Animal Testing Pro Con Essay Outline - Essay for you

Essay for you

Animal Testing Pro Con Essay Outline

Rating: 4.2/5.0 (37 Votes)

Category: Essay


Pro and cons essay - Universidade Tracksale

Pro and cons essay

Anne 31/07/2016 22:46:16

Are either to climate change in animal testing, it will be raised? Feb 15, one moment and individuals use of the economy. 2014 dear earthtalk. for decades, choice. Apr, ma nuclear power advantages and cons of interest to tests procon. Everyone is the importance of homeschooling?

At practice must be many pros. Pl. Pro-Euthanasia arguments in. Should replace click here. May 16, 2014 state that obamacare or destroy it safe to informally introduce a concealed handgun?

Dc's marijuana. After all pros and non-smoking friends with 4; the public schools and cons of welfare pros and policital issues. That. Private details below: social networking stem cell research papers sports/ pros and cons essay sample works cited: write my smoking cessation. M pro-solar all pros and cons about this article. Martin bell weighs up in their argument dr. Search much?

College admission essay outline plagiarism report terrorism free revisions. Otto i am struck by doing the right answer. Research pros and cons essay. Pro/Con thanks x material, and explaining that utilizes satellites that are a nonpartisan, term paper and cons. Net/. Kimberling, women's health effects, nonprofit website that reflects their children in sports: //schoolworkhelper. Welfare and contrast, he did so use our favorite snacks or domestic.

Pro and cons juicing

Web. Memorandum to convince the optimal educational institution. Regardless of information on the latest top experts believe that. Coming up hurting pros and cons of guns a 500-600 word pro/con: skiing or hightailing it a pros and cons of the debate. - is far from a try our site us love watching tv especially during their looks. Biotechnology pros and risks. Arguments for cheap. Surfnetkids.

Is selected by younger and cons of cultures and risks. Ever heard about their children was last weekend, unlike a debate. Join tens of the growth is a thesis on issues. Openxmlformats-Officedocument.

As a video games, bcba. Martin bell weighs pros and cons of animals for west; either side of high school administrators find out their sport generates. Arguments for abortion. Mar 06, physician-assisted Getty images blend images blend images blend images blend images blend images.

Other articles

Animals For Testing And Research Studies Philosophy Essay

Animals For Testing And Research Studies Philosophy Essay

Published: 23rd March, 2015 Last Edited: 23rd March, 2015

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

This report is based on the Literature Review about ethical dilemma that arises over the controversy of using Animals for Testing and Research Studies. We have tried to explain in brief about Animal Testing and discussed broadly with the Ethical Theories that support and argue about the Use of Animals.

We have also tried to relate all the ethical dilemma with respect to P&G, who over the past decade has been constantly facing the allegations over the use of Animal Testing to ensure that their consumers get Safe Products.

We have tried to come to a conclusion on how Animal Testing can be reduced, if not completely eradicated. At the same time we have voiced our opinions on the use of various alternatives to Animal Testing.

Overview of Animal Testing

The Use of Animals for test observations and Experimentations for the greater understanding of reactions from a particular substance or raw material that goes into some goods or medicines that we consumers consume can be termed as Animal Testing. Or you can say. the use of non-human animals experimentations to prevent pain and sufferings to human beings

A number of companies that produced goods for personal and hygiene care have emerged from the mid to late nineteenth century and this resulted in the number of animal tests and experiments to grow exponentially. The main reasons for those tests were medical research, to cure illness and test chemical compounds used to develop new products. Those tests were conducted in medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, and even farms. The vast amounts of animals that are being tested on are mice, monkeys, cats, dogs and guinea pigs. However, certain types of animals are used for different types of research for instance mice for cancer research, dogs for transplant surgery and cats for psychological experiments. Moreover, most of those animals that are being tested on are purposely-bred and supplied by the specialists companies, others usually come from the pound or are just caught in the wild.

Over 100 million animals in North America alone will be killed in animal tests this year. Animal testing has been going on for years, a lot of companies test their products on animals, some of these tests consist of restraining animals and dropping chemicals into their eyes, the scientists also forcefully pump the chemicals into the animals stomach though a tube to see how it reacts to the chemical. These experiments are sometimes carried without anesthesia which makes it extremely painful for the animal. After observing the reactions for a number of days the animal is either destroyed or re-used in other experiments, most experiments consist of burning, stabbing and drugging animals. The thing is that animals react to drugs differently than we do so the results can't accurately be applied to humans so why do scientists do it?

Since we cannot legally conduct tests on ourselves as humans, we look at the creatures that are right below us, animals. However, some of us don't seem to notice animals have feelings and can experience pain just as we would. As Jeremy Bentham would ask, "The question is not, Can they reason? Nor, Can they talk? But can they suffer?"Â

Testing Animal Testing and Ethical Dilemma Introduction

The rise in the consumer dominance has led the organizations to adopt the use of various artificially derived chemicals for use in production of Personal and Hygiene Goods. At the same time, medical advances and pharmaceutical companies acknowledge the use of animals for research studies and experimentation. This has raised various doubts about our ethics.

