experiment on non-human animals to develop products and medicines that benefit human beings?

Experiments on animals should be considered on a case-by-case basis. The proper principle to apply, however, is that the reduction of human suffering is our first priority and the prevention of animal suffering or death is secondary to that (although still important). So that if there is a decent chance that an experiment will result in an important medical breakthrough that will reduce human suffering and death then it is justifiable to allow animal suffering. Animal experimentation is the (sometimes distasteful) means to much greater ends.

If you look at the broad scope of history, during earlier times, we notice the principle of empathy applied only towards members of the same "tribe" or "family". Beings outside the family were "beasts" to be hunted or feared. But over the progress of time, we notice a steady transcendence of humanity. We began broadening the concept of empathy towards fellow "countrymen". And today, judging from the widespread outcry over Darfur, we have even transcended towards extending our empathy to all members of "humanity".

But clearly that is not the end point in this path towards transcendence. Already, many humans extend the umbrella of empathy towards non human animals. Some even go so far as extend it to non animal plants. Thus my first argument against animal experimentation is that it is an impediment to the advancement of civilization and the maturity of the human race. Imagine the revulsion of our descendants when they look upon our behavior towards animals, and I imagine to be the same revulsion we have towards the heinous practices of our own ancestors. To be civilized is to be respectful of the life of not only humans, but animals as well.

Although in principle it is more important to reduce human suffering that to prevent animal suffering, in practice it is possible (and absolutely right) to keep animal suffering to an absolute minimum. Animal experimenters should aspire to the highest levels of animal welfare in their laboratories, using anaesthetics wherever possible and keeping animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. In short, it is possible to experiment on animals without being cruel to animals.

The essence of your argument assumes that the value of medical progress is greater than the value of moral progress. We do not want to sacrifice the developing moral fiber of humanity, still in its embryonic stages, for short term gains in life span or mascara. Even "humane" imprisonment of animals and reducing them to human play things through which we gather information is still from a transcended view a despicable act of inhumanity.

And lets face it, on a practical note, if animal experimentation is allowed, it would be most naive to think unscrupulous companies determined to maximize profits would waste money on anesthetics and keep animals in clean, comfortable, and healthy conditions. The safest course towards humanity's eventual transcendence is the altogether end to animal experimentation.

Past experience has shown what invaluable advances can be made in medicine by experimenting on animals, and that live animals are the most reliable subjects for testing medicines and other products for toxicity. In many countries (e.g. the US and the UK) all prescription drugs must be tested on animals before they are allowed onto the market. To ban animal experiments would be to paralyse modern medicine, to perpetuate human suffering, and to endanger human health by allowing products such as insecticides onto the market before testing them for toxicity.

Human beings share about 99% of their genes with chimpanzees and only slightly fewer with other monkeys. As a result, the reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. Even lower down the scale, other animals share the same basic physiology with humans. Furthermore, it would be immoral to risk the life of a human being when a medicine or procedure could instead be tested on a non-human animal.

There are indeed new issues raised by the advent of genetic engineering and 'transgenic' animals; these, like all animal experiments should be closely monitored so as to minimise animal suffering. The fact that there are new issues here does not mean that there should never be any experiments on animals.

" The essence of your argument assumes that the value of medical progress is greater than the value of moral progress. " - My post, Round 2

Many times I have emphasized the importance of moral development. And the pure fact of the matter is, experimentation on animals, no matter how humane, will never be moral. A hundred or perhaps two hundred years from now, our decedents will look at us and express revulsion at our "bestial" behavior. Scientific advance without a moral compass is repugnant and should be resisted. The end justifies the mean attitude of my opponent is the same attitude held by the German scientists when they pursued their studies at the expense of their prisoner lab rats. Experimentation on animals will always be immoral because we can never gain consent from animals, and so long as we tolerate these experiments, we will be holding back human transcendence.

My arguments in this area have not once been addressed by the Pro and stand unchallenged. And it is for that reason Animal Testing should not be allowed.