Vivisection is both immoral and unjustifiable – Discus
             I am strongly against vivisection. In this modern world there is no place for this barbaric practice that is 'animal testing'. This is a highly sensitive issue on which many members of the public are un-decided. Animal testing sounds so innocent and may appear to be necessary, however the reality is quite different.
             Supporters of vivisection argue that animals are anaesthetised during procedures. Polly Toynbee from 'The Guardian' states that "animals in experiments are anaesthetised" whereas the 'Animal Aid' leaflet informs us that "two thirds will receive no anaesthetic during procedures". The 'Guardian' article offers little or no evidence to substantiate its claim, and offers us no statistics, un-like the 'Animal Aid' source. It is based on opinion not on fact. The 'Animal Aid' leaflet gives us numerical evidence (two thirds), and also offers pictures, to add weight and back up its argument.
             The next claim is again from Polly Toynbee and 'The Guardian'. The journalist makes her point that vivisection is morally justifiable by saying "Sorry, I think a dying people are more important than dumb animals". This is a poor argument as it is purely based on opinion with no source of evidence to back up her argument. The 'cats backache' article quotes "many (cats) are dying this way in excruciating pain". This is well backed up by a Mr Hamilton stating, "Most of these tests are unnecessary". This also shows us that the tests are carried out with little, if any success. This also shows us that these tests are not morally justifiable, and are barbaric and cruel. A Mr Bill Dyer quotes "the results have never been published". This shows that the results must have been of no use.
             The third argument is if there...