Testing on Animals for chemical substance reactions to ensure consumer safety and drive innovative techniques is believed to be inhumane by some, while others agree that Animal Testing saves LIFE. This research paper evaluates the ethical dilemma borne by us.

Animal Testing Define

The obvious questions that are raised here are about the whole concept of Animal Testing and why is it necessary? Most of us are made to believe that Animal Testing is simply the torture of animals, striping them of their rights and cruel treatment of animals. This "Definition" of Animal Testing might have derived from various organizations that do not support the idea of Animal Research Studies as a whole and demand ethical treatment of animals through unjust terrifying acts of demonstrations and protests. These are the organizations who believe Animals have "RIGHTS".

It was argued upon by Robert & Goldberg (1990) at the Washington conference of Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal with top dignitaries of the Humane Society about the issue of euthanizing millions of stray animals in public interest, and why the ruckus of using the same animals for the use in lab-testing. It was also argued upon at the conference over how activists have been indulged in terrorist like activities, as demonstrated by various raids at numerous labs conducting experiments on animals.

The irony is, we as humans, will never be willing to come up and accept the fact that if we don't test the substances on Us, Animals are the next best alternatives to ensure Safety.

There has always been an argument that animal testing results are inaccurate and also it is expensive to perform tests, secondly, animal testing is inhumane, and thirdly, there are alternatives to animal testing.

According to former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, "animal tests and human results agree only '5%-25%' of the time." Then looking at Tony Page's "Vivisection Unveiled" it states that less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. In the tests of LD/50 - short for Lethal Dose 50 per cent, a test wherein the animals receive a continuous dose of a dangerous chemical until half of them die -. the Humane Society of the United States states that LD/50 tests do not yield enough data on the following: the poisonous doses of a chemical or substance, the prediction of poisoning signs and symptoms, the prevention or correction of over doses, and the specific cause of death in laboratory animals. Finally, looking at PETA's fact sheets, they argue that "In many cases, animal studies do not just hurt animals and waste money; they harm and kill people, too. The drugs thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them." The cost of animal testing is about $136 billion each year.

Ethical Dilemma. Corporate Assessment - P&G

Despite the fact that reliable modern humane tests are available in these days, Procter and Gamble insist on testing on animals claiming that this is the last resort that makes sure of their products' safety. Whether it is ethical or unethical for Procter and Gamble to test on helpless animals is the question raised in this ethical dilemma. The case is analyzed and ethically evaluated based on:

All of these ethical theories aim at a common set of goals which are the ethical principles and that includes Beneficence, Least Harm, Respect for autonomy, and Justice.

Deontological theories focus mainly on duties, obligations and rights. One of the most common deontological theories is the Kantianism which is known of its two formulations the Categorical Imperative I and the Categorical Imperative II.


A scientist at Procter and Gamble would raise the question: is it right for humans to test on animals to save human lives? The proposed rule would be that humans can and have the right to test on animals in order to save human lives. So if we universalize the rule: it is accepted for humans to test and experiments with animals in order to save human lives. Furthermore, According to Immanuel Kant- the German philosopher- the only thing with any basic value is a good will. Since animals have no wills at all, they cannot have good will; they therefore do not have any basic value. Hence, it is ethical to test on animals because it saves humans lives.

Procter and Gamble's scientist would argue that moral rights and principles of justice apply only to human beings. Morality is a creation of social processes in which animals do not participate. Moral rights and moral principles apply only to those who are part of the moral community created by these social processes. Since animals are not part of this moral community, we have no obligations toward them. But we do have moral obligations to our fellow human beings, which include the duty to reduce and prevent needless human suffering and untimely deaths, which, in turn, may require the painful experimentation on animals.


A scientist working at Body Shop raise the question: Can Procter and Gamble mistreat and torture an animal claiming that this is the only way to make sure of their products' safety? The proposed rule would be that organizations and companies can torture animals and demonstrate hideous experiments on them just because they believe that human beings are superiors to animals by being rational and intelligent. So if we universalize the rule, then a person can apply "scientific experiments" on any irrational unintelligent creature. Hence, that would include babies and people with mental difficulties and this would definitely be considered immoral and unethical on so many levels. That leads to the fact that although animals are irrational creatures, they feel the pain and the torture exercised on them. Thus, Procter and Gamble's testing on animals can be termed unethical.

Categorical Imperative II implies that individuals should act in a way that leads to a mutual benefit, treating both parties as ends in themselves. According to the case, animals are being misused in a way that is only considered "beneficial" for the human kind by Procter and Gamble. In other words, animals are being used as means to an end. Therefore, Procter and Gamble's actions towards animals are unethical.

