Ethics Is More Important Than Science

Thanks for accepting. "Personally-Simply put, this is an opnion with no factual basis" Personally, I wouldn't say we are without factual basis, as these ethics have been tested for thousands of years. "Every civilization has ethics, but said ethics can be different. It is impossible to thoroughly describe ethics as a general premise." Thanks for bringing this up, as I should probably clarify my argument. You see, while ethics in different religions/cultures ARE different, many of the ideas overlap. For example, if you went to England and started killing people, then went to Brazil and did the same thing, they would both regard you as unethical, by legal law(1). So, "ethics" refers to these overlapping ethics. And, for countries that are in war, like the Middle East, don't count those, because they are in a time of crisis. For reference, you can use the Universal Declaration of Human RIghts. "Chris Abee, Director of the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center's animal research facility, states that "we wouldn't have a vaccine for hepatitis B without chimpanzees," and says that the use of chimps is "our best hope" for finding a vaccine for Hepatitis C, a disease that kills thousands of Americans annually"-Very true. However, we must look at what fuels this passion to cure Hepatitis C. Well, let's take this step by step: -Dying from disease is bad. -The world ETHICS says that we must stop death. Death and fear of death is bad. (2) -We find chimpanzees, and, we decide that dying ethics for humans outweights chimpazee ethics. -To balance the studying of the animals, organizations like "Save the Champs" help to protect them. You can see that ethics fuel most of the science in todays world! Let's use an analogy: A car (science) is more expensive, big in size, more features, however, without the gas (ethics), it has no fuel. Now, understand that their ARE other fuels to science, but the most helpful to humanity is ethics. "Thanks to research on animals leading to the development of Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapies (HAART), AIDS is no longer the death sentence it was 30 years ago. Animal research is responsible for the development of asthma inhalers, these have saved 10,000 lives of asthma Animal research has helped develop modern vaccines including those against Polio, TB, Meningitis and, recently, the human papillomavirus (HPV) which has been linked to cervical cancer. The development of Tamoxifen in animals led to a 30% fall in death rates from breast cancer in the 1990s. The 450,000 people in the UK suffering from Type I diabetes rely on Insulin " which was developed through experiments in rabbits and dogs. Smallpox has been eradicated from Earth thanks to research in animals. "Unethical" animal testing is for the greater good" -Again, the other examples, and the repeat of the thesis creates an equation, that ethics provides: Ethics for humanity > ethics for animals. You see, ethics protects humanity, animals are a second priority. And, as I said earlier, other research and efforts are into the ethics of animals. Plus, a lot more factors, like death rates, are important. "Approximately 3 billion people"s lives have been saved due to advances of medicine brought on by animal testing (understandinganimalresearch.org.uk) In comparison, in the 1,800 years since animal testing has been introduced, 1 million animals have died. (ncbi.gov) 98% of animals used in testing that died were going to die anyway due to a disease or aggression that meant they were going to get put down"- Thanks for this, I guess, because it proves that animal ethics were kept in mind. As you stated yourself, for every 3,000,000,000 people that have been saved, only 1,000,000 animals have died. That is for every 3000 people saved, only 1 animal died! You have given me the evidence I needed to prove that animal ethics were kept in mind also. Also, 98% of the animals tested were going to die, proving even furthur that ethics were fueled and kept the science of this research in check with ethics! Also, another question, why did you put this in? It didn't furthur your point, it just verified mine? "I would like to point out that Pro has not put out any sources, only personal experience. Therefore, we cannot take his/her arguments into account."- Well, keep in mind, Con, that the first round was only opening what this debate was about, not exactly to prove a point. And this round, I didn't need much evidence, as you provided it all too me! Reference 1. "Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury" "In Brazil, homicide is punished under article 121 of the Penal Code." -Wiki 2. "The Universal Declaration promises to all the economic, social, political, cultural and civic rights that underpin a life free from want and fear" -UDoHR