Animal Testing

[Mosomashu]

Right or wrong?
If maybe you are against it for cosmetics do you think it's OK if it's scientists trying to find a cure for cancer or illnesses like that?
I'm not going to say what I think yet.

[jooxis]

I'm against animal testing for cosmetics and stuff like that.
As far as testing for scientific purposes, I wouldn't be against sacrificing some rats if it would actually lead to a cure for cancer. However, I believe it's being disputed how beneficial medical testing on animals is once we apply the same to humans - since humans are not like every other animal.

[levini]

Im totally against It because its just like "training" an elephant to perform circus acts .In circus training, The trainers beat the elephants with bull-hooks and then cover it up with powder before the act... But with animal testing it's testing to see if the animal reacts to the product. They're both cruelty to animals PERIOD.

[Purity4]

I'm against animal testing for cosmetics and stuff like that.
As far as testing for scientific purposes, I believe it's being disputed how beneficial medical testing on animals is once we apply the same to humans - since humans are not like every other animal.

I think there should be more experimental testing done on humans who are ill and have little hope of recovery. Testing other species makes no sense at all to me. Even within our own species, each individual can react differently, so testing outside the species seems completely illogical.

[fakepeeps7]

Like others have said, animals used for testing are different than humans. While you can probably tell if a cosmetic product is going to irritate the eyes by testing it on a rat, there are other things that just aren't the same. We have different genetic makeups, different hormonal pathways, different receptors... all kinds of stuff. If anything, we should be testing on humans (and since animals do not react the same as humans, we pretty much already are doing testing on humans; it's just that we think certain drugs and treatments have already been proven "safe" just because they didn't make a mouse go postal).

If you need proof that we're not the same as animals, you need look no further than dogs. If we went by their physiology, we would have concluded that chocolate and grapes are dangerous poisons and should never be eaten.

[supersimoholic]

I think that any company testing for cosmetics (that includes skin-care creams and anti-ageing creams) should be shut down and all employees fined and jailed (depending on what section they worked in)

Animals used for medical purposes... I think it's ok as long as they are kept in good conditions and aren't put through any unnecessary pain. But I think they should do more human testing, like people have said, humans may technically be animals, but we may as well be aliens with how different we are from the rest of Earth's population.

I know some people hate this as an idea, but - Death-row prisoners. They've obviously done something TERRIBLE to be there in the first place, and at the same time, the results would be more accurate - plus, if it was mandatory for all death-rowers, I'm sure a lot more people would think twice about committing that crime if they know they could possibly be the next inmate who's flesh turned inside out due to a new vaccine they were trying out...

[fakepeeps7]

I know some people hate this as an idea, but - Death-row prisoners. They've obviously done something TERRIBLE to be there in the first place, and at the same time, the results would be more accurate - plus, if it was mandatory for all death-rowers, I'm sure a lot more people would think twice about committing that crime if they know they could possibly be the next inmate who's flesh turned inside out due to a new vaccine they were trying out...

You're right. I do hate the idea. Mainly because there's no guarantee that the people are actually guilty and then you're basically torturing innocent people. It's not fair to tell people they should've thought twice about committing a crime when they're in jail for a crime they didn't commit in the first place!

[el_flel]

It's not ideal but it's necessary: realistically, what are the alternatives? You simply can't test all drugs at every stage on humans. Humans are tested on during clinical trials but animals are used first to make sure that the human test subjects won't be killed by the drug. There are also areas for which humans subjects either can't be used or it would be extremely difficult to use them.

Animals have a lot of similarities to humans, this is why they are used. If we were so different to them that testing on them was pointless then it wouldn't be done: what would be the point? Additionally, many drugs that are created can be used by humans and animals, so we both benefit there.

As for using Death Row inmates: no. Just because they are on death row doesn't mean it is any better to test on them than it would be an animal. Capital punishment is already a breach of basic human rights anyway, but forcibly testing drugs on them breaches that even further. As for lots more people thinking twice - if the death penalty isn't a deterrent then drug testing won't be either.

