Animal Testing Not Only Saves Human Lives, But Other Animal Lives As Well

I’m an animal rights activist. I’m an advocate for nonhuman personhood rights, but I’m also not necessarily anti-animal testing for scientific and medical research. Some may say that I’m a hypocrite for adhering to this, but then I don’t see any other way around it without truly becoming a hypocrite – a pseudo-“animal rights activist.”

As noted by the California Veterinary Medical Association:

“Without animal research, millions of dogs, cats, birds, and farm animals would be dead from more than 200 diseases, including anthrax, distemper, rabies, feline leukemia, and canine parvo virus, according to Americans for Medical Progress (AMP), a nonprofit group that supports the responsible and humane use of animals in biomedical research. Today, those diseases are largely preventable, thanks to vaccines and treatments developed in animal research.”

Knowing this very important fact – that animal testing for scientific and medical research has resulted in not only our own species’ medical improvement, but also the medical improvement of millions of other animals as well – how then can any animal rights activist seriously say they’re unconditionally opposed to animal testing? To adhere to such a position is about as close to adhering to pseudo-science as one can get.

Understand, I’m not saying that being opposed to animal testing research in general is “pseudo-scientific.” Certainly there are many medical tests which we no longer necessitate the use of animals, especially in our technological era. But I am saying that it’s not a closed and done deal regarding the question of animal testing via medical research.

I’m mainly opposed to unconditional opposition to animal testing as a whole, without really laying down a clear and concise overview of which medical research still necessitates animal testing and which does not. It’s simplistic and, yes, pseudo-scientific. Knowing that the lives of our nonhuman family are important – especially those who are consciously aware of their being alive – I also understand the importance animal testing played in ensuring that millions of animals’ lives were not taken due to diseases that were either cured or alleviated due to animal testing.


One Comment Add yours

  1. G.C says:

    . You can be pro and con on controversial issues such as this one without being considered hypocritical. As a personal example, I support animal testing for medical research only in order to find cures and prevent many diseases from affecting the quality of life of humans as well as animals. These animal lives are not going to waste because the means of their use are for a right cause. On the other hand, I do oppose the use of animals for cosmetic and household chemical testing because there are many alternatives to test out these products without using animals to test for allergic reactions. Many cosmetic companies like Origin and Burt and Bee do not test their products on animals, nor do they use animal ingredients in their products. Also companies like, Eos and Green Planet do not test their products on animals and their ingredients are biodegradable and environmentally friendly. Bottom line; there are effective alternatives to create safe and effective cosmetic and household products that do not involve testing them on animals.

Share Your Thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s