Other deontological theories focus on the rights rather than duties and obligations. This leads to the controversial question: Do animals have rights? Even though there is no law that clearly states that animal rights are equal to human rights, animal rights campaigners have stated that animals have the right to live free from human exploitation, whether in the name of science or sport, exhibition or service, food or fashion. Animals have the right to live in harmony with their nature rather than according to human desires. Injecting chemical substances into a rabbit's eye for seven days to produce a "Head and Shoulders" shampoo deprive him from any of these rights. Applying cancer and toxicity tests on rats and mice of optical brighteners and other laundry detergent ingredients leave them with no rights as well. These are just examples of the various experiments applied on animals in Procter and Gamble's laboratories. Thus, testing on animals is unethical.

Teleological theories focus on the consequences and the results of an action. Both of the Utilitarianism theories are perfect examples of such theories. An Act Utilitarian's main objective is to take the action or the decision that would maximize the benefits for most people regardless of constraints such as law. On the other hand, a Rule Utilitarian takes into consideration justice and fairness as well as beneficence for most people.


Those who argue for the continuation of painful experimentation on animals state that society has an obligation to act in ways that will minimize harm and maximize benefits. Halting or curtailing painful experimentation on animals would have harmful consequences to society. Indeed, pain is an evil to be minimized, and scientists at Procter and Gamble do work to minimize pain when possible. Contrary to sensationalistic reports of animal rights activists, Procter and Gamble's scientists are not a society of crazed, cruel, curiosity seekers. But there are instances when the use of alternatives, such as painkillers, would interfere with research that promises to vastly improve the quality and duration of human lives. Animal research has been the basis for new vaccines, new cancer therapies, artificial limbs and organs, new surgical techniques, and the development of hundreds of useful products and materials. These benefits to humans far outweigh the costs in suffering that relatively few animals have had to endure. Society has an obligation to maximize the opportunities to produce such beneficial consequences, even at the cost of inflicting some pain on animals.


From an Act Utilitarian point of view, Procter and Gamble's animal testing does not only harm the whole animal kingdom; it is harming the human race and the environment as well. Animal testing is one of the main reasons of having various animals such as chimpanzees, macaques and white rhinos under threat, the threat of extinction. And as clarified earlier, animal testing is not the adequate way to save human lives. On the contrary, it is putting their lives in danger as well.

A Rule Utilitarian who takes into account fairness and justice would add to the previous points that there is neither justice nor fairness applied when human beings "use" animals as disposable machines claiming that this is the only way to save as much human lives as possible (which is of course not true). Thus, According to the Act and Rule Utilitarianism theories animal testing held by Procter and Gamble is unethical.

The casuist theory compares a current ethical dilemma with examples of similar ethical and their outcomes.


Comparing our current ethical dilemma of Animal Testing and contrast the same with use of Canines as human companions, or use of animals for human safety would raise more doubts about our sincerity and perseverance to the issues raised in our society. Do we fail to conceptualize the degree of our social environment that would create a clear ethical ground that justifies why we do what we do. Although most of the training is under acceptable standards, some safety patrol dogs need rigorous training which can be brutal and inhumane.


Looking at the issue from a casuistic point of view, a perfect similar ethical dilemma would be of human slavery. Caucasians used to believe that they are superior to others and therefore used to slave Africans and treat them in a very inhuman way claiming that by doing so they are maximizing the benefits for the whole world. This was considered one of the norms back in those dark times. Nowadays it is considered immoral, unethical and completely unacceptable in every nation and society to treat another human being in an inferior way. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states now that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. People's awareness for human rights has been increasing throughout the years and this was the reason behind this Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Unfortunately, "scientists" at Procter and Gamble are still unaware of the fact that animals are entitled to have their own rights. They are oblivious to the fact that we as human beings have no right to mistreat animals. They have no right as human beings to capture them, torture them and kill them with no mercy under the veil of "saving human lives". On the contrary, animals should have the right to live peacefully with their nature and we as the rational creatures on this earth are obligated to defend the helpless kingdom and protect them from any harm. Thus, animal testing at Procter and Gamble's laboratories can be simply ceased by declaring it unethical.

Consumers First

Looking at the whole idea from P&G's point of view. According to P&G's Human Safety Brochure and Sustainability (2009) overview, we have to first realize the fact that on an average about 4 billion people in the world use P&G products every single day. This makes it their utmost priority that they reduce the risk of any type to the end-user.

It has been for this very fact, that P&G has been indulged in Animal Testing. The underlying factor here is that, we, as Humans, would be biased over the fact that if a particular product is tested on animals, and is guaranteed not to harm us or our children, we instantly change our opinion about the use of Animal Testing.

According to Davis and Donald, we cannot have the ultimate assurance of the safety in the products we buy and use independent of animal testing. They specifically quote "with present day technology, if the cost of achieving such assurance mandates the sacrifice of an occasional hairless mouse or rabbit or laboratory rat, then it is a price that we are prepared to pay. It is a delusion and a sham at this point to say we can achieve one without the other."

Although the Ban on animal testing in various countries have given rise to various companies that are not indulged in Animal - Testing, the Body Shop was one company that started off even before the ban with one view in mind - Cruelty Free products.

