In fact they are illegal because the potential to get a hold of these cells require some small chance of hurting the unborn baby but when it comes to using and killing animals its perfectly fine. Stem cells are illegal because they have yet to be proven they can help find cures.
Its all bogus news trying to get people to donate money and make other scientists wealthy while keeping sick folks hopeful for a cure to their disease. Report this Argument Pro Everyone is going to be selfish, where the scientist trying to find the cure for a life threatening disease is selfish or not does not play a big deal. In fact, they deserve to get paid for spending years trying to find a cure to save humanity.
I mean it could not be true maybe parents chose to have kids because they want to have a family and feel love. Either way, the parents spent years, time and love, they deserve to have the same in return. As for why don't scientists test humans? Once a drug is deemed suitable to help humans and safe to test, there is a human clinical trial. This trial of course is the last phase of accepting a new drug to the market.
It makes sense though. Would you like to test a new drug on humans without knowing side effects of the drug. It just seems morally wrong to do that to a human. Rats or rabbits are overpopulated species and some specific species are breed for this specific reason. As for stem cells. Scientists can still use and culture stem cells from animals to study effects of these potential cells. Also, stem cells have proven to be useful in find cures. In scientists at Roslin Institute in Scotland were able to culture tissue form an adult sheep and clone them to give birth to an identically cloned sheep called Dolly.
Dolly was able to be produced from an unfertilized egg and able to grow several limbs and organs all by itself. Unfortunetly it contracted a rare lung disease and was put to sleep- instead of making it suffer. Stems cells are illegal in the US for this very reason, the government is afraid that scientists will start to clone a specific set of humans and be a breeding machine no longer letting natural selection and generic chance take its account in nature.
Con Of course it doesn't matter to a evil person like you. Do you have a pet? What if they used your pet dog's pups for research? And the example of parents raising a child is not relevant parents don't kill their young.
Actually most new medicines don't get a chance to reach human clinical trials because they are prove to be some weird side effect or long term potential life threatening disease.
And obviously there is something wrong with stem cells if the sheep contracted a rare disease. Can you prove that the disease was not formed from the use of stem cells.
I don't think so. Report this Argument Pro How am I an evil person by saying its okay to do testing on animals rather than humans? I am not looking to better myself I am looking to better the world. Sacrifice one save a million human lives! I am not sure if you are aware how animal research is done. The committee includes a veterinarian, scientists from within that institution, a non-scientist, an animal technician and a member not affiliated with the institution.
There are several guidelines the committee requires all animal research labs to follow such as inspection of animal facilities, checking the well being of the animals and making modifications as needed to meet these requirements. In fact every scientists that is doing research right now has taken and passed a test that proves they will abide by such rules set by the IACUC. There should be more than enough water and food cage.
If an animal appears sick or in pain, the researchers will immediately take the animals well being into consideration and will euthanize animal.
Therefore researchers are not brutally killing animals. After an animal has been injected, the animal is cared for per and post surgery or experiment. Also, these animals have been specially and specifically bred in a laboratory for this exact reason.
Therefore one cant say its evil to do research to animals. As for stem cells, Dolly contracted a rare disease. One could have tried to cure her but instead of putting the animal through pain we peacefully put her to sleep. The animals well being comes first!!! It takes years to perfect a drug or find a cure and millions of animal lives are sacrificed!
What are the consequences? There are thousands of stories all over the world of indecencies to animals. And its evil to take a life. Socarets says so himself.
Report this Argument Pro Think of it this way, would you rather breed human babies to test or rats? Would you rather test on birds or humans? What researchers do in the lab is not brutal murder. The thing many New Yorker's do, such as hiring an exterminator to kill their rat infested homes is murder. And yet why don't animal rights activists like you stop that? Because you don't want dirty rats living in you home, a bit of a contradiction don't you think?
Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans Tom Regan. They are not only in the world, they are aware of it.
What happens to them matters to them. Each has a life that fares better or worse for the one whose life it is[ The perfumes flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle: All things are connected like the blood which unites one's family.
This is because rights require that an individual be capable of responsibility. Animals cannot make moral claims so cannot claim rights Carl Cohen. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.
Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings. The problem with this argument is that it fails to see rights as a thing that must be shared among a group of creatures, not something that is extended on an individual basis. Therefore, the question is not whether some humans are incapable of having rights, but rather whether human kind, as a species, is capable of having rights.
Non-human animals, conversely, as a class of organisms, are not capable of holding rights. Animal rights reduce humans to mere animals, not made in God's image David R.
Carlin, professor of philosophy and sociology at the Community College of Rhode Island - "By arguing that animals are equal to humans and thus deserve the same legal protection, animal rights proponents reduce human beings to nothing more than biological entities, on par with animals.
Animal rights advocates' view of humanity negates fundamental Christian, Platonic, and Stoic claims that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Humans are clearly superior to animals. Granting animals legal rights would be dangerous and degrading to humans.
For instance, it makes it more difficult for a human to defend themselves or their crops or livestock against threatening animals. Protecting animals from suffering by humans is a matter of animal welfare not rights.
Many supposed animal rights activists claim that they desire to see animals have a right against suffering at the hands of humans. This might be a good idea, but it is false to claim that it is a "right". Such an idea can only be classified within the realm of animal welfare.
The main reason is that it is only something that is practiced by humans unto animals, and can never be claimed or defended by animals out of their own accord. In addition, the idea only restricts humans against inflicting suffering on animals, but does restrict animals from inflicting suffering on other animals not even animals within their own species. Because it is a one-way relationship in this sense from human-kind onto individual animals , it can only be seen as welfare, not a right that an animal might be able to carry in all their relationships with other creatures.
Humans have an evolutionary right to uphold self-interests by testing animals. Humans are creatures of evolution. In evolution, the natural order is to uphold the self-interests of the individual and the species. Therefore, exploiting other animals to advance human self-interests is consistent with the natural order of evolution, and thus ethical. It is only unethical to damage the interests of one's own species. It is more humane to perform tests on animals than on humans.
Testing substances on humans without being aware of the potential dangers would be more unethical than testing animals. And, yet, we must perform tests on animals or on humans to advance life-saving medicines.
Given a choice between testing humans and animals, it is better to choose to test animals. Helium - "Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research to humans looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs to animals.
For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism. Many opponents of animal rights and supporters of testing cite the fact that animals kill each other without public outcry, and ask, why humans should be held to a higher standard?
The answer is that humans have the capacity to make the choice to inflict pain on animals. Animals, having no free will, so do not have this same ability to choose. Therefore, if we determine that it is morally ethical to do no harm to animals, since we have the choice, it is our unique responsibility to do no harm. Killing animals should be viewed as equivalent to killing humans Leonardo Da Vinci - "The time will come when people such as I will look upon the murder of other animals as they no look upon the murder of human beings.
In particular, some writers indicate that there is infrequent eye-contact between wild animals and humans, and this has damaged our ability to sympathize with their likeness to us, making it easier wrongly for us to kill them and exploit them.
Humans must respect animal rights even if animals can't reciprocate Tom Regan, an American animal right philosopher. Retrieved May 6th, - " 6. Animals don't respect our rights.
Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either. There are many situations in which an individual who has rights is unable to respect the rights of others. This is true of infants, young children, and mentally enfeebled and deranged human beings. In their case we do not say that it is perfectly all right to treat them disrespectfully because they do not honor our rights.
On the contrary, we recognize that we have a duty to treat them with respect, even though they have no duty to treat us in the same way. Animal rights can be assigned according to animal psychology Jeremy Bentham - While critics question where the line would be drawn, fearing that animal rights activists would grant rights to single cell organisms, the general consensus in the animal rights community is that rights should be conferred only to animals that can suffer.
This is a psychological distinction that is possible to make in acceptable terms. And, the main right being granted is the right to avoid suffering at the hands of humans. Animal testing wrongly involves sentient, human-like creatures Randy Fairchild. Helium - "Though we perform testing on animals, and even eat the ones with less fur, we are not cannibals; we do not torture our own. A cow has approximately 90 percent of its genes in common with humans.
Those genes code for the same proteins, the same nerve tissue, the same basic emotions and pain, that humans can feel. Monkeys have 97 percent of their genes in common with humans, and share even more striking physical, mental and emotional similarities. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man.
Magel, Professor and Animal rights activist. This argument simply highlights the fact that animal rights are legally untenable. Animals can't uphold human rights; we are not obligated to uphold theirs Animals don't respect human rights. Animal rights unfairly alienate humans from the natural order. Why should animals be free from obligations and responsibilities toward one-another in the animal kingdom, while humans might be obligated by "animal rights" to certain responsibilities toward them?
Why should humans be alienated from the natural order of the animal kingdom in this way? The answer is that we should not be, and animal rights should not exist. November 10, - "My first line of defense was obvious. Animals kill one another all the time. Why treat animals more ethically than they treat one another? Ben Franklin tried this one long before me: To the 'they do it, too' defense, the animal rightist has a devastating reply: Murder and rape are natural, too.
Besides, humans don't need to kill other creatures in order to survive; animals do. Though if my cat, Otis, is any guide, animals sometimes kill for sheer pleasure. Removing them from this environment can be very beneficial and reassuring for animals. By contrast, human beings can create value, as a matter of our initiative, not merely exhibit it.
