Testing on Animals

Rebuttal 1Before I start, I would like to say that it is YOUR duty to debate me within the text limits you are given; redirecting me to a New York Times article and expecting me to argue with it is beyond the boundaries of this debate. In all honesty, I do not need to read the New York Times article (however, I did), I only need to read what you referenced or cited. In the last argument, you cited the last sentence, so I refuted the last sentence. You say: "I did give you an example of how we could get around testing animals. " No, you actually did not. You provided a link to an article and specified the text which supported your claim. I read the text you cited and then proceeded to rebut in my response. However, you now bring up another claim which you have deemed significant: "HUMAN skin, eyes, the lining of the throat — snippets of these and other tissues are now routinely grown in test tubes from donated human cells. The goal is not to patch up ailing people but to use the human tissues in place of mice, dogs or other lab animals for testing new drugs, cosmetics and other products. " Well, that's great. It's reasurring to know that humans have donated some of their cells. However, this only refutes animal testing in the future; while it may seem as if this new way of testing works now, we must still stick to testing on animals because we know this works. If we begin to jump at every opportunity to get around testing animals, we will begin cutting corners. Rebuttal 2You completely missed my main point about Google Images. Editing is not the same picture; in fact, the word 'editing' basically means altering a primary source or document, such as a picture. You are still using the Appeal to Emotion -- while these caged animals (most are actually mice) may seem very disheartening and immoral, you must remember that not only do you automatically retrieve negative portrayal of animal testing because of the negative connotation associated with the term (which you did not refute), these caged animals are being tested with medication ranging from curing headaches to saving lives. If you really believe that testing on mice is not worth saving a patient's life, then maybe the Appeal to Emotion just doesn't work. Rebuttal 3You ask, "How can mistreating an animal be acceptable? " I have answered this several times. It is acceptable because animal testing directly leads to medications being made safer, and thus more effectiveness in its use to cure human biological needs. This is why "mistreating" an animal can be acceptable. Calling me heartless will not help; I can similarly call you heartless for not wanting to help your fellow man. The Appeal to Emotion does not work when trying to argue logic. The definition of abuse is irrelevant, because we are discussing testing on animals, which does not necessarily imply abuse -- we are discussing the implications of testing medication on animals before its release to the public. We are not discussing whether a kid should be able to kill a stray cat for no reason. Let me now defend my syllogism.1. Human lives are more valuable than animal lives -- I don't understand how you believe this is false. They cannot just be "equal," when faced with a decision that forces you to choose one over the other. Either we test on animals (which, of course, is implying that they always face death, which is not the case) and we better our medication so that they do not cause vicious side effects, or we choose not to test on animals, which could mean medication is released to the public with little or no experimentation.2. Medication must be tested before release -- It seems we both agree this is true. However, you resort to advocating new ways (and thus, not necessarily reliable) and I advocate the use of a process which has shown to be an accurate representation of how a medication will affect a living being.3. The only available test subjects are live animals -- You actually disproved this point, congratulations. There are other ways, albeit risky and perhaps unreliable, processes to test medication. Like I said, it is better to stick with an experienced process that you can be absolutely satisfactory with than rely on new methods at the risk of several negative effects. Take into consideration, for example, the expression "better be safe than sorry. "4. Testing on humans is worse than testing on animals -- You don't seem to understand, and I truly don't mean to be condescending at all. This may be "voluntary," but the reliability, accessibility, etc. , are all factors in this new process you have used to support your argument. The reason we test on mice and other animals is because they are so biologically similar to humans -- if a human has the ability to heal from an experimental medication, a biologically similar creature will as well; the same goes for the inability to heal.5. Medication must be tested on animals -- I have proved my point. For future reference, I am not debating Mr. Barnaby Feder of The New York Times. I am debating you. Please, if you would like to illustrate a point from a reference, which is completely fine, make a point and cite it with the article so that I know exactly what to refute. Thanks for the debate, it has been a pleasure. Good luck as well.