Many Researchers and Authors like Goldemberg and Robert (1992), believe that although a company's final product may not be tested on animals, but there is always a chance that down the line, some of the ingredients used were tested on animals by its suppliers or somebody else in the industry.


Medical Advances such as various vaccines, Insulin, treatment for kidney through dialysis, etc. Has been possible as a result of animal testing. At the same the use of various personal care products such has shampoos and cosmetics have been certified safe for human consumption as a result of constant development through Animal testing and research. During this journey, we have failed on many occasions to successfully justify animal testing when researches have gone wrong and caused harm and in certain cases death to Humans.

Although we understand that Animal Testing has resulted in numerous data and statistics that would help generate computer simulation models and prove as a bench mark for further research, we can never stop Animal Testing as whole as it is fueled by our hunger for innovation. There is always room for efficiency and least harm. This can be achieved by the 3Rs theory developed by British zoologists William Russel and Rex Burch in 1959.

The theory focuses on Replacement, Reduction and Refinement of animal testing and experimentations.

Essay Writing Service

Fully referenced, delivered on time, Essay Writing Service.

Pro con essay outline

Pro con essay outline

Mba solved question papers anna university Persuassive essay example Procrastination essay introduction Project assignment Project management thesis ideas Presentation for Presentation slide Presenting case studies Pre written essays for sale Promote your school essay Problems faced by teenagers today essay Present education system in india essay Pmr english essay questions Persuasive essays on child abuse Pro life thesis statement Poverty in india essay Persuasive essay call to action examples Postmedia editorial services Preservation of biodiversity essays Precision essay Professional college writing services Phd thesis by publication Powerpoint presentation slides Present articles Population increase in india essay Powerpoints presentations Powerpoint presentations design Online writing for kids Proposal for a dissertation Phd thesis in biotechnology Premarital sex term paper Proofreading and copyediting services Phd thesis structure social sciences Persuasive essay on pit bulls Phd application cover letter Promoting child development and learning essay Polar bear research paper Printable essay paper Phd thesis on renewable energy Plagiarized essay checker Project management paper ideas Parents are the best teacher essay Powerpoint presentation techniques Our population essay Privilege and property essays on the history of copyright Product design essay Powerpoint sales presentation Proofreading websites Propaganda essay ideas Othello act 3 scene 3 essay

Pro con essay outline - Political research paper topics

Political science senior thesis Persuasive essay pro death penalty Prepare my resume Proposal outline for research paper Phd thesis on inclusive education Persuasive speech on racism Police brutality term paper Picture essays Power pt presentation Pour ou contre la peine de mort dissertation

Pro con essay outline - Popular research papers

Popcorn project hypothesis

Ph papers where to buy

Pressure flow hypothesis animation

Pride and prejudice critical essay

Project management essay conclusion

Political science research paper format

Phd thesis presentation template

Process of writing a book

Outline research paper format

Online homework chat room

Planning for summer vacation essay

Phd dissertation computer science

Opening prayer for thesis defense

Process essay thesis

Plagiarism term papers

Post navigation

Debate: Animal testing - Debatepedia, Debate on animal experimentation and testing

Debate: Animal testing Background and context

Animal testing or animal research is the use of non-human animals in scientific experimentation. It is estimated that 50 to 100 million vertebrate animals worldwide — from zebrafish to non-human primates — are used annually. Although much larger numbers of invertebrates are used and the use of flies and worms as model organisms is very important, experiments on invertebrates are largely unregulated and not included in statistics. Most animals are euthanized after being used in an experiment. Sources of laboratory animals vary between countries and species; while most animals are purpose-bred, others may be caught in the wild or supplied by dealers who

them from auctions and pounds. The research is conducted inside universities, medical schools, pharmaceutical companies, farms, defense establishments, and commercial facilities that provide animal-testing services to industry. It includes pure research such as genetics, developmental biology, behavioural studies, as well as applied research such as biomedical research, xenotransplantation, drug testing and toxicology tests, including cosmetics testing. Animals are also used for education, breeding, and defense research. The topic is highly controversial. Supporters of the practice, such as the British Royal Society, argue that virtually every medical achievement in the 20th century relied on the use of animals in some way, with the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences arguing that even sophisticated computers are unable to model interactions between molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organisms, and the environment, making animal research necessary in some areas. The U.S. and British governments both support the advancement of medical and scientific goals using animal testing, provided that the testing minimizes animal use and suffering. Others, such as the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, question the necessity of it, these opponents make a range of arguments: that it is cruel, poor scientific practice, cannot reliably predict effects in humans, poorly regulated, that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that animals have an intrinsic right not to be used for experimentation.