There was a thread ( http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?t=336174&c=1&ht=&page=1&pp=25#startcomment) on this a while back, and reading back through it the level of ignorance and lack of understanding by some posters is just scary.

*Sits back and waits for longears15 to post.*

[Oaktree]

I don't think other animals should be used for frivolous things like cosmetic testing, but I do think there is benefit and need for medical testing on animals. True, we are not identical to other animals in terms of our physiology, but we are overwhelmingly similar enough that animal testing is useful. After all, most animals, particularly those who are evolutionarily closer, have very similar metabolisms and general physiological makeup, as we all evolved on the same planet and in relatively similar conditions. I don't think that the testing subjects should be caused unnecessary pain, though. They are undeserving of it and it may impact the results of the testing, as psychological factors can have significant influence on the rest of the body.

I don't think that death row inmates should be forced to undergo testing, as it is unrelated to the crimes that land people on death row, it is cruel and unusual, and it disregards their right to choice in a matter that doesn't relate to physical freedom. The punishment should fit the crime and the choice to experiment on death row inmates would merely be a matter of convenience to the rest of us, rather than fitting the crime. Death row inmates no longer have the right to physical freedom, but there are certain rights that they should maintain until death, involving anything unrelated to their method of death and their ability to move about freely. They are still sapient beings up until the very end.

All testing done on humans should be done through the consent of the persons involved.

[Vanito]

Testing other species makes no sense at all to me. Even within our own species, each individual can react differently, so testing outside the species seems completely illogical.
This is oversimplification up to the point where it does not make much sense anymore in reality.

Humans are mammals and we share both biological similarities and differences with other species. Scientist which use test animals are commonly well up to date of in which test using which test animals makes sense, and in what aspect they are the closest to a human. Typically medicines are also tested in humans, but commonly in a later stage.

Compared to what animals have to go though in the bio industry, which is just for the fun of eating meat, the reaction to test animals for medicines is out of proportion.

But as usually its easier to be against what people dont make use of yourself (or in most cases - think they dont) than to be against what affects peoples own life. "NO touching my meat on my plate".

In practice however few people will refuse treatment when they or a beloved get pneumonia/cancer/heart issues because test animals have been used.

[jooxis]

I know some people hate this as an idea, but - Death-row prisoners. They've obviously done something TERRIBLE to be there in the first place, and at the same time, the results would be more accurate - plus, if it was mandatory for all death-rowers, I'm sure a lot more people would think twice about committing that crime if they know they could possibly be the next inmate who's flesh turned inside out due to a new vaccine they were trying out...

I actually support capital punishment but doing experiments on unconsenting people is really scary, even if they're horrible murderers.

Perhaps giving a choice to prisoners to volunteer for medical experiments to cut their sentences a bit shorter - sounds like a somewhat better idea.

[whiterider]

I agree with most posters so far, but with one difference - I don't believe that testing medicines and treatments on animals is "ok"; I believe it's the best of a bad lot of options. I do sympathise with the views of those who say that all animal testing should be banned, however in the end I consider human lives to be of greater importance than animal lives. I'm hopeful that one day scientists will be able to develop computer models that are sophisticated enough to be used in place of animal testing, but I know that's a very, very, very long way off. Unless and until that happens, animal testing is the only viable option, so it should be done as humanely as possible.

Of course, I also don't consider making humans look good to be more important than animal lives.

[longears15]

*Sits back and waits for longears15 to post.* Oh, okay then. I'll take the bait. I am, however, going to cheat and copy/paste my first post from that thread into this one - I've got a broken finger, a CRPS flare and I don't think that my voice-to-text software is quite up to the task...

The way I see it, the use of animals in drug testing and medical research is something of a necessary evil. In many cases, it would be very difficult if not impossible to use humans as primary test subjects, even if you leave ethical implications aside. If you consider genetic manipulation for example, it is vital to explore what happens through generations- imagine how long that would take if humans were used. If you consider initial testing of new drugs, again it is far more practical to use animals. Large numbers of animals can be easily housed within a small space, and in controlled conditions. These sorts of numbers are necessary for results to have any sort of statistical significance. In many cases also, animal subjects are bred under strict conditions as 'specified pathogen free' so that potential confounding factors can be limited.

