General

Animal testing is often the most humane method of all the other options. If someone that is strongly against animal testing came down with a terrible eye infection and needed antibiotic eye drops what would they do? Their options are either use animal tested products, use human tested eye products, or use non-tested eye products. If they choose human tested then they could be seen as hypocrites, if they choose the non-tested eye product they could suffer permanent eye blindness. Unless they can come up with an alternative I suspect they would choose the animal tested product for their own benefit.

Why is it justifiable? You can propose a scenario where assuming that the researchers are certain that side effects are only mild and there is no animal cruelty. Your scenario could be to ask what gives a test animal (such as a rabbit) a higher quality of life, being in the wild or in a test lab. In the wild the rabbit would be in constant fear of predators, likely to grow hungry, likely to contract parasites, etc. Meanwhile, in the lab the rabbits are taken care of, fed, kept safe, at the cost of being treated with chemicals (that are intended to not to be harmful to animals).

avoiding animal testing comes at the cost of the majority of the human population. taking it away probably would not have repercussions in the short run, but in the long run, you will need animal testing to test drugs against new diseases. if you take stop animal testing, you will compromise a large section of the human population, so the cost of animal testing is the longevity of humanity. it's not an easy choice, and you can always try to treat animals humanely, but the fact is that no other way has the same amount of efficiency to maintain the status quo of humans. if you want to test on humans, you run into problems of humane treatment and the size of the testing pool. some people will want to pull criminals, but our current justice systems ensure that basic human rights are maintained so there's no way you could force treatment on someone. death row pools aren't big enough, and the same issue applies. if you accept volunteers, you take away random sampling, and you'll run into so many legal issues to the point that nothing will be achieved.

Even though this test will not help the human mess
Continue it anyway, the car payments due today!

[quote=TheGemChild]My professor said that topic is hard to write about because after you mention "cuteness" and how every animal has a sense of cnsciousness you are out of things to talk about. So he assigned me this one because it requires research and if you write for something that you are against then you can speak for the opposition which would be yourself.[/quote]
It's a good habit to learn how to play devil's advocate with yourself.

Anyway, I can see a whole ton of legal problems with human testing. Want to test on convicted criminals? Then you run into the same problems as death sentences (namely, what if you test on someone who actually turns out to be innocent). Want to test on volunteers/paid subjects? They could sue you if an unexpected side effect happens. These aren't unsolvable problems, but it would take a whole lot of time and energy to solve them, and that means it ultimately takes longer to test medicines and have a safe version for commercial use. Would you rather be testing on humans, or would you rather have safe medicines sooner?

[quote=TheGemChild]I have a Persuasive essay in which my topic is how animal testing IS justifiable. I need reasons as to why its justifiable.
I already have the reason of how its cheaper to test on animals than human organs and how we need to test on animals that resemble the anatomy of a human rather than just a culture of bacteria.

For the record, i dont really support animal testing so im kinda having trouble with this topic[/quote]

I wrote an essay on this too.
I complete HATE animal testing i 100% do not approve of it, but i am not going to protest because it is not a big problem to me.
But what i said is
We can't simply test on humans due to the human nature, no matter how much bad you have done and how many crimes you have committed, no one in the right mind will test on another human. We see each other as the same kind of species no matter how messed up, we are the same. And if we test on humans, we would not be able to have the mental capacity to understand the other human mind, due to the fact we don't understand fully how our minds function.
And blah blah blah, this was a hard topic to understand.
And also mention how we can reproduce animals faster than humans can get a matured human being to test on

The pros of animal testing far outweigh the cons. There's no possible way you can bring a new drug to market without animal testing to ensure it's safe and doesn't have profound adverse side effects. If you've got a prototypic drug that looks like it's going to be effective, you need a way of proving it's effective in vivo, cause there are so many extra variables that come into play with a full organism compared to an isolated protein or even tissue. Honestly, unless you want the pharmaceutical industry to grind to a halt (no new cancer drugs, or potential to cure HIV, etc.), then animal testing is the ONLY way to do it.

Depends on the animal I would think.
Maybe you can find some magical facts where certain lab animals do not feel as much pain as humans.
Maybe argue that since animal death is short and inevitable, compared to humans, you are just acting as God!
I am not smerrts, but I'm creative!

[quote=yiffyfurry]I personally don't have a problem with animal testing, i mean
-animals have shorter lives than humans, would it be better to have a messed up animal for 5 years or a messed up human for 50?
-animals can reproduce much faster
-its cheaper
-good luck finding willing humans[/quote]

Those are actually some good points.

I personally don't have a problem with animal testing, i mean
-animals have shorter lives than humans, would it be better to have a messed up animal for 5 years or a messed up human for 50?
-animals can reproduce much faster
-its cheaper
-good luck finding willing humans

We should test on Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

The only way to test things fast with reproducible results is with subjects that are similar to human bodies; animals that have shorter gestation periods and litters produce more test subjects; testing potentially fatal products and techniques on few willing humans produces a small amount of results; age groups, willing human test subjects, and compensation affect how small a test will be and how expensive;

Because, afaik, its the only truly practical and efficient way to test new drugs and treatments before risking human lives. They can find ways to be more humane about it I guess but I don't believe we have the technology to do virtual simulations so perfect that would completely remove the need for live subjects.

[quote=SirKibbleX2]Can't you switch and say it's not justifiable and why? Easier for you that way.[/quote]

My professor said that topic is hard to write about because after you mention "cuteness" and how every animal has a sense of cnsciousness you are out of things to talk about. So he assigned me this one because it requires research and if you write for something that you are against then you can speak for the opposition which would be yourself.