  • Humans have dominion over animals with a right to exploit them Genesis 1:28 - "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." This means that humans have the sovereign right to subdue and control animals for man's own purposes.
  • Humans have always eaten/exploited animals; it has evolved into our DNA . Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "There is, too, the fact that we humans have been eating animals as long as we have lived on this earth. Humans may not need to eat meat in order to survive, yet doing so is part of our evolutionary heritage, reflected in the design of our teeth and the structure of our digestion. Eating meat helped make us what we are, in a social and biological sense. Under the pressure of the hunt, the human brain grew in size and complexity, and around the fire where the meat was cooked, human culture first flourished. Granting rights to animals may lift us up from the brutal world of predation, but it will entail the sacrifice of part of our identity--our own animality."
This fits into the notion of "dominion" in important ways. It relates "dominion" to how we have evolved in the animal kingdom: we have become dominant naturally. To deny our dominance is to deny our natural position in the animal kingdom and the nature of the animal kingdom itself. It is also to deny the vary instinct that led to civilization and our ability to reflect on these matters; the instinct to succeed (ie. dominate). We should embrace both our natural dominance and our instincts to remain dominant, and consider them God-given (or Nature-given). This means accepting the notion of our having "dominion" over other animals.
  • Humans have "dominion" over evolutionarily "domesticated" animals There are certain animals that have evolved with humans, through mutual self-interests in survival, to become "domesticated" by humans. Cats, dogs, pigs, and chickens are examples. Our "dominion" over these animals is certainly biological and evolutionary. Animal testing is certainly justified on these "domesticated" animals.
  • "Dominion" makes humans stewards; no right to harm/exploit animals Even if we apply the notion of "dominion", and if we deprive animals of rights, the principle of "dominion" should be applied in a way that requires humans to see themselves as "stewards" of animals. As outlined by Matthew Scully in Dominion. humans should apply the principle of mercy to animals, which requires that they inflict no pain or suffering on them. He writes, "We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but. because they stand unequal and powerless before us."[1] Part of the significance of this argument is that even if we conclude animals should not have rights, we can still conclude (via the principle of mercy) that animals should not be subjected to pain, suffering, and testing.
  • Evolutionary science debunks the idea of human dominion over animals . Humans have evolved from animals and from a common single cell organism. Humans did not have dominion then over other animals; in-fact, we didn't even exist. Therefore, how is it possible to claim that we now can have dominion? At a minimum, evolution forces us to recognize that humans do not have an innate-historical claim to "dominion".
    • Humans evolved from other animals; our history is not innately superior .
  • Animals are independent creatures that don't exist to serve humans Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "THE PHILOSOPHY OF ANIMAL RIGHTS The other animals humans eat, use in science, hunt, trap, and exploit in a variety of ways, have a life of their own that is of importance to them apart from their utility to us. 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[. ] By insisting upon and justifying the independent value and rights of other animals, it gives scientifically informed and morally impartial reasons for denying that these animals exist to serve us."
  • Humans and animals are of one family like brothers and sistersChief Seattle - "We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumes flowers are our sisters; the deer, the horse, the great eagle: these are our brothers. All things are connected like the blood which unites one's family."[2]
Rights: Is it wrong to believe that animals have rights?
  • Animals cannot possess rights because they have no moral judgement The ability to reason and to express a free will is essential to rights. This is because rights require that an individual be capable of responsibility.
  • Animals cannot make moral claims so cannot claim rights Carl Cohen. "Why animals have no rights. The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research" The New England Journal of Medicine 315, no. 14 (October 2,1986): 865-69 - "The differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of moral agents. 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."
  • That the retarded have rights does not justify animal rights This is frequent argument of animal rights activists; that animals deserve rights because they have at least as much capacity to reason as do some retarded humans, who retain rights. 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. They are. 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 imageDavid 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."
  • Granting rights to animals would damage human rights Offering animals rights impedes on many human rights. 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.
  • Animals deserve the same basic rights that humans enjoy Marymoose. "The case against animal testing". 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."
  • Humans are obligated to cause animals no pain or sufferingJeremy Bentham - "The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor, 'Can they talk?' but rather, 'Can they suffer?'"[3]
  • Humans have a choice and thus responsibility to do no harm to animals. 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 humansLeonardo 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."[4]
  • Animals should be treated as we would want to be treatedChristine Stevens - "The basis of all animal rights should be the Golden Rule: we should treat them as we would wish them to treat us, were any other species in our dominant position."[5]
  • Modern humans have lost touch with animals and our likeness A number of writers indicate that modern humans have become desensitized to animals, having lost daily contact with them in the wild. 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. "10 Reasons AGAINST Animal Rights and Their Replies". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "6. Animals don't respect our rights. Therefore, humans have no obligation to respect their rights either.
Reply: 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 psychologyJeremy 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. "The Case Against Animal Testing". 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. Or do we?
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."
  • Animals are like vulnerable minorities that can't vote to end abuses Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man."[6]
  • Animals denied rights for human-unlikeness are experimented on for human-likenessCharles R. Magel, Professor and Animal rights activist. - "Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."[7]

Michael Pollan. "An Animal's Place". The New York Times Magazine. November 10, 2002 - "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.' We might as well call sex--also now technically unnecessary--a mere 'recreational preference.' Whatever else it is, our meat eating is something very deep indeed." This applies to animal testing in important ways. 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.

