Animal Testing

I am going to try and make this short, simple, and to the point.****MY CASE****C1:In a philosophical Utilitarian rule, Animal testing is inherently good.Animal testing to some, may seem detrimental. But I ask those who feel this way to consider the alternatives to animal testing. Most of the major diseases, sicknesses, and treatments we have today, are possible because of animal testing. We learn, and continue to learn new things every day by the testing of medical by-products, that helps further the medical interests and endeavors required when pursuing world renown care in health purposes.Utilitarianism, is possibly one of the biggest ideas that comes to mind when considering the prospect however. When we test on animals, how much good are we doing in comparison to bad? My opponent has offered no clarification to supposed harms that animal testing brings. I must ask the same. Overall, how can you sustain that animal testing is harmful?What harms does this do? Animal testing is done as a lost resort, when the medicine has been scientifically altered to the point where it should not fail by all means. However there is a certain amount of risk involved in the procedure none the less. Why not test it on an animal?Another question my opponent must answer, is how testing on other humans brings more good than testing on animals?Do animal trials really tell us about humans?Animals are surrogates for humans. The basic reason for animal trials is to determine two issues before any new compound is introduced into a human: safety and efficacy, whether a compound is safe for human ingestion and also whether or not a product works for its intended purpose. Really that process begins way before we get to animals. But at some point in the process it is critical to understand how a compound, let's say, a hypertension medication, works in a whole living system. You can't just determine how it works on blood pressure or the heart. You need to know how it would affect all the organs. That really is the whole purpose of using a complex biological system known as an animal.http://www.time.com... The point of this entire argument, is that over all, animal testing does more good than harm. C2: Animal testing benefits animals.The thing that most people don't consider when thinking about animal testing, is that we are actually helping out animals as well with testing. Veterinarians, zoo keepers, pet owners, all with sick or injured pets, rely in some way on medicines to help animals. The tests are usually run on scientific bread rats, an over populated species that most people nary consider anything more than a pest. If you would kill a rat for sneaking into your home, or for crawling around in the sewers, why would it not be preferable to cause some good before ending that rodents life? Animals used for testing purpose cause an inherent good for their own species as well.http://www.fda.gov...C3: Humans take a higher priority in speceism.Humans take a higher priority, because we need to benefit our own kind over that of another species. We can replenish that of the species we are harming, and do enough good to counter act the harm of possibly killing a rat. The harms of not using animal testing, are simply too great not to consider the uses of them. But in the end, humans need to take care of humans. Hypothetical situation: If a family member close to you bore some deadly illness or dis-ease, and an un-tested cure was made, would you want it to be tested right into humans? What if this cure, worsened the state of your loved one, and killed them? Would you not then prefer animal testing to this fate? Unfortunately, the option is a bleak one to the minds of most humans. 30-40 years ago, an untested version of the polio vaccination was given to hundreds of people in western America. This resulted in a vast amount of law suits, after victims suffered from intellectual dis-abilities for life (My uncle was among one of these victims). So basically because we refused to test the product on one animal, we risked the lives of hundreds of human beings living in torment. Again, inherent good.http://nichcy.org...I conclude.****CONCLUSION****Animal testing seems like a bad idea to the blind eye, but the plain and simple truth is, that the alternative to animal testing is much worse. If we do not test on animals, do we test on humans, our own brothers and sisters? Is there any more good in that than in doing a deed for man-kind? We use animal testing to further benefits to animals as well. I feel as if I have proven that over all, animal testing brings more good than harm, when weighing everything in significance. I look forward to my opponents rebuttals, and thank him for the challenge. Good day mate!