According to procon.org, “Evaluating a drug for side effects requires a circulatory system to carry the medicine to different organs.” This means in order to find accurate results we would need something that is living, breathing, and has a system which includes organs, blood vessels, lymph, etc. Besides humans, the only other option are animals. It would be unrealistic to not use animals because it would be impossible to advance in medicine without some sort of experimentation. Keeping animals from being tested is one thing but never being able to progress with modern day treatments is an even worse sacrifice. Some have said that using animals is contradicting our claim on finding accurate cures because animals are different than humans which means they will react differently.
Bill #2 General Debate Pro- I am in strong support of this bill because animal testing is a dated and cruel method. The anatomic, metabolic, and cellular differences between animals and people make animals poor models for human beings.The entire concept of animal testing is based on the fact that the discoveries found when an innocent animal is tested on can be applied to human beings. Thomas Hartung, Professor of evidence-based toxicology at Johns Hopkins University, argues for alternatives to animal testing because "we are not 70 kg rats.” Humane Society International compared a variety of animal tests with their in vitro counterparts. An "unscheduled DNA synthesis" animal test costs $32,000 while the in vitro alternative costs $11,000. A "rat phototoxicity test" costs $11,500, whereas the non-animal equivalent costs $1,300.
Also there is the LD50 Test: A toxicity test used in animal testing that is performed until 50 percent of the animals are dead. Animals should not be required to be tested on before the use of a medical drug, cosmetic, or food additive. The use of animals in cosmetic experiments is immoral and wrong. The immoral and wrong practices can be shown through “the use of bunnies to test eye irritation to make sure the makeup is safe for humans, though testing is not required by law.” This proves how immoral it is to test on animals especially since the law does not require the cosmetics to be tested. The most plausible answer for why the animals are being tested on is a business wants to make money and if the business cosmetic is unsafe and harms one human then no one is going to want to buy another cosmetic from that business.
If some countries have come up with the idea to take care of animals and have made even groups and organizations against animal abuse why do, they inhumanly abuse animals for testing. Experimental tests on animals its something unessential, and what if results are erroneous and in animals works perfect and on human results badly. As well, we know that the human body its pretty similar to an animal's body. Some doctors say that animal testing can slow down he results for a research or for a product. Some years ago, they inferred that animal testing cannot speculate how high the risk can be of a product or drug on
The two are not arguments against each other, but simply two arguments on either side of the topic. Machan claims that animals do not have rights, but he also says that we should keep in mind that animals can feel pain and enjoyment and that we should consider that when we use them. He says that if we kill them we should do it humanely. Norcross claims that we should not be torturing animals for their use, but he does not specifically say that we cannot kill them. Both conclusions can be true because animals do not have to have rights to stop torturing them.
In his essay for that series, Jeff Schloss addressed the question of whether animal death is a natural evil, but also noted that such theological considerations aside, death does not actually “drive evolution” in the way most people imagine—especially when they think of violence in the natural world. This more complicated sense of death’s role is partially the result of modern evolutionary science recognizing the importance of cooperation and inter-relation among species, rather than just direct competition. But just as important is the knowledge that evolution is significantly shaped not by the deaths of individual creatures, but by extinction, the loss of species over time. In this post, we explore some aspects of how extinction acts as both a destructive and creative force in evolutionary history, including the evolutionary history of mammals. 4)all living organism still share the same genetic code ..?
The creation of science has helped us discover other ways to test cosmetics without the use of animals that could potentially be more efficient since animal testing is not the most accurate approach to knowing how a human body would react to a cosmetic. However, these new systems would only increase the animal population and help the environment, changing the course of our destructive path that we 're on. Therefore, to compensate, we would need to just plainly kill them in their natural habitats, where protesters can more easily block our access to the animals. This way of murder is also not as innovative as the animal testing has proven to be. Animal testing has been going on long enough to not give up on it now, we will wait until science has come up with a more innovative way to kill
Genetic alteration is “playing God” and when it comes to physical trait selection, it is not our place to decide. Killing one kid in order to give another stronger and quicker muscle growth is wrong on so many levels. The only exception is if a mother’s child is saved from a dangerous disease with the healthy genes of an artificially inseminated lab-kid, mothered by nobody. However, “farming” kids still seems very inhumane because these are potential lives we’re talking about. But regardless of how it is used, it must be used in moderation.
How can you sit there and watch such cruelty?” Making animals test subjects are wrong, no matter what’s its purpose. Is it right to kill those innocent creatures painfully? No. It’s not right to harm them for our own benefits. Every living soul have rights, this includes animals, and just because they can’t speak up for themselves doesn’t mean we can take that away from them.
Johnny Depp stated, If you don’t like seeing pictures of violence towards animals being posted, you need to help stop the violence, not the pictures. Animals are good to have around because they are entertaining to watch and play with. Animals are also good for getting rid of the bad thing that come into our world like the bad bugs. Animals are even used to test products such as shampoo ,medicine, and perfume. So therefore, Animal testing should not occur because it is hurting the animals and making them go extinct.
To convince the audience that embryonic stem cell is unethical, Marwick explains, “ that the research involves the destruction of an embryo.” And to prove that “ a child 's life is important,” he reminds the audience that an embryo is valuable and worth protecting. Marwick’s evidence also reflects his knowledge. When arguing that the research should not be funded, for example, she mentions examples, such as the restriction against funding stem lines. And when putting forward his belief that an embryo is a gift cites Walter, an expert authority on Bioethic. This evidence is very different from that of Glick who tended to cite treatment of sick people when arguing his position that the research should be
The conclusion then states human consumption of any products is justified. Since premise 2 and 4 are considered to be false, this makes it un-sound argument, but valid none the less. This argument altogether commits a fallacy because of the composition fallacy. The composition fallacy includes an erroneous characteristic from parts of something to the whole (Robert Taylor, pg.1). The conclusion provides it by claiming consumption of animal food is unjustified even though it shown by premise 5 not all suffering used and that in premise one says humans have more moral value than animals making the conclusion erroneous and that the the composition fallacy is being
Stem cell research destroys potential human life, and scientists should find other forms of research to obtain stem cells without harming anyone (“NIH Stem Cell Information”). While stem cells are removed (along with the embryo) and used for study to potentially save a life, more risks are taken in doing this than many people realize. As one of the biggest arguments against embryonic stem cell research is that the scientists are sacrificing human life, it is a fair
No person should be made to suffer for their experiments. The unpredictable outcomes of human cloning could possibly harm the surrogate mother, or the cloned human in the process. The important goal in this technology lies in the possible discoveries of cures for major disease that exist worldwide. At this time the negative pain and suffering that is required in creating a human clone does not make it morally permissible to