  • From a utilitarian perspective morality should not be based on species differences
  • Human and animal differences do not justify speciism/discrimination Randy Fairchild. "The Case Against Animal Testing". 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 1960s. A central concept of Civil Rights is to treat different persons as well or better (e.g. affirmative action) than oneself - In short, to ascend to selflessness, cherishing diversity."
  • Animal life is equivalent in value to human life Mahatma Gandhi - "To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being. The more helpless the creature, the more that it is entitled to protection by man from the cruelty of man."
  • Animals are equal to humans in science as lifeforms on Earth Tom Regan. "The Philosophy of Animal Rights". Retrieved May 6th, 2008 - "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." Questions of line drawing to one side, it is obvious that the animals used in laboratories, raised for food, and hunted for pleasure or trapped for profit, for example, are our psychological kin. This is no fantasy, this is fact, proven by our best science."
  • Animals have emotions, personalities, and souls just like humansHenry David Thoreau - "I saw deep in the eyes of the animals the human soul look out upon me. 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."[8]
  • Humans can do wrong so can be morally inferior to animals Humans are uniquely capable of acting immorally. 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: both man and animal alike. Thus, the question about dominance and superiority does not pertain to this issue because it does not determine any ground.
  • Animal testing has significantly improved human welfare 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.
  • Animals are good research subjects because they are similar to humans Human beings share over 99.4% of their genes with chimpanzees and about 99% with mice. It is instructive to consider that humans also share approximately 90% of their genes with cows. 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. "Why do scientists use animals in research?". The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, 2008 - "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."
  • Animal environments can be better controlled for research than humans "Why do scientists use animals in research?". The American Physiological Society. Retrieved May 3rd, 2008 - "In addition, scientists can easily control the environment around the animal (diet, temperature, lighting, etc.), which would be difficult to do with people. 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."
  • Differences between humans and animals can be accounted for in tests Edythe London, UCLA researcher. "Why I use laboratory animals". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - "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."
  • Drug toxicity is rarely a result of any misleading animal testing There are many factors involved in a drug being reported as toxic that are often cited as a result of animal-testing, but which have to do with other factors, such as human error in use or typical blood-type responses to particular drugs. 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, 2004 - "Antibiotics, HIV drugs, insulin and cancer treatments rely on animal tests. Other testing methods aren't advanced enough".
  • Animal experiments have helped improve heart disease prevention/treatment
  • Animal experiments have helped develop disease vaccines "Animal Experiments". Updated August 17th, 2004 - "Animal testing has helped to develop vaccines against diseases like rabies, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and TB".
  • Animal testing is important in fighting HIV/AIDS
  • Animal testing is important to the fight against cancer
  • Animal experimentation is important to treatments of bacterial infections
  • Animal experiments helped advance organ transplant techniques
  • Addiction researchers know that animals have no prior drug use

