- Anything Else -

It's been put forth by others.

In Reply to: This is not a good argument posted by Michael on October 13, 1999 at 20:22:15:

Perhaps it was simply stated, but it seems that what she was saying was essentially the following:

1) Consider any nonhuman animal "A" used for testing.

2) If "A" is biologically similar enough to human beings then there can be no grounds for human superiority to "A" on the basis of intelligence, strength, proliferation, adaptability, etc.

3) If "A" is physiologically dissimilar enough from a human to warrant our testing on him/her, the information we gain from the expirement on "A" will be as equally disssimilar in relevance to our own species.

So we should conclude then that testing on animals simply has no reasonable justification. To see a debate about where this leads us next, you might look at the Criminal Testing post below on the forum.

I kind of like this argument. Not very complicated but it seems to make basic sense.

Follow Ups:

• it is a good arguament Allison US of A November 15 1999 (0)