate insurance and moral protections. Some may differ with me; however, I accept that this is the best way to do clinical tests prior to putting them on people. I comprehend that any life is important, yet by utilizing those creatures for this respectable purpose, we will save a large number of living souls, so I don't perceive any reason why rodents, pigs, hares, birds, and bugs cannot be utilized thus. While doing as such, we should take great consideration of them and show them the best methods for limiting any agony or uneasiness they may insight during the cycle. Basic entitlements are presently satisfactorily secured under resolution and enactment, and this ought to be finished creature experimentation in veterinary examinations. Creatures, similar to people, are a piece of the universe and environment, yet this is the best way to guarantee that test medications and interaction methods are tried and investigated. Creature testing has a set up history, with promising heart transfers, diabetic treatment, liver transfers, among numerous different models. A significant number of these things were at first tried on creatures, and therefore, a great many lives have been saved subsequently. I advance the utilization of creatures in clinical science since I see a decent side and new chances in it, however I accept that creature testing has a greater number of advantages than downsides and ought to be allowed in clinical examination.