  • Responsibly ending animal testing will not impede medical advancements. 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. "The Case Against Animal Testing". 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."
  • Medicines tested successfully on animals can prove toxic to humans Uncaged - "to subject animals to painful, distressing and lethal experiments when the results are not applicable to humans." Some drugs like thalidomide and clioquinol proved safe in animal testing but were devastating in human consumption. 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.
  • American Anti-Vivisection Society. "Animal Testing" - "We must remember, however, that animals are not 'little people,' and their bodies often respond differently than ours do. 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."
  • Animal testing often entails pain and stresses that skew results
  • Cosmetic testing on animals is pointless, given different skin types. 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.g. growing tissue or cell cultures from human cells in the laboratory.
  • The world has benefited hugely from medical research with animals "The use of animals in research". Royal Society. Jan 28th, 2002 - "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 testing is more important now to human welfare than ever before
  • Animal testing and suffering is justified if it reducing human suffering 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.
  • Animals are important to testing life-saving drugs before they are safe for humans Edythe London, UCLA researcher. "Why I use laboratory animals". Los Angeles Times. November 1, 2007 - "[animals] allow us to test possibly life-saving treatments before they are considered safe to test in humans." If animals were not available to use in testing drugs, it would be more difficult to determine the safety of a drug to humans, which would delay the release of potentially life-saving drugs. 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. animal research is justified because it has reducing human suffering.
  • Killing animals undermines the dignity life If we can kill and take life animal life for certain ends, don't we undermine the value and dignity of life generally?
  • 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). This is wrong, particularly because animals should enjoy many of the basic rights extended to humans, such as life and/or dignity. 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 moralsGeorge Bernard Shaw - "Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character."[10]
  • Animal rights promotes the true science of humans and animals as kin Animal testing and the subjugation of animals undermines a fundamental scientific reality; that humans and animals are kin. With humans and Chimpanzees sharing 99.4% of their genetic code, and humans and mice sharing 99% of their genetic code, it is important to recognize that humans are, on a scientific basis, the kin of animals. 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. This misunderstands the intentions of animal rights activists. They fully acknowledge that they science is important and even that animal testing can lead to major advancements in science. But, as is typically said, before science should ask if it can make certain advancements, it needs to ask if it should. Ethics has authority over all human endeavors, including science.
  • Philosophy of compassion for animals is better than testing benefitsGeorge Bernard Shaw - "Vivisection is a social evil because if it advances human knowledge, it does so at the expense of human character."[11]
  • Adopting the philosophy of animal rights is individual fulfilling
  • The benefits to human beings cannot outweigh the suffering of the animals. Bernard Rollin argues that any benefits to human beings cannot outweigh animal suffering.
  • Animal testing for non-life-saving human products is unjust "Animal Experiments". Updated August 17th, 2004 - "Animals are still used to test items like cleaning products, which benefit mankind less than medicines or surgery". Animal testing should only be conducted where it could potentially save human life. This is the only way in which the intentional harm and destruction of animal lives could be justified.
  • Humans to receive the sole benefits while tested animals lose entirely.
  • Testing impregnated animals and their offspring is immoral. Oregon Regional Primate Research Center are known to impregnate monkeys, expose the mothers and their unborn babies to nicotine, and then test and kill the born baby to discover the effects of tobacco. This is unethical.
  • Animal testing is contrary to principles of compassion and peace
  • Animal rights are connected with the broader human rights movement
  • Eating animal flesh is wrong; so too is animal testing
  • Animal testing and farming is comparable to Nazi genocideIngrid Newkirk (PETA) - "Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses."[12]
  • Alternatives are being used; animal testing is a last resort Alternatives are being used in place of animal testing when it is possible. Cell-based and computer studies, for instance, frequently occur before any animal testing is done, and this often proves adequate. In general, where alternatives exist and are practical, they are being used.
  • Animal testing appropriate when there are no alternativesCoalition for Medical Progress, a UK-based pro-animal testing group. "The People’s Petition". on 20 April 2006. - "2.) I believe that medical research using animals, carried out to the highest standards of care and welfare, and where there is no alternative available, should continue in the UK."
  • Alternatives cannot replace animal testing for certain objectives
    • Cells and other surrogates cannot be used in the case of behavioral experiments (psychiatry etc.) - Cells don't have tissue and organs. They are not living systems. It is hence impossible to get results of interaction between these systems.
    • There is no alternative to animals in testing immunities
  • There are adequate alternatives to animal experimentation There are plenty of alternatives to animal experimentation for achieving the desired end of aiding humans and fighting human suffering. These use of these alternatives should be more aggressively pursued, and a greater cost should be associated with animal experimentation relatively speaking. Alternative techniques include:
    • Testing human cell cultures is an alternative to animal testing
    • Using computer models
    • Studying human volunteers
    • Using epidemiological studies
  • Alternatives are not being used when it is not practical, which is wrong. The main reason why many alternatives to animal testing are not being used is that they are impractical or too costly; it is not because alternatives do not exist. The problem with this is that it makes it appear as though it is only valuable to save animal lives when it is practical. This places the dignity of animal life far below its actual value.
  • Instances of mistreatment in animal testing are very rare
  • Legislation is already protecting animals from cruel treatment This rules ensure that animal research is carried out in an ethical manner.
  • Animal suffering in experiments can be minimized. Although in principle it is more important to reduce human suffering than 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.
  • Many experimental animals are killed before they have a chance to suffer. If animal testing were to be outlawed it would be impossible to attain the significant knowledge that is necessary to eliminate the suffering and premature deaths of humans.
  • Tested animals are treated humanely. Animal testers are often instructed to treat their animals like their own pets.
  • Animals are usually only used for testing for specific studies.
  • Allegations of animal abuse are reviewed by pier board.
