March Beginners Tournament: Animal Rights

RebuttalsEthics and ReasonThis debate's resolution is not if animals have the right to be free of needless suffering, but rather if animals deserve to have it. Limiting ethics to solely humans is unfair and discriminating. Is discrimination by species not similar to discrimination by sex, race, religion, beliefs, et cetera? This form of speciesist discrimination is unfair. If only beings that can think rationally are entitled to morality, then it is technically discrimination. [1] To save oneself, causing suffering is fair, or to save loved ones. Hence, this debate speaks of a general viewpoint. But to ascribe humans greater moral rights than animals is discrimination by species. Human moral rights (solely based on morality, i.e. freedom from needless suffering, etc.) should be equal to non-human moral rights. [Note: I limited it to vertebrate not by the ethics itself, but that there may be loopholes in invertebrate pain receptors etc which I cannot argue against] This distinction between "human" and "animal" is unnecessary; the rights that can apply to animals [not right to property, etc.] must be applied to them. Discriminating between those that think rationally and other sentient beings is nonetheless discrimination. I challenge this criterion itself.HuntingIf hunting is carried out for population control of an animal such as bison, then why is it not done for humans? Empathy must apply to all beings. Everything is not about human benefit. I extend my ethics arguments from above to here to show that ethics and benefits apply to all species [here I argue for sentient species, but generally]. VegetarianismI'm sorry, I should have specified the definition of vegetarian. Nonetheless, since this debate is about animal suffering, vegetarianism applies to veganism and organic, harmless lacto-vegetarianism [where the animals are not mistreated or killed]. How are lacto-vegetarianism and veganism expensive? Please specify and I shall rebut it. Pre-clinical trialsHere are some alternatives to animal testing: in vitro (test tube) test methods and models based on human cell and tissue cultures computerized patient-drug databases and virtual drug trials computer models and simulations stem cell and genetic testing methods non-invasive imaging techniques such as MRIs and CT Scans microdosing (in which humans are given very low quantities of a drug to test the effects on the body on the cellular level, without affecting the whole body system) Non animal-testing has its own scientific benefits. Alternative scientific tests are often more reliable than animal tests.For example, experiments on rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, mice, monkeys, and baboons revealed no link between glass fibers and cancer. Only after human studies related the two did the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) label these fibers as carcinogenic. EpiDerm, an in vitro test derived from cultured human skin cells, was found to be more accurate in identifying chemical skin irritants than traditional animal tests. In comparison studies, EpiDerm correctly detected all of the test chemicals that irritate human skin, while tests on rabbits misclassified 10 out of 25 test chemicals—a full 40% error rate.The use of human tissue in toxicity testing is more accurate than the animal models.The “Lethal Dose 50” (LD50) test forces animals to ingest toxic and lethal substances to the endpoint of where 50% of the animals in the study die—and those that do not are later killed. The late Dr. Bj}5;rn Ekwall (Cytotoxicology Laboratory in Sweden) developed a replacement for the LD50 test that measured toxicity at a precision rate of up to 85% accuracy compared to the LD50 rate of 61-65%. This test, far more accurate than the animal models, uses donated human tissue rather than animal. Further, the test can target toxic effects on specific human organs, whether or not the toxic substance permeates the blood barrier, and other highly sophisticated and precise information that the agonizing death of an animal of a different species would not reveal.Non-animal tests are more cost-effective, practical, and expedient.InVitro International’s Corrositex (synthetic skin) can provide a chemical corrosivity determination in as little as 3 minutes to four hours, unlike animal testing that often takes two to four weeks. DakDak, an alternative test used to measure the effectiveness of sunscreens, was reported to do in days what it takes animal studies months to do, and estimates that it can test five or six products for less than half the cost to study a single product in animals. The traditional testing of chemicals using animals can take up to five years per substance and cost millions of dollars, while non-animal alternatives can test hundreds of chemicals in a week for a fraction of the cost.Cruelty-free products are more environmentally friendly. References[1] Singer, Peter. Animal Liberation. HarperCollins, New York. (2009 - 4th edition) [2] http://www.neavs.org...;[3] MacLennan & Amos. (1990). Clinical Science Research Ltd., UK, Cosmetics and Toiletries Manufacturers and Suppliers, XVII, 24. [4] National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.