Relevant Argument Thesis On Animal Testing

Relevant thesis.
Animal testing is a hot question of debate, because of the bioethics behind it. There are two main sides of the issue to this topic that many people fall into one of the camps of. The first is that of antivivisectionist who believe that any living animal should not be tested on for research purposes. Antivivisectionist would not only note that the pain inflicted upon animals is unneeded for current advances in medicine. While those in vitro models are not perfected yet, they provide according to those of this view, a better alternative than harming animals. Another route that one would make is that it is a slippery slope down to increased testing on humans. How having someone be perfectly alright causing pain to animals would
As hinted at above, I believe that the suffering of animals is the key point of contention currently in animal testing. Animal suffering is one of the big challenges that antivivisection groups make towards animal testing. Because I believe that animal testing should continue until alternative methods provide greater correlation to internal human body conditions. Eliminating animal testing now would be detrimental for clinical and biomedical research. Nowhere in either groups claims, are there mention to a distinctions about the animals that are used. This aspect is the key part of my thesis, the separation of two different types of animals which I find to be given more necessary for an argument for animal testing to have. Animals that can suffer, and animals that cannot suffer, are two very different groups. With that in mind there is a great deal of importance to look into what species can suffer. Suffering is explained in the Merriam-Webster’s Learners Dictionary as the feeling of “pain that is caused by injury, illness, loss, etc. : physical, mental, or emotional pain”3, but in the sense of animal testing, I found the definition of extreme suffering being the kind of suffering that “exclude[s] suffering likely to occur to an animal in a nonexperimental situation”4 to be more suited for my interpretation of the word. Because of both the relation to animal testing, but also in the matter of the case of suffering beyond what the animal normally suffers with. I am not attempting to make a claim that all animal suffering should be eliminated therefore, because it would be irrational to think that the suffering of wild animals who are hunted or who die because lack of food in the dessert should be prevented somehow. Suffering is natural in some senses; it is only that type of suffering that is not common that I am seeking to be removed from animal