Animal testing is used to protect us humans from a wide range of chemicals and products, including drugs, vaccines, cosmetics, household cleaners, pesticides, foods, and packing materials. The safety testing of chemicals and consumer products probably accounts for only about 10% to 20% of the use of animals in laboratories, or approximately two to four million animals in the United States, yet this relatively small amount has caused quite a bit of controversy. It raises issues such as the ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals, the decency of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product, the applicability of animal data to humans, and the possibility of sparing millions of animals by developing alternatives to a handful of widely used procedures. I personally am against animal testing due to highly questionable ethics and practicality issues. You may or may not agree with me, but by the end of this paper I hope you at least understand my logic.
             In our human existence, it is well understood that there exists a basic principle that the only limit to a person's rights should be the where the rights of another are infringed upon - most critically, when a person's life, health or freedom is at risk. From our own experiences, we know that these things are priceless to us; we are familiar with the fear that arises from any of them being threatened. Slavery, murder, and rape are measured as among the nastiest crimes conceivable; execution and life imprisonment are the two harshest sentences that U.S. courts have the power to hand down. We prohibit people from hurting, killing, or enslaving other humans because we know that the inborn urge we have to retain our health and freedom exists not just in ourselves, but in all humans; when these urges are violated, we all suffer. Therefore, we strive to build a society in which individuals are not subjected to these crimes. However, when it comes t...