Personal tools

Argument: Animal testing is just if it reduces human suffering

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 16:05, 29 May 2010 (edit)
Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(Parent debate)
← Previous diff
Current revision (19:28, 25 June 2010) (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(Argument: Animal testing and suffering is justified if it reduces human suffering moved to Argument: Animal testing is just if it reduces human suffering)

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Libbie Reed. "The Case Against Animal Testing". Helium - "The notion of animals being subjected to various forms of suffering is, to say the very least, sickening. There is no way to allay the repugnance of tests carried out in the name of mankind. But, is there a mother alive who wouldn't thank God for an animal tested drug that could save the life of her child? Would any one of us be prepared to undergo surgery without anesthetic? How many of us use Ventolin for asthma, Insulin for diabetes or Antihistamine for hay fever?

We all use shampoos, deodorant, makeup, and sun creams and expect them to be safe. We all want, maybe even expect, a cure for cancer and HIV some day. And we all marvel at the little girl or boy who will live, thanks to an organ transplant.

Would any of us really have it any other way. Faced with a life threatening situation, would you want someone to save the dog, rabbit, mouse ...... or you?"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits