Arguments Against Animal Testing

In discussions of animal testing, one issue that has been left unresolved is the debate of whether or not animals have feelings. While certain scientists may argue that they do not, many other people would argue that animals do have feelings. Along with this question comes another debate of the morality of animal testing. Some ague that there is nothing wrong with animal testing and that it provides major benefits to human beings. On the other hand, some argue that nonhuman species deserve to have the same rights that humans have, therefore animal testing is morally wrong. Still many hold beliefs that fall either in the middle of these two opposing views or completely outside of them. In the article “Animal Research Saves Human Lives,” Heloisa Sabin uses the polio vaccine as an example of how animal testing is beneficiary to humans. She uses the suffering that patients faced as a strong example of why animal testing is necessary. In the article “Why We Don’t Need Animal Experimentation,” Peggy Carlson responds to Sabin’s claim by explaining how unbeneficial animal testing

One example he gives is an experiment on a cat where they inject chemicals into its brain. He says, “The injection into the brain of a large dose of Tubocuraine caused the cat to jump . . . it started calling more and more noisily whilst moving about restlessly and jerkily” (Singer 140). Singer focuses primarily on the suffering of animals. He argues that since they are able to feel suffering, they should have the same rights that humans do. He uses the cruel experiments done on animals as backup to support his argument. I think that for animal testing to be morally right, it cannot be cruel and many of the current experiments being done are cruel. All animal testing should be humane because even though we are using the animals to test on, we should still respect them and the fact that they are