If humans are animals, why defy our animalistic instincts? November 10, - "Surely this is one of the odder paradoxes of animal rights doctrine. It asks us to recognize all that we share with animals and then demands that we act toward them in a most unanimalistic way. Whether or not this is a good idea, we should at least acknowledge that our desire to eat meat is not a trivial matter, no mere 'gastronomic preference.
Humans have long-crafted animalistic instinct to pursue their own ends through the exploitation of animals in various ways. We have, for instance, killed animals for their furs to survive in cold weather. Those humans exploited animals in this way survived. Those that did not, perished. Evolution has favored humans that have exploited animals. We, therefore, have in us now a natural instinct to exploit animals.
This is reflected in our instinct to test animals for our own ends. It is wrong to deny this God-given or Nature-given instinct. Helium - "But even assuming that animals are so very different from us, where does this concept of difference justifying mistreatment come from? Is it supported in the modern ethics of developed countries? It certainly was not the principle justifying our war against Nazism, the better part of a century ago, let alone its more subtle ethical variant of the Civil Rights movement of the s.
A central concept of Civil Rights is to treat different persons as well or better e. Retrieved May 6th, - "Explanation: The philosophy of animal rights is respectful of our best science in general and evolutionary biology in particular.
The latter teaches that, in Darwin's words, humans differ from many other animals "in degree," not in kind. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science. I saw where it was born deep down under feathers and fur, or condemned for a while to roam four-footed among the brambles,I caught the clinging mute glance of the prisoner and swore that I would be faithful.
In this sense, the superiority of humans is dependent on whether they act morally or immorally. Animal testing lends may be an example of human immorality, and fittingly strengthen the case that we may be even worse than other animals, and that testing is, therefore, not justified. Animals are superior to humans in many of their abilities Whether an animal is superior or a human is superior is unimportant to this debate. The fact is, no man or animal is superior than any other.
Humans that test animals for human benefit also work toward animal benefit. Vetanarians would not be able to help animals if not given the chance to experiment and test using other animals. The benefits gained from using animals benefit all: Thus, the question about dominance and superiority does not pertain to this issue because it does not determine any ground.
Many forms of animal testing do not inflict any pain on the animal. They may simply study the effects of a mild drug on an animal or simply test brain activity without cutting or harming an animal in any way. In consideration of this fact, it is inappropriate to call for abandoning all forms of animal testing.
Certainly, there is no need to abandon the forms of animal testing that do no harm to animals. The behavioral signs include writhing, facial contortions, moaning, yelping or other forms of calling, attempts to avoid the source of the pain, appearance of fear at the prospect of its repetition, and so on.
In addition, we know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically like ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain. In many countries e. 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.
Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans Human beings share over The physiologies of humans and these animals are very similar, with very similar organ and nerve systems.
For this reason, it is useful and productive to study these animals as a means of advancing human sciences. The reactions of these creatures are a very good guide to possible reactions of human patients. The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, - "Animals make good research subjects for a variety of reasons.
Animals are biologically similar to humans. They are susceptible to many of the same health problems, and they have short life-cycles so they can easily be studied throughout their whole life-span or across several generations. Retrieved May 3rd, - "In addition, scientists can easily control the environment around the animal diet, temperature, lighting, etc. However, the most important reason why animals are used is that it would be wrong to deliberately expose human beings to health risks in order to observe the course of a disease.
November 1, - "While monkeys receive drugs in the laboratory, they do not become "addicted" in the same sense that humans become addicted. Still, we are able to see how changes in brain chemistry alter the way the brain works -- knowledge that is vital to the design of effective medications. While there are some instances of misleading results from animal testing that indicated a drug was safe when it was not, this is extremely rare. It is rare enough that it is both insignificant or at least consistent with other risks involved in human drug consumption.
Animal testing has helped develop important drug treatments "Animal Experiments". Updated August 17th, - "Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough". Updated August 17th, - "Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB".
Animal testing is not the core of medical advancements in the world. It has certainly been a factor in some cases, but the vast majority of medical research has nothing to do with animal testing.
Therefore, the overall impact of ending animal testing will be negligible. Furthermore, alternatives are being developed to replace animals as sufficient mediums for testing and advancing medical practices. Animal tests too infrequently lead to scientific advancements While it is undeniable that scientific advancements have been made on account of animal experimentation, these advancements have been too rare to justify animal testing. The basic problem is that there is never any guarantee that any instance of animal testing will lead to any advancement in science.
There is always a significant risk that an entire line of study that involves killing thousands of animals will lead to no substantive scientific benefits. This makes it highly inconsistent that the ethical trade-off is "worth it", if it ever is. This inconsistency means that a large portion of tested animals will not meet the ethical criteria of being "worth it", and could thus be called ethically wrong.
Animal responses to tests can be different than human responses Marymoose. Helium - "One of the main arguments against the use of animals in research is that animal studies can't actually confirm or refute hypotheses about human physiology or pathology. In straightforward terms, it can be argued that only research done with humans is relevant to humans.
