Animal RightsThe side that I take is that I am for animal rights. There are many reasons why I ampro-animal testing. Whoever thinks that this is wrong, well hopefully today I can change your mind about this. The question is would you want them to test human beings instead of mice and rats and that sort of little kind of rodents? If they do make a mistake and test humans and for some reason the substance they are testing is not right then they would be killing a human being which is illegal. Also by testing animals is the cheapest way of doing testing. If they tested humans the results may not always be accurate. Scientists found out thatusing mice is one of the very closest they can get to a human being. Fred Ohehme, a doctor, says we re cheating we re cheating when we decide not to test a substance on an animal becauseof fear of a negative reaction and instead go to a less desirable model like a cell culture He issaying why not test substances on animals and be accurate instead of going lower then that anddot get accurate results. Why would u rather them test humans then animals? Humans have moreaccomplishments to achieve on earth then do animals have. I mean, if they have a substance and they test it on a animal and the substance wasn t good, wouldn t u be glad that it wasn t you theywere testing and kill you. Since humans and pigs have the similar enzyme system, why shouldn t they substanceson pigs. Dr. Oehme says that they can tell how much dosage to give a pig then they know howmuch to a give a human without killing them. Many scientists might actually hate doing thesekind of tests but then again they think it is better testing in animals then on human beings andplus they have no other choice. Lets take you for instance. They picked you out of everyone because you are healthy andthey think nothing can go wrong with the testing the substance, but something goes wrong. Nowthe substance kills you, which it could ve killed a little mouse or rodents, which probably mostof you are scared of anyways. Yes, humans do have a say in there actions and animals don t butthat shouldn t say that we shouldn t test animals if it could help us with figuring out medicationsor anything. You also have to think of consequences that can happen, that if they test a humanand it works fine and they put it out in the market and it damages other people. Another scientists named Thomas Hamm says we can t protect the environment, or thepeople in general without doing some testing on animals so they are saying that if people aresick or in need of help they have to test on animals before they put it out to the public. Even avice president of a lab insists on testing animals. Lawrence Fisher says we ve got to find out whether the chemical can damage the wholeanimal without taken the step, how would know if it is safe to use on humans without testing itfirst on animals ? Congress passed the health research act, which basically said that in order to do th eprocess you need a veterinarian and a member of the public to be there. So if congress passed that law, then you know there should no doubt to testing animals. We are doing it for a reasonnot just to hurt the animals. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy which says all these things are alike and obviously they should not test the boy but test the animals instead.

Scientist Dr. Chou, left in their mind that there is no doubt but to test animals. When you were a little baby you got many shots such as the polio vaccine, measles,mumps and other ones to. How do you think they perfected that without doing damage tohumans? It was because they tested it on animals before they used it on you to make sure itwould work and not damage your body. Even surgery you go under or medications are tested onanimals. They also test animals in schools and lab practices. They do have laws that if you useanimals in your lab that they have to be approved before you experiment with it. By testinganimals with substances they are even trying to find a cure for AIDS, which I am sure all of youwould be happy if they did find it. Activists say it is cruel to use animals for education and research, but your life does depend on it I am sure all of you like to eat hamburgers and meats, so why isn t that wrong? They arekilling them for the meat? Polls show that 70 percent of the adults agree that it is OK to test animals. Using animals in schools just helps the kids understand them better when kids dissect animals (since animals have basically the same organs humans do) it shows them how there ownbody works? What is wrong with kids finding out how there body functions. Think about it, they are going to kill them anyways so you can eat the meat, so why not test them to save your life. If they don t use animals in testing then the animals would be in the pound waiting to bekilled. So as I have been saying, why not test them for human purposes. Frankie Tull says some of the tests might not be pretty, but either is watching a human die from cancer and that is what we are talking about. The point is that to test animals. This is to see how the body reacts to the new drug ornew surgical procedure. If you want a solution for AIDS and other diseases that cant be cured as of right now then why should we be able to test animals. Many people are dying of AIDS, so why shouldn t we save lives of them if we can by testing animals. "Why We Need Animal Testing" Garbage. April/May 1993 : APT in Social Issues Resource Series Consumerism Volume Number 4 Gloucester, Ma. Bill Green. Article 29 "Whats Wrong with Animal Rights American School Board Journal: Jan, 1992 APT in Social Resource Series Consumerism Volume Number 4 Adrian. R. Morrison. Aritcle 1 Bannning Animal Testing May Be Hazardous To Your Heatlth Priorties. Spring 1989 SIRS in Social Resource Consumerism. Staurt M. Lane Article 44