'Animals Can Be Used in Medical Research, Because Humans Are More Important Than Animals.' Discuss.

'Animals can be used in medical research, because humans are more important than animals.' Discuss. There are many different viewpoints on the topic of animal testing. Some people believe that animals are meant to be below human beings, and are therefore it is acceptable to test on animals. This view can be, and is quite commonly, taken by Christians for several reasons. On the other hand, some people may say that it is the humans' job to look after the animal, which would result in the fact that we should not test chemicals on them. One major viewpoint used against the testing and medical research on animals is the fact that God made us too look after the animals as we rule over them. This viewpoint can be taken by Christians as there are many points in the Bible which suggest that, although animals and humans are not equal, animals still have some basic rights. It says in the creation story that God created animals and people on the same day (6). The story also backs up this point directly by talking about how, 'he blessed them and gave them every creature and the whole earth to rule over, care for, and cultivate.' This would suggest that God indented animals to be cared for by humans; this clearly does not mean they should be tested on for medical research. God doesn't see man and animal as equal, as man must rule over and cultivate animals, however, he sees animals as pets to the humans, which must be cared for and looked after. Another major viewpoint which is used against medical research on animals is that Cod cared for all of his creations. There was at no point in the story of the creation where God created something and was not pleased. He was pleased with all his creations, suggesting that God does not choose to dislike animals and prefer if humans were to use them as test dummies. Six times throughout the creation God stops and observes what he has done over the 'day'. This shows that God has made you, is pleased with you, and everything is of great worth to him, including animals. Some Christians might use this argument to show that animals should be give basic rights as they are still the creation of God. To test on any animal would be experimenting on one of God's gifts to the world. This could easily be seen as wrong and disrespectful. On the other hand, there are many arguments which would back up the fact that animal testing is required and in some cases is the best possible thing to do. All the arguments for animal testing would revolve around the fact that it is better to test on animals, than it is to test on people. It is clearly the best possible solution. Most Christians would say that in genesis, God gave humans the right to rule over the earth and all its animals. This is a clear fact that animals don't have the same rights as humans. A ruler will always have a better life than a server. God created humans in his image; this was not the same for the animals. The animals were not even made to communicate with God, unlike the humans were. The humans were made far more like God than any of the animals, surely resulting in the fact that no animal has similar rights to humans, as so can be tested on instead of testing on humans. The testing on animals can be seen as a much better way to test medical science, than testing on humans. It is not that animals have no worth on the world and have no rights, only that humans are far more precious to the world, and that risking a human soul is a far worse thing to do, than risking the live of a soulless animal. God gave humans souls, but never did he give animals souls. The animals were said to be created for humans to 'cultivate' and so surely this makes them less important than humans. Animals cannot have the same rights as humans, otherwise the animals would have been given souls and told to cultivate humans; never were the animals told to rule over the humans. To conclude I would say that animals can and should be used in medical research. I would say this as I follow the best possible outcome argument. This states that if we did not test on animals, then we would have to either not test chemicals, or test them on humans. Both would result in human suffering as the chemicals could be dangerous as they have not been tested, or they could danger the human they are tested on. I believe that humans are far more important that animals as there is a clear gap between the human race, and any animal which can compete.