Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验文档格式.docx

1、Shouldwebananimaltesting是否应该禁止动物实验#Should-we-ban-animal-testing-是否应该禁止动物实验#THIS HOUSE WOULD BAN ANIMAL TESTING#Animals have a right not to be harmed.#POINT:#The differences between us and other vertebrates are a matter of degree rather than kind.#Not only do they closely resemble us anatomically and

2、 physiologically, but so too do they behave in ways which seem to convey meaning. They recoil from pain, appear to express fear of a tormentor, and appear to take pleasure in activities;# a point clear to anyone who has observed the behaviour of a pet dog on hearing the word“walk”. Our reasons for b

3、elieving that our fellow humans are capable of experiencing feelings like ourselves can surely only be that they resemble us both in appearance and behaviour （we cannot read their minds）. Thus any animal sharing our anatomical, physiological, and behavioural characteristics is surely likely to have

4、feelings like us. If we accept as true for sake of argument, that all humans have a right not to be harmed, #it is unlikely that humanity would stop killing animals either for food, to prevent overpopulation or by accident all of which would have to be the case if animals feeling of pleasure and pai

5、n and resulting rights had to be taken into account.#Animal research necessitates significant harm to the animals involved.#POINT:#Animal research, by its very nature necessitates harm to the animals. Even if they are not made to suffer as part of the experiment, the vast majority of animals used, m

6、ust be killed at the conclusion of the experiment. With 115 million animals being used in the status quo this is no small issue. Even if we were to vastly reduce animal experimentation, releasing domesticated animals into the wild, would be a death sentence, and it hardly seems realistic to think th

7、at many behaviourally abnormal animals, often mice or rats, might be readily moveable into the pet trade.It is prima fasciae obvious, that it is not in the interest of the animals involved to be killed, or harmed to such an extent that such killing might seem merciful. Even if the opposition counter

8、argument, that animals lack the capacity to truly suffer, is believed, research should none the less be banned in order to prevent the death of millions of animals.#COUNTERPOINT:#Firstly, due to our larger and more sophisticated brains, one would expect the average human to have a great many more in

9、terests than any animal, for those interests to be more complex and interconnected, and for there to be a greater capacity for reflection and comprehension of the satisfaction gleaned from the realisation of such interests. Thus, we can ascribe greater value to the life of a human than an animal, an

10、d thus conclude there to be less harm in painlessly killing an animal than a human. Secondly, to the extent that research on animals is of benefit to humans, it is thus permissible to conduct experiments requiring euthanasia of the animal subjects.#Research can be done effectively without experiment

11、ing on living creature.#POINT:#As experimenting on animals is immoral we should stop using animals for experiments. But apart from it being morally wrong practically we will never know how much we will be able to advance without animal experimentation if we never stop experimenting on animals. Anima

12、l research has been the historical gold standard, and in the case of some chemical screening tests, was for many years, by many western states, required by law before a compound could be released on sale. Science and technology has moved faster than research protocols however, and so there is no lon

13、ger a need for animals to be experimented on. We now know the chemical properties of most substances, and powerful computers allow us to predict the outcome of chemical interactions. Experimenting on live tissue culture also allows us to gain insight as to how living cells react when exposed to diff

14、erent substances, with no animals required. Even human skin leftover from operations provides an effective medium for experimentation, and being human, provides a more reliable guide to the likely impact on a human subject. The previous necessity of the use of animals is no longer a good excuse for

15、continued use of animals for research. We would still retain all the benefits that previous animal research has brought us but should not engage in any more. Thus modern research has no excuse for using animals.#COUNTERPOINT:#Most developed countries, including the United States and the member-state

16、s of the European Union, have regulations and laws which require the research methods that do not involve animal models should be used wherever they would produce equally accurate results. In other words, scientists are barred from using animals in research where non-animal methods would be just as effective.#Further, research animals are extremely expensive to breed, house and care for. Developed countries have very strict laws governing the welfare of animals used in research;# obtaini