Animal Testing for non-medical reasons. Are the deaths worth it>

The avatar is actually the pokemon known as pidgeotto I believe. Or pidgey, I dunno :) First off I just want to clear up the definition of medical. I assume we're talking about science and medicine and medicinal stuff that helps humans or animals. The only reason I did the whole medical spiel in my first argument was to address your #1 and #2 arguments which were on research. Feel free to disregard them as we are not arguing over medical testing. Medical testing and our agreement on its virtues does bring up a valid point. It is alright to test animals if it helps humans medically. You stated in your second argument that a cow is often worth less than a human. If we simply made arguments based on what gave the most utility then if we could kill an animal to save a human in most circumstances this would be morally acceptable. Or what if we could kill a cow to save two cows? Selective breeding and other genetic testing are examples of this. My argument relies on the viewer taking the opinion that not all life is sacred and we can weigh different specie's lives against one another. Whether it is sacrificing a bird in coal mines to save a miner or whether it is sacrificing something to help rid an environment of pests. There is no need to rehash my previous examples as they are still there. Onto the rights argument. Humans have rights not because of some moral god out there bestowing us these rights. We have them because WE made them. Animals have only limited rights but I'll agree that they are helpless often. This does not make it moral to kill an animal for whatever reason but there is nothing immoral about killing an animal if the need is great enough. I consider myself a utilitarian so morals don't come into play with me. Disregarding my philosophy we can agree that killing an animal for medical reasons is alright if it saves enough people. If the need is there. Onto the money argument. Animal testing whether its for beauty products or for pets or whatever is a huge market. I recently bought some fish and while looking at Petco I saw the coveted Glo-Fish. These guys were engineered to manufacture a protein that makes them glow underwater. Interestingly enough I am in california where it is illegal to sell them but they are at the stores. On topic, this company not only generates millions of dollars but the demand for fish is increased. Due to their testing, more fish are bought and money is made. Some fish of course died in testing but in return many more were made and money was made. Whats not to like? We can both think of other examples were money is made and animals are not harmed much so why bother putting down more. My point is money can be made from testing animals. If we can make money we can better the human condition. Humans are made better off from at least some animal testing. I can see how one might argue that most animal testing comes at too high a cost to animals so lets ban it all. I do not see animals as being close to equal to humans. If I could sacrifice one hobo to save a million cows I would not. Maybe you or others would. My argument is still the same as before. Animal testing can be good for humans, medical or not, so why ban it? Thats the crux of my argument. Animals not having inherent rights is secondary. In this world of life against life, humans are worth more than our animal brethren.