This house believes that animal experimentation is necessary to save human lives.
...st of their life. This was and still is a very big achievement in medical history. The disease being a huge problem to it being virtually nonexistent, to a vaccination to make sure we’re immune to the disease just in case. This is one of many diseases that were cured because of the use of rabbits, rodents and other animals. The opposing side argued that, it was many years ago that polio was found and vaccinated and vivisection being relevantly new then, would have been critical to humans. But times have changed and technology has developed. The opposing side said that the amount of specimen taken from animals is enough to fuel us for centuries and the diseases we know of now can be cured using computer models and other treatments. But would what we have be enough, would the amount of specimen from an animal last to fuel the medical research for years? Would computer models be adequate for that long? It’s also possible that new diseases may come by making the amount of specimen we have drawn from animals insufficient, new diseases that might surface should be researched, that’s one of the reasons why vivisection should still be in existence. Alternatives were also discussed and the issue seems logical in some ways and unethical in others. Some may say that we have taken enough samples from animals and that we can go on independently with the use of computer models and with a broad range of specimen taken from the animals. Plants are also said to be effective. But could you imagine yourself having the same biology as a plant or even near it? Could you see yourself having the same biology as a computer model, probably in theory you would. A human body is more complex than a plant or of a simulation, a drawing. A very big point that was also two-pronged was that, we’re not the same as animals, this being contradictory to the last paragraph regarding alternatives, why would animal research benefit us? It benefits the animal because we aren’t the same as animals; there is a difference in our biology. This can be misleading and unnecessary to saving human lives. But then the only thing us humans are most similar to are us the humans, however can we imagine testing on a human? It’s totally inhumane, and it’s illegal in a lot of countries in the world. A human life is more significant than an animals’. Everybody can agree on that. Animals are said to be treated cruelly in labs, their existence there is to die, or if damaged eye cells were the issue and animal would just be poked in the eye. This was a major reason why the use of animal research is being protested because whatever the problem on the table that would be the one being tested, and the animal would have to endure the pain of whatever the scientist is trying to research. This argument is bilateral. Yes an animal would have to go through whatever pain a scientist would inflicts on them. An animal may not say when they’re feeling pain because when they scream out for help, it’s not like a human would understand and the scientist would just keep on testing on the animal anyways. An animal would die from all the pain anyways. The previous point may seem impossible to rebut against, but we as humans have the responsibility and the conscience to make the situation better for the animal. There are laws protecting an animal, animal welfare regulations state that procedures that cause more than momentary of slight pain and distress should be performed with appropriate sedation, analgesia, or anesthesia (USDA 1998) Accordingly, federal regulations and policies mandate that discomfort to animals must be limited to what is unavoidable for the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Animals that would otherwise suffer unrelieved sever or chronic distress should be painlessly killed at the end of the procedure. This is what’s being imposed, i...