This faction of the stakeholders feel that alternative measure of undertaking scientific experiments for medical development and other reasons are feasible. Winning in this debate has the gain of conscience satisfaction that animals should be taken care of like human beings. They seek to achieve the goal of human moral responsibility to be in charge of the other creatures. Winning this debate also presents a desirable outcome in terms of general perception of animals as being close relatives of man and the cruelty against them are uncalled for.
There are various reasons as to why the proponents would want to win. They will assert the moral obligation of man to be a fair steward of nature. The animals are considered to experience pain but lack express vocal ability to show this. It is therefore disadvantageous to them and this raises ethical concern from the perspective of humanity. Another critical aspect of the gain concerns winning the conscience of people towards fair treatment of animals and minimizing chances of their elimination through waste control experiment. Financial support to shift to alternative experiment methods rather than sacrificing animals sounds more human and promotes ethics. Sanctity of life is likely to be upheld by the society and this will be a remarkable outcome in the entire campaign of the religious fraternity.
Opponents still stand by the relevance and convenience attached to use of animals for scientific experiment. There is significant propensity of professional inadequacy should the pro-animal activists gain. Besides, alternative experiment procedures that may not use animals are seen as either expensive or inaccurate. There are several experiments that are in progress or already enlist the need for animals. In the event that use of animals is banned, the investment and commitment already put towards such experiments would go to vain and become discouraging. In essence, there has been