This house will ban animal testing

I will defend my case by 3 main reasons. My first reason is that Animals have the right to not be harmed. My second reason is that Animal research necessities significant harm to the animals involved. My third reason is that is it acceptable to test on animals that are aware and intelligent and can feel pain. First I will go on my first argument which is that animals have the right to not get harmed. Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, must be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think that many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily movable into the pet traded is prim fascia obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counter argument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals. Now I will go on my second argument which is that animal research necessities significant harm to the animal involved. As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Animal research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no longer a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to different substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals. Now I will go on my third argument which is that is it acceptable to test on animals that are aware and intelligent and can feel pain. Animals are intelligent and they can feel pain but many scientists do not feel small animals like rats as animals and a tester. What do you think the rat will feel like? He will probably want a home, be a pet, or run free. But if we try to test him and might kill him it will feel pain. For these reasons we urge you to vote for Pro. Sources: . http://idebate.org... . http://literific.org...