The moral and ethical arguments for and against animal testing are based on the animal's lack of advocacy and for being unable to consent or defend itself against certain types of treatment. Animal testing can be considered a good thing when it is used to treat a human condition which may be dangerous enough to attack others and endanger the species. It is also a good thing if it helps in the elimination of genetic illnesses or inherited diseases that attack human. Unethical treatment of animals during testing would be the argument against it, and whether the animal is being put to suffer for research that is unnecessary and worthless. In the end, it is the fact that a living thing should be respected what makes for the argument against animal testing.
There has been so many advances in medicine and technology because of our use of animals in research. Due to this, I think the research should be continued. Morally, I have a problem with the inhumane treatment of animals that sometimes accompanies animal research. Do we really need to be testing the effectiveness of razor blades on bunnies? Sometimes an alternative to animals is available but it may not be as cost effective. This is where my moral and ethical boundaries are crossed. I think better guidlines need to be in place regarding the use of animals in research.