This house will ban animal testing

I will now rebut them one by one and proceed onto my own case. REBUTTALSR1) "Animals have the right not to be harmed"My rebuttal is simply that animals do NOT have such a right, and this can be proven in two ways. Firstly, a "right" is essentially a social contract, whereby two parties are guaranteed equal entitlement to said right given that neither party infringes on the rights and privileges of the other party. This is known as a quid pro quo - a world where I give you the right to speak without restrictions so long as you allow me to express my ideas freely as well. Animals do not have the intellectual capacity to assure humans that they will not inflict harm on us under the premise that we promise to leave them unscathed. This does not fulfill the quid pro quo specification and thus does not constitute the right for animals not to be harmed. Secondly, let us analyse the nature of what rights really are. "Natural law" is synonymous with the birth of the concept of rights, in association with the fact that rights are a set of unwritten rules that people tend to follow, not because of any constitutional incentive or restriction, but rather because people are instinctively inclined to based off of their moral conscience [1]. In other words, rights are self-recognised and self-authorised. Whether the animal kingdom implements and exercises a system of rights is something that we humans do not know. In the face of such uncertainty, simply imposing the idea that animals inherently have rights without knowing whether or not the animals themselves observe the idea of 'rights' to begin with is an ill-founded and hollow claim. Even if we grant PRO his argument and argue this debate under the precondition that animals do have rights, we still do not see how this warrants a ban on animal testing. Rights are sometimes contradictory, and in the event that they are, some rights will need to be overridden in order for at least one right to be exercised. Animals have the right not to be harmed, but humans also have the right to access to means of ensuring adequate quality of life, including access to decent healthcare (Article 25 of UNUDHR) [2]. It is upon PRO to justify why animal rights should override human rights under the proposition that animal rights are in fact beneficial to humanity, which PRO does not deny. R2) "Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals"PRO deviated from his/her argument and instead went on to talk about how there are other medical alternatives to animal testing. The only relevant assertion he/she made was that "it is morally wrong" which has yet to be substantiated. I will address this in my second substantive. The argument that animal research necessitates significant harm relies on the previous argument about how animals have the right not to be harmed to stand. Even if we ignore my rebuttal and assume that it stands, we still see that animal research does not equate to harm to the animals involved. Animal test subjects are kept in good health condition as that facilitates the derivation of accurate test results, and should the testing physically harm or kill the animal, painkillers and harmless euthanasia are used respectively [3]. PRO needs to prove to us that ALL animal testing methods, by nature, harm animals (which he/she has not done) in order for the motion to stand. Even if we disregard this and assume ALL methods of animal research do end in pain for the animals, we can draw a parallel with other activities that administer pain for the animals involved. The consumption of meat, for instance, is indisputably painful for the animal, but that does not justify an outright ban on meat consumption. In other words, there is a gap that needs to be bridged between "activities that are harmful to animals" and banning these activities. R3) "Is it acceptable? "PRO tries to pull the pathos card by getting us to empathise with the experience of going through animal research in the eyes of an animal. A criminal could easily do the same by getting their prosecutors to step into their shoes in the hopes of showing them the cruelties of prison life so that they can be set free. We all agree that being harmed is not exactly enjoyable, but PRO has yet to tie that in with the question of moral acceptability (which was ironically the title of his/her point). SUBSTANTIVESP1) In essence, animal testing is just another way of humans utilising our intelligence to our advantageMuch like how humans hunt to eat or hunt for the furs of animals for clothing, animal testing is simply another form of human intelligence in action. We hunt for food to sustain our lives, and we test on animals so that we can advance our knowledge on diseases and cures to save the lives of many that are vulnerable to lethal diseases, and prevent others from contracting said diseases and putting their lives at risk to begin with. Both are done with the goal of survival in mind, and there is no principle discrepancy between the two. To argue that animal testing is wrong principle-wise is to argue that the practices that contributed to the longevity of humans as a species is also wrong in principle. PRO, then, must either distinguish between said practices and animal testing by nature, or argue why both are wrong altogether in order for his case to be morally consistent. P2) Animal testing is only used when other alternatives are inadequateIt is important to note that animal testing is considerably more expensive than other forms of medical research and involve a lot more bureaucratic paperwork, hence it makes all the more sense for researchers to opt for methods other than animal testing whenever possible. However, the fact of the matter is, animal research is a commonplace in the field of biological studies, indicating that researchers are choosing to test on animals purely based on its statistical and informational merit. There is some truth to this. Computer testing, by way of illustration, may suffice when one wishes to perform basic tests on cell lines, but it is a daunting task, to say the least, for even the most advanced of computers to account for the dynamic elements of a disease or a product. The biological configuration of the human, or the animal for that matter, are extremely complex in the sense that all of its biological mechanisms (nervous system, endocrine system, immune system) are intertwined and interdependent. The relationships between these systems and how they directly and/or inversely affect one another is something that, at present, cannot be factored into consideration by computer research or isolated samples of human/animal remains. Contrarily, the DNA of chimpanzees and mice are approximately 99% and 98% identical to that of humans respectively, making them susceptible to many of the conditional phenomenon of the human body [4]. To quantify the magnitude of the challenge of replacing animal testing with other methods, the world's fastest supercomputer was employed to conduct a simulation of just half a mouse's brain, not to mention that the results were far from perfect - the computer was only capable of running the test for ten seconds at a speed ten times slower than the rate at which a mouse brain functions. Even the computer itself was only made possible by the knowledge and findings derived from animal testing [5]. P3) Animal testing has the potential to benefit both humanity and the animalMany tend to stumble into this debate under the assumption that animal testing only exists to fulfill the interests of humans and that the consequences, whether they be intentional or unforeseen, only benefit the human side of this matter. This is far from the truth. Many advances in medical science that were originally aimed at protecting the welfare of humans have now made their way into many veterinary practices. One such example is the pacemaker, which, initially implanted into the cardiovascular systems of dogs in 1967, now sees its application to be for both humans and cardiovascularly challenged household pets. Similar stories can be said for gum disease, sight impairment, and premature birth [6]. Additionally, animal testing as an entity has now matured and familiarised itself with the medical industry so much so that it is not uncommon to see scientists conduct tests on animals for the purpose of bettering the lives of the animals themselves. Vaccines have been developed in recent years that target animal-exclusive diseases including distemper, rabies, canine parvovirus, and feline leukemia. With a more in-depth understanding of animal illnesses and the biological workings of said animals, biologists are now more successful than ever in their attempts to preserve biodiversity and minimises extinction rates through means such as artificial insemination and embryo transfer [7]. What all of this means is that in any plausible scenario, animal testing does not jeopardise the animals, if not benefit them. Animal testing may not impact the animal in any way, or it may benefit the animal in cases of human and animal-oriented testing. SOURCES USED[1] . http://www.humanrights.com...[2] . http://www.un.org...[3] . http://idebate.org...[4] . http://ca-biomed.org...[5] . http://speakingofresearch.com...[6] . http://swaebr.org...[7] . http://www.nap.edu...