The bigger point is that it is arguable that drugs have been used massively and inflicted massive harm on humans because they were falsely assumed to be safe for human consumption on the basis of animal tests.
As a result, the animal-based research and testing methods continue to fail legitimate human needs, while new discoveries in the field of alternatives have led to new and improved techniques that do not involve live animals. A chimp's skin is very different than the skin of a human. Animals and humans have very different pores and skin sensitivity levels.
Therefore, completing experiments on them to see how a product will work on people is a waste of innocent lives. In fact few breakthroughs have been made as a result of animal experimentation - its advocates have overstated its achievements. There has been a catalogue of errors and failures in animal testing, which its advocates gloss over; as many as half the drugs that have been approved in the US and the UK after animal testing have subsequently had to be withdrawn because of harmful side-effects.
Furthermore, there are alternatives to many tests that are currently done on animals - e. Animals are used as pets and for work in the agriculture and police industries. In all of these cases, they are being exploited for certain human ends, without too much concern for their "rights". It should not be of major concern, therefore, that animals are being exploited experiments for human ends. And, given that the exploitation is aimed at saving human lives, it is possible to argue that the degree of exploitation could be even more sever than in other cases of animal exploitation where the human-interests are less compelling.
Animals are hunted and killed without public outcry; why alienate animal testing? Animals are hunted and fished and are culled by animal controllers raccoons, rats mice for the purpose of pest control. Cats and dogs are euthanized every year for not apparent reason than bored owners.
Other millions of animals are killed by automobiles Cats, dogs, raccoons, foxes, deer. A tenant of the animal rights community is that any form of harm to animals is wrong, usually if it can be easily avoided with reasonable substitutes. It is, therefore, also not appropriate to say that "the eating and hunting of animals goes without much public outcry, so why alienate animal testing? Again, hunting and meat consumption do not provide cover for animal testing.
Murdering and testing humans is wrong; so is murdering and testing animals. In equivalent, killing of animals and animal testing is wrong! Jan 28th, - "everybody has benefited immensely from scientific research involving animals and that virtually every medical achievement in the past century has depended directly or indirectly from this type of work.
Animal experimentation is the sometimes distasteful means to much greater ends. November 1, - "[animals] allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans. This could cost human lives. Testing on sentient creatures is necessary; they are most like humans. While it is true that it is considered worse to harm sentient creatures than microbes and less-sentient creatures, sentient creatures are the most like humans and so the most valuable for making discoveries that are applicable to humans.
Animal tests proceed only when animal suffering is "worth it" The potential human benefits of a particular animal test are typically weighed against the harms that it will entail for animals. Scientists are not wanton in inflicting tests on animals. Rather, they are often bound to meet specific ethical requirements in the trade-off. The harm of the testing must be thought "worth it" for the benefits that it will produce.
The ends human benefits don't justify the means animal testing It is a common argument that it is dangerous and invalid for the ends to justify the means in society. This is often argued against utilitarian government actions that are performed with the intention of producing a certain desirable societal end, but whose means are unethical and violate human rights.
Animal experimentation falls squarely into this ethical trap of justifying the ends human benefits by the means animal testing. It is not acceptable to argue, "it's true that animal testing is really tortuous, but the human benefits justify it".
Such utilitarian arguments fallaciously violate basic animal rights, and so can never be justified, no matter how great the supposed human benefits. Humans should ban animal testing selflessly, because it's moral Animal testing may benefit human science, but costs human morals George Bernard Shaw - "Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character.
With humans and Chimpanzees sharing The testing of animals undermines this scientific understanding by subjugating animals. This is harmful to broader scientific progression in society. Societies that adopt animal rights progress morally Because animal rights can be seen as an individual moral advancement, it can also bee seen as a societal moral advancement.
Animal rights is not anti-science, but ethics must constrain science. Many argue that animal rights activists are simply anti-science.
Animal research is not wrong! The animals used for experiments are not treated bad! they are taken care of by multiple employees need by the IACUC including a vet, a scientists, and a animal tech. Other .
During the research process animals are killed and harmed, isn't killing an animal the same thing as murder? If you are thinking what if there was a "deadly" disease out there and that a doctor thought they found a cure to it but they need to test it before putting it on the market and they should test it .
Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It is estimated that 50 to million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human primates — are used annually. Animal research – a debate between a primate researcher and an opponent This article was first printed in Spiegel on 28 December and is reprinted here in the English translation.
The idea of animal research being mindless, harmful probing on animals is completely false. As stated, it is a process essential to human beings and animals alike though seemingly. Debating Animal Research in Australia The Ethics Centre, an independent not-for-profit organisation in Australia, held its second IQ2 debate on the motion: “ Animal rights should trump human interests “.