Ethics Debate Rebuttal 2
Ethics Debate Rebuttal 2
You will be provided two ethical debate topics please rebuttal each debate topic, please provide one reference to each rebuttal.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE !!
The argument in support of animal experimentation has numerous shortcomings which should be generally considered. I believe that animal experimentation is wrong because of several reasons, including the deliberate sickening of animals with diseases and toxic chemicals, and the condition in which experimentation animals live cannot justify the scientific evidence and research that is obtained from such animals. In this regard, outdated animal experiments will produce results that cannot adequately and accurately predict human responses (Linzey & Linzey, 2017). The experimentation of animals in human experiments will also be needed, which clearly highlights that animal experimentation is not a requirement in all cases. Animal experimentation is also an outdated practice in a modern environment where technology has progressed with options including robots, 3D printing, human cells and tissues, and computer modeling being more effective ways of research. Scientists who favor animal experimentation, therefore, support a practice that has significant harm to other organisms while ignoring less expensive, more accurate, and faster methods of experimentation (Linzey & Linzey, 2017).
Linzey, A., & Linzey, C. (2017). The Ethical Case against Animal Experiments. Jstor. https://doi.org/10.5406/j.ctt2050vt5
The argument in opposition to mandatory immunization for children falls short in many important areas, including not considering the benefits that immunization has on children at the general proven safety of vaccines. Those who oppose mandatory immunization of children should therefore consider that the development of children’s vaccines takes more than 15 years on average, which means that adequate tests are conducted to prove the efficacy of such vaccines while also reducing any side effects on children (Hendrix et al., 2016). Therefore, because vaccines are relatively safe and their benefits are proven scientifically, the argument against the mandatory vaccination of children does not hold any ground because such an argument does not present an alternative that should be adopted to protect public health (Hendrix et al., 2016).
Hendrix, K. S., Sturm, L. A., Zimet, G. D., & Meslin, E. M. (2016). Ethics and Childhood Vaccination Policy in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 106(2), 273–278. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2015.302952