Animal Testing is Acceptable

Very nice rebuttal. Ok, I'll go in order again. Its true, people do not want to be tested on. But if that is the case why should we subject animals to do things we know are not in our best interest? No dog wants to be dyed 17 different shades of strawberry blond and neither does a human. It is unethical to test things on animals that we know are not beneficial to the person being tested. A. Unfortunately, cosmetics are not the only things tested on animals. People will not deny being guinea pigs for cosmetics for money, as the potential risk would be much lower than that of a dangerous disease. Same as before, people fear being tested on. I don't think that a human would prefer having something like Herpes or AIDS injected into them for testing. The animals fight back, but humans fight harder. We've made it so we're always protected and that animal testing is acceptable, so it's Humans 1 Undomesticated animals 0. (I have no idea if that answered your rebuttal, but if it did, give me a sign!) Animal testing has helped in discovering cures before or around the time we started taking cells from humans to help cure diseases. What's being used to help find a cure for AIDS? Not pig cells, because no matter how close an animal is to the human cell structure, a human is a human. With current technology we can simply extract cells from humans to be tested on rather then harming an animal to look for a cure that they couldn't care less about. A. Ah, this one is hard to go against, but I'll try! No matter how advanced our technology is currently, we still don't have enough knowledge to conduct a series of most likely needed tests. A few cells is worth nothing in the long run, and we'll need the structure completely. As for animals, they have the basic neccessities like us. Scientists will use them to avoid using humans, however, if they get close to finding a cure, they'll switch to a human. Example, polio. Scientists had conducted numerous experiments on monkeys, and through the information, they drew closer to finding a cure. Finally, when they thought they had achieved their goal, they switched the testing onto a human and took samples of their tissue. Through the information gained from testing on monkeys, the scientists managed to find a cure for polio for a human. As stated in the second contention, yes animal testing was needed in the past but with current technology we do not need to subject animals to unfair treatment and unethical practice. A. Stated in previous one. Our technology may be advanced but still not enough that we don't need a live specimen to examine. Animals reproduce, and humans are animals. Humans produce as well so saying that testing is ok because "they will just repopulate" would need to be justifiable for all animals, that would include humans. This contention goes more in favor of the negative side because humans repopulate fast, just like most animals A. For this one, it's the cruel truth. The animals will repopulate, and I'm taking the tyrannical view here, but to us humans, others lives are expendable as long as we remain unharmed. Actually, most military leaders have thought that human lives were expendable as long as the result was their victory. Take World War I. One side needed to dominate the other to justify the deaths of all the soldiers. It's the same for us, as long as the animals will repopulate themselves, (and there's a high chance that they will) it justifies our means if we find a cure in the end. Your turn!