There are a lot of standards in place to ensure good welfare is maintained. All research involving animals (or people for that matter) has to be passed by an ethical standards committee- usually including medical & legal professionals, veterinarians and lay people.

Almost anybody who stands against the use of animals in medical testing is a hypocrite. I'm sure every single one of us has taken medications, had vaccinations, etc. A large number of these have been developed, at least initially, using an animal model. Something else that a lot of people also forget is that animals benefit from this as well- a huge number of drugs used in people are also used to treat animals. We use various prostheses in animals- bone plates & pins, right through to things like artificial hips and cardiac pacemakers.

Cosmetic testing is a different matter entirely. I don't believe that animals should suffer just to cater to human vanity.

[grumpy_otter]

I'll tell my medical testing story--about 25 years ago, a friend of mine graduated from college with a degree in biology. She got a job at a hospital testing lab to create a "uniform burn model" to test the efficacy of burn treatments. What they needed her to do was design, in conjunction with mechanical people, a device that would burn numerous animals in the exact same way so that the treatments could be compared.

After the model was designed, then she had to burn the animals--bunnies. And the bunnies could not be given any pain relief because "that might affect the tests."

She lasted a month, and had nightmares for years.(And I had nightmares just from hearing about it)

This is one of the things that bothers me most about the whole idea of animal testing--even if it is meant to save human lives, what kind of person can torture animals day after without being affected by it? Seems to me that anyone who "enjoys" this type of work is sick in some way to begin with, or must become desensitized in order to continue. And isn't that a great thing! Let's encourage people to lose their empathy for living things!

I do not agree with animal testing OF ANY KIND, unless it is performed on animals who can CONSENT to the experiments. As I've said before, I don't think humans are more special than any other inhabitant of this planet, and I think it is wrong to create people with no empathy (or encourage those who didn't have it to start with).

[Vanito]

I'll tell my medical testing story--about 25 years ago, a friend of mine graduated from college with a degree in biology. She got a job at a hospital testing lab to create a "uniform burn model" to test the efficacy of burn treatments. What they needed her to do was design, in conjunction with mechanical people, a device that would burn numerous animals in the exact same way so that the treatments could be compared.

After the model was designed, then she had to burn the animals--bunnies. And the bunnies could not be given any pain relief because "that might affect the tests."

She lasted a month, and had nightmares for years.(And I had nightmares just from hearing about it)

This is one of the things that bothers me most about the whole idea of animal testing--even if it is meant to save human lives, what kind of person can torture animals day after without being affected by it? Seems to me that anyone who "enjoys" this type of work is sick in some way to begin with, or must become desensitized in order to continue. And isn't that a great thing! Let's encourage people to lose their empathy for living things!

I do not agree with animal testing OF ANY KIND, unless it is performed on animals who can CONSENT to the experiments. As I've said before, I don't think humans are more special than any other inhabitant of this planet, and I think it is wrong to create people with no empathy (or encourage those who didn't have it to start with).
This is kinda the typical PETA story. The worst case scenario. Alive burning. Cute bunnies. Nightmares. Then a rant on peoples morality, without taking into consideration this is rather extreme research.

I am not sure on the animal testing standards in your country 25 years ago, this is not what the -average- research is like. Research varies from quite innocent research like fruit flies fucking in test tubes - to the very extremes of using chimpanzees for brain research and HIV. While most of us find the latter morally dubious or objective I doubt many will object to killing fruit flies.

Anyway since you are againt animal testing, do you act on it? Like refuse to make use of animal tested cosmetics, refuse to take animal tested medicines etc?

How does this compare to eating pork meat, where male pigs are often castrated without anastesia?

[grumpy_otter]

This is kinda the typical PETA story. The worst case scenario. Alive burning. Cute bunnies. Nightmares. Then a rant on peoples morality, without taking into consideration this is rather extreme research.

