I believe that animal testng should be banned because it is very cruel. We hav no right over their lives. Ee coul also test the medicines on human beings that are on their deathbeds. If it works the person lives and uf he dues itwas his tme.
Animal testing should not be banned. The use of animal testing is the only reason that we as humans have been able to make so many medical breakthroughs. We have horses to thank for the tetanus shot, and rats, mice, and monkeys for the polio vaccine. Rats are also to thank for one of the most effective breast cancer treatments in use today. Humans are the most advanced species on the planet; we are superior to all of the other animals, which is also taught in Christianity. If we cannot test on animals, then we must test on humans. However, that makes no sense at all, for human lives are more important than animal lives. Testing humans on their deathbeds would not work, because their body is not in an acceptable state for testing. Therefore, our only option is to test medicinal drugs and other products on animals.
Of course we need someone to test our medicines on. I agree with you but then there is no sense In trying there tests on animals. They are genetically so different from us. Let's take rat for example. We test the polio vaccine on them. Does this even make any sense. Like really how can you test a medicine made for a mammal on a primate. This is wrong. A medicine that is good for us can harm them and one okay for them may harm us.
Animals are the only way to preserve the population and have medical breakthroughs at the same time. They are really not that genetically different from us; 5 percent of our genetic code is all that separates us from apes. Also, about 99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in rodents. Therefore, it does make sense to test possible vaccines and other products on animals. Even if it does harm them, it is better than it harming us. Also, at the beginning of your argument, you stated that we need someone to test our medicines on. If not lesser animals then who?
Not animals, us. We should be tested on. Our population is 7 billion now. We could as a result carry out the test in ourselves. So what If a few people die. Animal are not in huge numbers they may go extinct. By any chance 3/4 of the test we do give us negative results. This is the reason why snimals are dying in huge numbers. We do not have a right over their lives. For God's sake they aee alo living things. They feel!!
Our population is only as large as it is now because of animal testing. A great number of animals are killed or crippled due to testing, and the same number would apply to humans if we made the transition. Animals do not run an economy, or invent things to add ease to our lives, they cannot save someone's life in an operating room. In general, they cannot contribute nearly as much to the function and continuation of intelligent life on earth as humans can. Therefore, humans are more valuable than animals are. Seven billion is a large number, but that is one species. Even if we did test on humans, there would be many that died from the testing as well as those that died from the disease that we were trying to eliminate. Seven billion would fall very quickly if we tested on humans. Also, it is estimated that there are over eight million species of animals alone, many of those with populations larger than ours. In addition, only fourteen percent of those species have been discovered. Animals will not go extinct, so that will not be an issue.
Reasons for voting decision: Because testing on animals can minimize the harms to humans and because their genes are sufficiently similar to ours to be effective test subjects, Con has persuaded me in this debate.
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.