Animals Should Be Used For Scientific Research

I have found so many flaws with your argument I'm just going to argue them all in short, two or three sentence arguments and then get on with my stuff."It could mean that in a test they use five or six at a time...just to clear that up."And how is that any better? That just makes it worse. Why do they test five or six at a time if the drug might fail anyway?! It's just another flaw in animal testing. Also, I have a LINK to back that up. So yes, I do get the concept."it might be necessary to sacrifice some non-sential life for the good of sentient ones."Animals have just as much right, if not more, to live on this planet than we do. Who is to say that animals aren't important? Who says humans are the most important? If anything, we are the least important, because we are destroying the environment. We haven't done anything to make this world a better place except for us. If anything, that quote is just selfish."Humans are not JUST animals."So neither are bunnies. Or horses. Or rats. What is your definition of "just an animal?" Sure, we're by far the smartest, but we are animals."We should do everything in our power to advance our kind." And why shouldn't any other animal have the right to do that, too?! "The rest our made up of other small primates."Earlier, you said that "95% are mice and rats." First off, it's 85% [1], not 95%, and second off, that means 15,000,000 animals aren't rodents, but rather bunnies, dogs, moneys, cats, fish, and in rare cases, frogs [1]. And what difference does it make that rodents are being tested? Because they're not cute and useless? Mice are cute and useful, and rats get rid of many insects. We need both of them for much more than animal testing."Shortening a life that is only 2-3 years in it of it self is completely minuscule."And when you multiply it by about 85,000,000...That's about 170,000,000 years of rodent life right there. And maybe, by a LONG shot, 250,000 human life years. That just does not add up. And I'm not going to get into the 7-year life of dogs and bunnies, let alone the long life of a cat."The following disease have had medicines made from animal research. Breast Cancer, Childhood Leukemia, Lung Cancer, (Prolonged life of people with) AIDs and HIV, Heart Disease, Diabetes"Then why does my brother still have diabetes? Why am I reading of so many deaths from AIDS, about 1.9 million? [2]? What's the use of "prolonging a life for 2 or three years," like you said? Does that only apply to humans? And heart disease is a huge problem, and breast cancer isn't getting much better. And lung cancer is still a death sentence.And now onto another few of my arguments.1. 95% of drugs passed by animal tests are immediately discarded as useless or dangerous to humans. [3]Would you think about that for a second? 95% of drugs that are potentially safe fail in humans. So that means that in less than 5% of the time, it is useful when they get a good sign. That means that just a few things in animals are the same as in humans. Just think about that. 88% of doctors agreed that animal testing is useless because of differences between humans and animals (this is said by the [3] link also.) Oh, and one more thing. 61% of all birth defects are due to drugs that passed in animals. Birth defects are up 200x since the post war times... when animal testing started. Every fact here is said by the [3] link.2. Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin." [4]As you said, rats take up 85% of the animal testing population. And yet they have a small chance of successfully identifying what causes cancer in humans and how solve it. Scientists LITERALLY say they would be better off flipping a coin. This is more of a point than an argument, so I will have a second section to it.Second section: What humans suffer due to failed testsLast year, 106,000 people were killed due to medical issues due to tests of animal products. Each year, 2.1 million people are in the hospital due to medical treatments. An estimated 70,000 people in the UK are severely injured or KILLED by drugs that pass in animal testing. Wow. This is only per year.3. So this isn't murder?Every day, we sea murder controversy on the internet or a suspect getting jailed for killing a human, which is seen by many, if not all, as the worst possible thing that a human could do. What about killing thousands of ANIMALS per day? Why is that not a sin, or illegal, like murder? Do we really think that we are so highly above the animals that we should get to do that? If one person is jailed for killing another person, or possibly receiving a death sentence, why shouldn't a scientist be doing it? Let's take a look:Scientists are "doing it for a good cause," killing many to save one. Murder is "also for a good cause" then. Killing one to reduce world's problems by one. It is reducing the amount of people on the Earth. If you are for animal testing, you are kind of for murder. I know I'm not for murder. And I know that I'm not for animal testing. This is what we are doing by testing animals. Look it in the eye and say, "I'm sure it doesn't hurt one little bit." THANK YOU FOR READING AND GOD BLESS!!! :)[1] http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org...[2] http://www.who.int...[3] http://www.animalliberationfront.com...[4] http://www.vivisectioninformation.com...