Ban vaccines

At this point I'm going to defend my argument. "I Life of humans is far superior than animals" Con Bare assertion, you must elaborate. I perceive no further evidence to back up this claim. "The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." [18] "I will agree that they can suffer pain, but my opponent fails to show on how this relates to vaccines." Con I thought I made the relevance of chicken's ability to feel pain clear in section II. Proving animal suffering in relation to vaccines. To reiterate, if a chicken can feel pain, it can suffer. Thus the suffering in animal testing to develop a new vaccine and breeding of chickens is relevant. Here's why chicken's ability to suffer is relevant to vaccines "The discovery and development of new medicines, vaccines and medical devices for people and animals is a long and complex process with a number of stages, many of which involve animal experiments. National and international regulations currently require that new medicines are tested on animals before being licensed for use. Around 5 million animals including mice, rats, fish, chickens, rabbits, dogs and primates are used across the EU for this purpose each year." rspca.org.uk [7] "What animals experience The degree of suffering, which may include both physical pain and psychological distress, depends on the nature of the experiment. Generally, animals are 'given' a disease or condition then experiments are done to investigate: " rspca.org.uk [7] "Animals are sometimes used in the testing of drugs, vaccines and other biologics, and medical devices, mainly to determine the safety of the medical product." fda.gov [8] "How many animals are killed in animal testing in the US? Around 10 million a year." numberof.net [9] "Hens used for egg production come from hatcheries, where male chicks (none of which can lay eggs) are killed immediately after hatching. Each year, hundreds of millions of these vulnerable beings are suffocated or ground up alive to produce fertilizer or feed." Humanemyth.org [10] "Vaccine testing in particular consumes an estimated 2.5 million animals every year because vaccines are often produced by weakening, inactivating, or detoxifying a virulent microorganism or toxin. Each batch of the finished product is then tested on animals, causing them pain, suffering, and death." [11] As you can see animal suffer from vaccine research. Specifically physical pain, psychological distress, and death. 2.5 million animals suffering from vaccine research qualifies as animal suffering. "However, he later on provides the reason on how this relates to vaccinations where my opponent claims that chickens suffer from vaccinations." Con The baby roosters being ground up into fertilizer. Suffering from research and development which I already stated. ""This way you can prevent your birds getting the disease". Without this vaccination, flocks of chickens would die and recieve diseases which is much worse than a simple shot. As well as that disease can potentially spread putting humans lives at risk. Possible diseases that can potentially spread if not vaccinated include: Pox, Avian Flu, and so much more (2)." Con Because the disease might kill a chicken that is already in terrible living conditions existing only for human use. If you look at the humanemyth [10] and peacefulprairie [19] links you might see why disease and death might be preferable to the conditions these chickens are kept in. That's assuming the vaccine works. Which I'm not so sure if vaccines work as seen in my round section VI. Doubts about vaccines effectiveness. "Debeaked with a hot bloody blade at one day old with no anesthetic. ""Force molted (intentionally starved to shock the body into another laying cycle)." [19] "Then my opponent argues that any animal suffers from vaccinations. This is false for many reasons because animals actually benefit from vaccinations than what my opponent claims. I ask my opponent how do animals suffer? If the suffering is by giving them an injection, then that isn't truly suffering. Suffering would be long term effect of negativity, and animals do not feel that pain for that long." Con You don't seem to understand the entire suffering caused by animal testing of vaccines. Nor that these animals are bred in captivity. The conditions of captivity seem far from ideal, and thus suffering of the animals before animal testing. Let, alone the previous generations, the father and mother of the animals bred in captivity for animal testing purposes. Finally, even if vaccines prevent disease in poultry, the factory farmed poultry weren't exactly living a humane lifestyle to begin with. Second, this doesn't negate the cruelty to develop the vaccine. You seem to be making an ends justify the means argument. Inflict pain on chicken A and develop a vaccine so chickens B and C can live disease free. "Also, the percentage of animals with one of the common diseases rabies. "In the U.S., rabies represents a serious threat to the health of people and animals. Every year, it is estimated that 40,000 persons receive a rabies prevention treatment called post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) due to a potential exposure to rabies" (5). The solution, vaccinate your animals in order to help them live longer as well as protect your own family." Con There is evidence of disease transferring from a non-human species to humans. I have doubts about the effectiveness of such treatments. "Not only do vaccinations promote safety in health for children and adults, vaccinations also support the economy." Con Cigarettes and alcohol also support the economy. "In my opponents argument for Section III, he quotes that if vaccines are no longer demanded animal suffering would drop. Where is your evidence on that? There is no evidence that he provided, and neglects the fact on how much money is made for vaccination use." Con I already made it very clear that animals suffer from animal testing to create vaccines. I didn't think I needed evidence to backup such a simple statement. Nevertheless, simple logic if vaccine research came to a halt, the animal suffering I already established would be reduced. If vaccines were banned then vaccine research would stop. "fact on how much money is made for vaccination use." Con Thank you for bring this up. Many times in history powerful and rich people have abused their power like Rockefeller. "Critics accused Rockefeller of engaging in unethical practices, such as predatory pricing and colluding with railroads to eliminate his competitors, in order to gain a monopoly in the industry. In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court found Standard Oil in violation of anti-trust laws and ordered it to dissolve." [20]. 1 Timothy 6:10 "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." [21] Now which is there more money and profit? The absence of smoking and maintaining a healthy weight, or vaccines? The answer is there is more money and profit in vaccines. Ran out of characters to fully address each of your points. Since animal suffering is involved, I don't have to prove vaccines are dangerous or ineffective, only enough doubt that they should be banned. That the animal suffering is not worth the benefits of vaccines. Some go so far as to say the germ theory is a fraud. [22] http://dictionary.sensagent.com... http://peacefulprairie.org... http://www.history.com... http://biblehub.com...