Non-valid arguments for using animals for experimentation

False arguments for animal testing refuted
Animal experimentation is necessary.
For some medicine it is made obligatory that they are tested on animals. "Obligatory" is different from "necessary". A lot of animal experimentation is done for commercial reasons. More types of medicine and cosmetics are being produced than is necessary.
You can't do research for cancer or aids without using animals.
The best results are made with human research. That is more expensive, though.
There are not enough alternatives.
Only 1% of the budget is used to find alternatives. When you don't look, you will find nothing. Nevertheless there are many effective alternatives. For alternatives see for example InterNICHE.
Animal experimentation is aimed at human happiness and human health.
The first and most important aim of pharmaceutical industry is profit.
When you don't sacrifice animals, you sacrifice human lives.
In view of the fact of the successful results of human experimentations and others without animals it is rather harmful not to switch to experimentation without animals.
If you get ill yourself, you will change your mind.
It is better to look for alternatives when there is enough time to live.
Isn't immoral to use humans for experimentation?
Human beings cooperate voluntary and communicate better. Researchers are more motivated to set up save and effective experiments.

See also: Animal testing: mice and rats die unnecessarily in laboratories.
Which fallacy is this? Play the game

Test yourself: which fallacy is this?

Ten statements about animals that you hear all the time. Can you spot the fallacy? After each answer you read why it does not hold.

Play the game →

This article is part of a series on fallacies and demagogy

Some arguments used in debate on the topics in the title simply are invalid. That goes for pro and contra.

We selected a few of the most rigid arguments from different situations and placed an appropriate counterargument.

Because a more clear and honest way of reasoning helps improve the circumstances animals live in. Apart from the specific issues there are the types of arguments in general.

Fallacies are deliberately or accidentally used in a debate.

So be aware of the principles and the integrity of an opponent.

How do you respond to fallacies? Six tips

Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Start by assuming a misunderstanding, not deliberate deception. Even someone who keeps using fallacies may simply be badly informed or emotionally involved.

  • Mind the context. In a friendly conversation a gentle approach works better than in a formal debate. Adapt to your relationship with the other person and to the aim of the conversation.
  • Stay calm. Fallacies are often meant to stir up emotions. Keep your own emotions in check.
  • Identify the fallacy. Try to understand where the reasoning goes wrong. Do this for yourself, not to catch the other person out.
  • Answer the fallacy. Ask clarifying questions or explain why the argument does not convince you. Avoid technical terms.
  • Stay on topic. Bring the conversation back to what it is about and keep it on a rational level.
  • Be prepared. If you know you will talk to someone who often uses fallacies, gather some facts and arguments beforehand.

See also how to respond to animal-unfriendly behaviour of others.

Non-valid arguments (deceptive arguments) for different groups