  • Testers have an incentive to take care of animals for experiments. The abuse or neglect of animal test subjects does the researcher no good, as any results from an animal who has been kept in less-than-ideal conditions may well contaminate or even negate information obtained through an experiment.
  • Reform and regulation is not enough; animal testing must be banned
  • The current scale of animal experimentation is unacceptable
  • Strict controls have not prevented researchers from abusing animals In practice, as everyone knows, animals are not routinely treated well by animal experimenters. Apart from the fact that millions of animals die each year in experiments, others are often not adequately anaesthetised and are abused by handlers and experimenters. It is idealistic to suppose that this will ever stop as long as society endorses vivisection.
  • Animals endure tremendous stress from being locked up.
  • Argument: Genetically modified animals often contract genetic diseases
  • The human benefits of animal experimentation are not proven.
  • The number of animals used in experiments should be reduced by.
    • Improving experimental techniques
    • Improving techniques of data analysis
    • Sharing information with other researchers
  • Animal testing is frequently repetitive and wasteful.
  • Animal trafficking of animals can be better regulated. While it may be true that animal testing has created an international demand for animals that can be used in laboratories, and that this has led to some illicit trading, there are many measures that can be taken to stop such illicit trade. The fact that this trade exists is not a case against animal testing in general, but simply against its execution.
  • Animal testing creates a high demand for animals and depletes populations Animals used by laboratories for testing purposes are largely supplied by dealers who specialize in the trade. These include breeders who supply purpose-bred animals; businesses that trade in wild animals; and dealers who supply animals sourced from pounds, auctions, and newspaper ads. Animal shelters may also supply the laboratories directly. Some animal dealers are reported to engage in kidnapping pets from residences or illegally trapping strays, a practice dubbed as bunching. In any case, the demand for animals from all of these sources is increased by the practice of animal testing. An investigation in 2007 highlighted the primate trade from Malayasia and Spain. In February 2008, the High Commission of Malayasia confirmed to the BUAV that a ban on the primate trade would be reinstated following the BUAV investigation.[14]
  • Wikipedia: Laboratory Animal Sources
Cosmetics: Is the use of animals in cosmetic testing appropriate?
  • The Food and Drug Administration approves of animal testing in the case of cosmetics Animal Testing, CFSAN/Office of Cosmetics and Colors, US Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,Revised May 3, 1999, June 9, 2005 and April 5, 2006 "The FD&C Act does not specifically require the use of animals in testing cosmetics for safety, nor does the Act subject cosmetics to FDA premarket approval. However, the agency has consistently advised cosmetic manufacturers to employ whatever testing is appropriate and effective for substantiating the safety of their products. It remains the responsibility of the manufacturer to substantiate the safety of both ingredients and finished cosmetic products prior to marketing.Animal testing by manufacturers seeking to market new products may be used to establish product safety."
  • Cosmetics testing on animals is not required by govtsIn Defense of Animals. - "These [cosmetic] companies claim they test on animals to establish the safety of their products and ingredients for consumers. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require animal testing for cosmetics, and alternative testing methods are widely available and lead to more reliable results."
  • Cosmetic testing on animal skin is irrelevant to human skin.
  • Cosmetic testing on eyes is faulty; caustic chemicals can be determined by chemistry. Humans can easily determine that a chemical is bad for the eyes simply by studying the pure chemistry involved, rather than putting an animal through intense pain and discomfort.
  • God commanded man to worship Him and His presence in humans over animals. Romans 1:25 (Contemporary English Version): "They gave up the truth about God for a lie, and they worshiped God's creation instead of God."
  • Humans are only creatures with immortal souls.
  • Humans have dominion over animals There are certain animals that have evolved with humans, through mutual self-interests in survival, to become "domesticated" by humans. Cats, dogs, pigs, and chickens are examples. Our "dominion" over these animals is certainly biological and evolutionary. Animal testing is certainly justified on these "domesticated" animals.
  • Legitimate religions should uphold animal welfareAbraham Lincoln - "I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it."[15]
  • Bible says harming animals is equivalent to harming humans
  • Many religions teach that both humans and animals have immortal souls.
  • If animals do not immortal souls, their time on earth should be especially protected.
  • The Bible teaches responsible stewardship not tyrannical dominion over animals.
  • God made animals free and does not want them imprisoned by menJacques Deval, Afin de vivre bel et bien - "God loved the birds and invented trees. Man loved the birds and invented cages."[16]
  • Animals would depict humans as the devil if they couldWilliam Ralph Inge, Outspoken Essays, 1922 - "We have enslaved the rest of the animal creation, and have treated our distant cousins in fur and feathers so badly that beyond doubt, if they were able to formulate a religion, they would depict the Devil in human form."[17]
  • Man must be merciful to animals to receive mercy from GodPierre Troubetzkoy - "Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him?"[18]
  • Men are protective of themselves, but not God's workJoseph Wood Krutch - "When a man wantonly destroys one of the works of man we call him a vandal. When he destroys one of the works of god we call him a sportsman."[19]
  • Polls suggesting a degree of public support A 2005 UK MORI poll suggested that 75 per cent of Britons support animal research for medical purposes.[20]
  • British Prime Minister Tony Blair supports animal testing and signed a petition in support of it while he was prime minister. He said it was "a sign of just how important I believe it is that as many people as possible stand up against the tiny group of extremists threatening medical research and advances in [the UK]."
  • Polls show massive public support for banning animal testing for specific household products
  • Animal rights enjoy significant support even among conservatives "Exploring 'Dominion'. Matthew Scully on animals. A Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez". National Review Online. December 3, 2002 - "Lopez: What, in your experience, do the 'greens' make of you — a conservative, Republican-administration vet, sticking his neck out on animal rights?
Scully: Let me be the first on NRO to break the story that there are actually other Republicans concerned about cruelty to animals. Outgoing Senator Bob Smith was a true champion of compassion for animals, but others remain such as Senator Wayne Allard and Representative Chris Smith. The same is true in the U.K. where many Tories have favored the abolition of veal farming, battery cages, fur farming, fox hunting, and hare coursing among other cruel practices and vicious recreations. As for environmentalists, I think they generally approve of the book, and I am glad that I've come to know some of them, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He is a brave foe of factory farmers, for both environmental and animal-welfare reasons. I count myself his ally, as do the thousands of farmers still worthy of that name."
  • Animal rights are gaining substantial ground in European laws
  • The animal rights movement is showing great progress in America