Animal Testing

Thank you DDD for beginning the debate. As one reads the first set of arguments presented by my opponents (mostly copy and pasted), they will surely notice a great number of errors, generalizations and hypocrisy. However, as stated in the rules, I am not allowed to attack any of their points until my second round. By then, they will have presented 2 more points, which will make my task of rebuttal lengthier. So that you, the reader can follow, I will be presenting my arguments in an organized fashion. Allow me to outline what you can expect from me over the next 4 rounds, as I attempt to prove that animal testing is bad. I will be presenting just 1 argument/pillar per round. This will be followed with my conclusion, in round 5. My arguments/pillars are as follow: 1) Animal testing is unethical 2) Animal testing is unsafe 3) Better alternatives to animal testing exist ************************************************************************************ Lets begin: 1. Animal testing is unethical The reality of animal testing is that annually, in labs across Canada and USA, millions of animals are subjected to torturous disease-ridden conditions, and an appalling amount die. Lets look at the numbers: According to CCAC (the Canadian Council on Animal Care), in 2011, 3.3 million animals where used by testing institutions certified by CCAC. The annual report continues to state that 35% of these animals where used in experiments causing "severe pain near, at, or above tolerance threshold of anesthetized conscious animals". This means, over 1 million animals including, dog"s cats, and primate"s suffered/ died horribly without the use of any anesthesia. The problem is, these are just the animals being tested under government-regulated conditions. In the USA, the AWA (Animal Welfare Act), seeks to protect and regulate the testing conditions of animals, much like CCAC. In 2010, only 5% of all animals used for testing were regulated under the AWA. More appalling still, organization PETA says "over 100 million animals"including mice, rats, dogs cats, hamsters, guinea pigs, monkeys, fish and birds are killed in U.S. laboratories each year". Currently, most countries punish their citizens for abuse of animals under the scientific understanding that animals can experience pain and suffering. In fact, England and Germany have enacted laws pertaining to the mistreatment of fish using this same understanding. When looking at the last few paragraphs, two undisputable truths emerge: 1) Animals experience pain 2) Millions of animals experience pain/die because of animals testing, yearly. This brings us to the fundamental question: is this animal suffering ethically acceptable? Later in the debate I will present my 2nd argument, explaining how animal testing does not save lives. But, for the sake of this particular moral argument, lets say it does. As individuals, our code of ethics is created/influenced by various factors, including: 1) Our legal beliefs 2) Our spiritual beliefs (for some) 3) Our individual experiential beliefs The answer in all 3 cases argues against the use of animal testing. Legally speaking, we know that the mistreatment of animals is a punishable, jail-inducing crime. Spiritually speaking we know that Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist texts all speak against the violence of animals. Finally, we know through individual experiences that harming animals is wrong, even for the benefit of others. How do we know this? Well, I will ask you: Could you harm, mutilate or kill your own dog? It must be understood then, that the practice of Animal testing is undisputedly unethical. Thank you for reading, and I look forward to DDD"s response.