Animal Testing

****REBUTTALS**** 'Animals and humans do not share the same DNA pattern, making animal testing unreliable. ' This is actually untrue. Gorillas and Chimpanzee's largely represent the human DNA system, bearing a remarkable 99.9% likeability's to humans. . http://www.msnbc.msn.com... . http://wiki.answers.com... However, other animals, have similar DNA tracts to humans as well Such as chickens and pigs. . http://www.genome.gov... Pigs actually share 98% of the human genes as well. . http://www.abc.net.au... These are just some fun facts to throw around. The main point however, that would like to accomplish, is that it doesn't matter how much resemblance to the human DNA animals resemble, as long as the specific tested gene article resembles that of a human. If the animal in question can carry the same virus's, wounds, and other discrepancies as a human can, then it should be able to be implemented on a human bio as well. . http://en.wikipedia.org... "Again who is it benefiting? Humans, I don't think so, since people have died from animal testing, the risk outweigh the benefits in society. " However, no where in your three examples points, do you prove to how the harm is more significant than the goods. Also, I am not so sure if heart transplants is exactly what we should be taking about here when referring to animals testing. The main goal Animal Testing attributes to is the factor of natural borne diseases that can be possessed by humans. Cancer brought by smoking, and other man made things, is irreparable in comparison to what we are trying to debate here. "Right now, millions of mice, rats, rabbits, primates, cats, dogs, and other animals are locked inside cold, barren cages in laboratories across the country. They languish in pain, ache with loneliness and long to roam free and use their minds. " You are quoting PETA, word for word in this sentence. . http://www.peta.org... The fact is, PETA seem to be mis-representing a lot of facts, as such to implore a sense of emotional conflict between their naive listeners. I could re-phrase that sentence, to make it sound differently: Right now, there a billions of humans suffering from diseases, whose cures have not been found. Without the help of animal testing, these humans could die within days. The simple fact, is that such statements are mis-leading, and manipulative. To prove a point, I will be quoting from the animal testing site, referencing the actualities of how animals are treated, how many are used, and what their living conditions are. In laboratories, small animals, like hamsters, rats and mice, are usually kept in clear or white plastic boxes about the size of a shoebox. Animals a bit bigger, such as guinea pigs, live in larger boxes about twice the size of a shoebox. Usually, more than one animal lives in a box. Wood chips or something similar covers the cage bottoms. Cage tops are covered by a wire lid with food and water hanging down for the animals to reach. Larger animals like dogs, cats, and primates usually live in wire cages. Social primates like monkeys often live with other monkeys, but most other large animals usually live alone. Often, primates get to spend some time every day in a larger cage where they can play. More than half of the 1.4 million animals counted by the USDA that are used in research do not feel pain from the experiments. There is no way of knowing how many rats and mice do not feel pain in research. Most of these animals were given something that either helped take the pain away or helped them get over the pain quickly. For example, most of the animals that underwent surgery were given anesthesia first so they would be "asleep" during the surgery. Since my opponent is keen on quoting PETA, I think it would be suitable for him to find a source to validity his argument, such that is isn't biased, and contrived. . http://www.aspca.org... "Surely, as the "dominant" species, humans have the power to make sure we don't hurt a less fortunate species, instead of nurturing the innocent creatures that grace the earth, we are just using them for selfish and greedy purposes. " Why not take care of our own race above another race? Tell me, if you were approached by a hungry lion, do you think it would not pounce on you, simply because it's instinct is to survive? Us humans work similarly. If we can do something to benefit man kind that will ease the pain of thousands, then it is more than justifiable to hold our lives above that of another species. We live among animals every day, and love and care for animals. While we do this, we still have a sense of superiority, of use over them. We are rational, thinking beings, who can create. Animals exist in our universe, and many have sufficed as food, clothing, and company over the course of hundreds of years. Animal testing is no different than any other thing that animals are used for. Animals are tools, for human kind. Is there anything specifically wrong with this in contrast to the benefits? That, though, is subjective. "Anything wasteful spending must be reduced. Animal testing is costly and unnecessary" Is everything costly unnecessary? I think not. Your entire point here is contrived on a made up belief that we are not benefiting from Animal testing, and research. So I will show some of examples of how animal testing has helped. 1. Curing cancer. Over the past 40 years, cancer researching efforts have doubled, and to a huge avail. More people are surviving the deadly infection than ever before, thanks to the benefits of animal testing. New cancer drugs account for 50-60 percent of the gains we have made in cancer survival rates since 1975. Overall, these medicines have contributed a remarkable 10.7% of the increase in life expectancy at birth in the United States. . http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org... 2. HIV/AIDS. Thanks to animal testing, the death rate from AIDS, has dropped more than 70%. 3. Heart disease/Stroke. Statins were introduced based on inhibits from animal testing. Millions of people take this pill every day to prevent high cholesterol which leads to heart disease and strokes. The list goes on and on. Diabetes, Parkinson's disease, Hepatitis C, Birth Defects, bio terrorism, Epilepsy, spinal injuries, cystic fibrosis, all have been significantly influence by Animal testing. . http://www.amprogress.org... Animal testing saves lives. Who cares about the costs when it does so much good? "Cloning of human organs and stem cell research are more cost effective, more reliable, and less cruel. No human or animal is hurt in this process. " Human cloning, is not yet possible. It's long been hoped for, and studied, but as of right now, this is a distant hope. Cloning experiments, also, have been on animals, with actually, not a lot of success. However, there was a successfully cloned sheep at one point. This just goes to further my point. This testing being done on animals, was a new way to develop different ways to test for diseases, so you are onto something here ;-) (That was a sarcastic spin btw). . http://www.ama-assn.org... HBBI (Human based brain imaging: In my research of the subject, I was not able to find a source that defined a single case where this has been implemented, used, and proven to work, in solving the problem of any medical disease. The techinique is relatively abandoned, and more of a hopeful science project in the works. Anti-bodies: Scientifically, this is not a proven solution. I ask that my opponent find a link to back up this statements superiority to animal testing. ****CONCLUSION**** While some people like to believe that animal testing is morally wrong, the benefits far exceed the contrary. We have learned and achieved great things already, due to the processes of animal testing. I have proven how the treatment of such animals is exagerated, and that animal treatment can actually be quite appreciative compared to other living habits. None the less, the philosophy of holding a humans life in superiority to an animals life still holds true. Specisim is justified, and the human race cannot survive by holding humans less, or equal to animals. We use animals to survive, and they do what they need to do to survive, such that we really are not different from them. Survival is the key, however, and in it, we can co-exist. In the manner of ethics, is it really so negative to use animal testing to further extend the quality of life for the human race? I would have to beg to differ.