Should animal testing be banned?
Debate Rounds (3)
I am writing this as a student eager to become a veterinarian. Also, I love animals (sometimes more than people if you know what I mean"). I just want to make sure that you know that I think animal lives are very important and I"m not one of those people who hates animals.
That being said, I think that animal testing should continue as it improves human lives. Like I mentioned earlier, I love animals but human life is superior to animal life. That is the reason why I"m debating on this topic. Although I study veterinary medicine I admit that I don"t know everything there is to know about animal testing. However, I do a little bit.
First, animal testing is much like the U.S. Government: A necessary evil. I don"t want to hurt animals but I know that if it will improve human life than it"s worth it. Think of test animals like soldiers on a battlefield. They may get hurt and possibly die but in end their efforts are rewarded. Without animal testing, we wouldn"t have the polio vaccine or the drugs use to help fight AIDS. Whenever you get a shot at the doctors, it most likely tested on animals first to protect your own safety. Animal testing has improved the human experience.
Also, these animals aren"t treated cruelly. Before a laboratory starts experimenting on animals they must show the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee a detailed plan of what the lab is planning to do to the animals. The researchers must prove two things: 1. That the test animals will be given proper supplies (such as food, water, and toys) and that 2. The benefits of the experiments must be worth the pain suffered by the animal. Here is a link outlining this:http://grants.nih.gov...
I agree with you that some animal tests won"t have the exact results as a human test but scientists will take this into consideration before the experiment and make adjustments accordingly.
Lastly, there are a lot of people who will lie to you and say that animal testing is cruel and that it doesn"t work. I have shown you that it isn"t really that cruel and that it does really work in the above examples. Alternatives to animal testing, such as the synthetic skin you were talking about, still aren"t as reliable as a real live body. Human testing is unethical and animals are the only other option.
Again, no one wants to test animals and potentially hurt them. But sometimes this is a necessary evil.
(Here's the link to the reliable source http://www.peta.org... )
Before deaths, animals are sometimes restrained, or stuffed with drugs so they won't feel pain, but the drugs can very easily kill them because their body's can't handle it.
Also, they sometimes feed animals nothing for long periods, or feed them only sugar (or something else, and ONLY that something) for long periods.
And think about it, would you want to be locked in a cage, then when you are let out only to be treated like dirt? Because that is what people are doing. Yes, some people do do it kindly so the animal won't be harmed too much, but think back to the time a few months ago when two girls put a kitten (a little KITTEN!) in a timely microwave. Thank goodness they were caught and the kitten is ok.
Though human life is important, we need to approach testing cosmetics and drugs in a different way.
First, you say that if we have the technology we should use it. Agreed. We do in fact use the technology that we have for testing purposes. However, it is considered unsafe to only test on a synthetic material. The things that laboratories test must be tested on a living thing in order to be declared safe. As great as the synthetic testing materials are, they still cannot compare to a real, living body. I really wish that there was a reliable substitute for a human but it seems as if animals are the only choice right now. Your point about biology classes and dissections: The parts used for dissections are usually from animals like cows that are either being killed for meat or are dying of sickness.
Some animals are restrained before the actual tests but most of them don"t even know that they are being tested on. I think it is a noble pursuit that scientists give the animals painkillers in the event that the testing should hurt the animal. It is true that these painkillers have the ability to kill but most of the time they help rather than harm.
On your point about being locked in a cage and being treated like dirt? Of course I don"t want that to happen to me! That"s why animals do this job for us. It is undeniable that animals have value but human value is paramount. Kind of like the soldier, the animal will die for a greater good.
(BTW, the people who put the poor kitten in the microwave weren"t trained scientists; there were evil")
To tell you the truth, I had the same views as you did last year until I met a scientist who specialized in animal testing. Here is a paraphrase of the quote from the scientist:
"People ask me if I feel bad about the animal tests that I conduct. I simply tell them that I wouldn"t lay a finger on an animal if I knew that the results weren"t important. But I have seen the results. And I still test animals."
What he"s saying is that the results do help. These results do save millions of lives. I understand that this is difficult to comprehend but animal testing is a major help to society.
It really is a shame that nearly 100 million animals die per year, but I can assure you that those animals do not die in vain.
Think of a bird. Any bird. It's digestive system can, well, digest certain foods that we can not. Such as the poison berry, hence the name poison berry, we can't eat it, but the bird can. Now think of that flip flopped. We can eat stuff the bird can't. And that is true. We can eat stuff nearly all animals can't (dog, chocolate etc.). So if a scientist feeds a new drug to a certain animal, and the animal is allergic, it will cause an allergic reaction, so then that scientist would think, oh, this had a bad effect on this monkey so it is dangerous to us! When it really is not. So animal testing brings up a LOT of not accurate information.
Also, most animal experiments are flawed therefore wasting the life of a poor animal.
And religions tell us to be merciful to animals and not to harm them. But what do we do? Harm them. Bible proverbs 12:10 says, "A righteous (man) regardeth the life of his beast.
And last but most obvious, animal testing is inhuman, and cruel. According to the Humane Society International, animal experimentation usually include, forced feeding, water deprivation, burns and tons of other stuff that we would not dare do to ourselves. Why would we need to know what water deprivation or only eating a certain kind of food will do to us? We already know the answer. It will make us sick, or possibly kill us.
I am, and probably will be against animal testing for most if my life.
Thank you for participating in my debate, I REALLY enjoyed it! And I respect you being/wanting to be a veterinarian. Thank you again! (I am probably sending you a friend request so keep an eye out for that!)
Scientists are smart. These scientists know what certain species have in common with humans and which species do not. They are completely aware that some animal anatomy is different than a humans and that some tests on animals will not work exactly the same as tests on humans. Keeping this in mind, they test things that they know will work on humans. Again, these scientists are smart. They don't wastefully test animals and bring up inaccurate data.
Also, you said that most experiments are flawed. You didn't provide any evidence for this and my point above should cover this statement.
I am a Christian and I respect the Bible. That verse says that a righteous man regards the life of his beast. The key word is regard. If a scientist mercilessly kills an animal that is wrong. But taking the animals life into regard (Which is what the scientists do) is basically saying, "I don"t want to hurt you. I respect your life. But I think that human life is more important than an animals life".
Animal testing is somewhat cruel. But isn"t burning one animal from a defective skincare product better than burning 10,000 humans with that same product? Also, most tests aren"t as extreme as force feeding, food deprivation, etc" Even the most extreme tests are done knowing that whatever harm the animal receives is worth it.
Most importantly, no one hates animal testing more than I do. I is truly a terrible thing. But the topic for this round is "Should animal testing be banned?"
Should animal testing become less frequent? Absolutely. Should more rules be put into effect to make testing less painful for these animals? Of course. But should animal testing be banned?
To ban means to forbid someone from doing something. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...)
I have shown you how things like polio and AIDs have been cured in part by animal testing. If we "ban" animal testing, then we couldn"t continue with ANY more experiments, therefore resulting in human death and suffering.
Lastly, test animals are heroes. Earlier I compared test animals to soldiers - Although they get hurt and possibly die, in the end their efforts are rewarded.
I totally understand your view on this subject and I respect it. I hope you"ve had as much fun as I have!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side sourced much, but I found that the con's sources were a bit more pertinent to the debate at hand. Con's arguments carried the most weight in my opinion because they were centered on the principle of necessary sacrifice for the greater good of people. And yes, the science behind it is accurate. Sparing animals is a fine ideal, but personal feelings should not interfere with the health concerns of humans.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.