A very good morning I bid to the members of this most aghast house. The motion for today’s debate is that this house would not experiment on animals for human benefits. The government stands strongly by this motion and I, the second speaker affirmative will now present to you my reply speech.
Ladies and gentlemen, the second speaker of the opposition team has mentioned that the layout of organs is, I quote, “pretty much the same”. I am sorry but these four words, “pretty much the same” does not sound really convincing to me. And also, the second speaker of the opposition team also said that the size of the heart of a white mouse is the same as humans. Ladies and gentlemen, is he trying to tell us that the size of his heart is the same as a white mouse? This is just ridiculous, ladies and gentlemen!
The second speaker also mentioned that we do not use cats in experiment and that we cannot put ourselves in the shoes of these animals. Ladies and gentlemen, there are humans who do volunteer to be experimented. We, humans have to sign a waiver or an agreement if we would like to be experimented. These volunteers are fully aware of the risks that they will face throughout the experiment. Ladies and gentlemen, humans are not forced to undergo experimentation. The doctors do not just invade their homes and force needles filled with diseases into their body.
He also questioned my third speaker that how sure is he that animals feel pain? According to Peter Singer, a prominent scientist who studies animal behavior, pain is referred to the firing of C-neurons. And yes, animals do have C-neurons. Moreover ladies and gentlemen, we learnt in biology that animals and humans do have receptors in their skin – therefore yes, animals do have feelings. They feel pain, pressure, heat and etcetera!
And he also cited that the government loves animals and for that reason the government creates legislations and laws to protect the animals. He then went on to mention that he personally do keep pets at home. Seriously ladies and gentlemen, so what if he keeps pets at home? What has that got anything to do with this debate?!
Next, the third speaker of the opposition team has constantly been denying our alternatives and gave remarks that they are not impractical. The third speaker of the opposition team failed to mention why they are impractical. Even if he did, it was rather vague.
He also stated that mechanical models are not sophisticated enough for medical advancement. Ladies and gentlemen, computers can actually produce 3-D structures of drug molecules on screen, allowing scientists to study their potential. The high blood pressure medication- Captopril have developed using this new technique.
In addition, the third speaker of the opposition team also questioned about keeping animals as pets and asked if keeping pets is ethically wrong too. Ladies and gentlemen, animals which are kept as pets need not endure prolonged suffering. Do you infect your pet dog with chemicals? No! And therefore it is totally wrong to say that keeping pets is unethical!
Ladies and gentlemen, my first speaker has clearly stated how the results of animal experimentation differ from its primary objectives. So why do we want to continue this barbaric and outdated practice which yield inconclusive results? Ladies and gentlemen, do you think it’s fair? Do you think it’s fair to force these animals into prolonged suffering? Is this what God would want us to do? The golden rule of society is whatever you what your neighbor to do for you, you do for your neighbor. So ladies and gentlemen, would you want animals to perform painful experiments on us if our roles were reversed? And we as humans, the more intelligent species have a moral duty, obligation and responsibility to protect these animals.
With that, the government stands strong by the motion that this house would not experiment on animals for human benefits.
Thank you.