You're right--I wrote that while cringing. Let me rephrase my position--I am against animal testing that causes pain/suffering/disfigurement to the animal. Which means the animal being tested upon needs to have a certain level of sentience. I don't think fruit flies qualify.



Anyway since you are againt animal testing, do you act on it? Like refuse to make use of animal tested cosmetics, refuse to take animal tested medicines etc?

Yup. I don't wear makeup ever anymore, so that doesn't affect me, and when shopping, I carry a list of companies that do NOT test on animals--if they are not on the list, I don't buy from them. I've never found that I couldn't find a cruelty-free alternative for any product I needed.

My list is more easily foldable, but here's an example:

http://www.caringconsumer.com/pdfs/companiesDontTest.pdf

How does this compare to eating pork meat, where male pigs are often castrated without anastesia?

I was not aware of that about pigs--I'll do some research. I do avoid any meat that is raised particularly cruelly, such as veal.

[longears15]

Grumpy otter, Vanito is correct about pigs. It's fairly standard procedure in many piggeries for male piglets to be castrated to avoid 'boar taint' developing in the meat as they age, and all piglets to have their tails docked and teeth clipped (to prevent tail biting/infections/cannibalism).

[Amtram]

You can't just buy products that weren't tested on animals, you know. Every single product out there has ingredients that were tested on animals at one time. Products that use ingredients that were already proven safe via animal testing long ago can proudly proclaim that their ingredients were not tested on animals, because they themselves didn't test them on animals. Saying that you didn't test your ingredients on animals doesn't mean they weren't tested on animals.

I have friends who work currently with animals, not 25 years ago, before legal ethical treatment standards were put in place. Yeah, there are still things that are done that hurt, but it's a necessary evil. The animals are treated as well as they possibly can be. And the animals are selected for specific tests based on their similarity in that aspect to human reactions. With the improvement in understanding of genetics, it has even been possible to insert human DNA into certain animals for specific tests to make the results more accurate.

If you want to use only products that haven't been tested on animals, then you're going to have to make your own cosmetics and toiletries (no bottled shampoo - sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate and all their variations were tested on animals long ago, when the testing was much more inhumane,) eat nothing that has been grown by a commercial farm (and be cautious about what has been grown by local farms) and take no medications whatsoever, ever. No aspirin. No insulin. No heart medications. And god forbid you get cancer.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to try to lessen your impact as much as possible. However, it's a bad thing to trumpet your moral superiority as if your impact is completely nonexistent. It isn't. You do the best you can with what you know, but unless you go live in a cave somewhere, you're going to use something that has been tested on animals or made from animals. By all means, let's try to support industries and companies that use animals or test animals only as necessary, and in a manner that is as cruelty free as possible, but don't be taken in by their advertising that they are completely free of taint.

[Mosomashu]

I am against animal testing.

For cosmetics and stuff I think it is completely unacceptable to put beauty over the life of an animal. Pure selfishness.

As for medicines and cures, I still think animals should only be tested on when they really have an idea of how it will work.

I am against capital punishment so I don't support the death row idea, like most other people.

Also, I know it is pretty much impossible to buy a product that hasn't been tested on animals at some point but still if you buy from companies that don't test on animals themselves I think it is better than buying from companies that do. Some which don't test on animals "fund research into alternatives" which is good.

[nea200pl]

I'm 100% against the idea of testing cosmetics and other beauty products on animals. If someone wants their *wonder* anti-wrinkle cream to work they should test it on themselves. As Mosomashu said - it's selfish. I realize that everything was at some point tested in the past but now many companies find different ways to check their products so whenever possible, and sometimes you simply just cannot know, I make sure that brand I buy my beauty stuff from does not test on animals (no animal testing sign is very helpful and thank you for very useful list grumpy_otter).

When it comes to new medicines and finding cures I'm still undecided, however I tend to lean towards non testing as it still puts animal through pain and in many cases result in death due to instability of medicine/method of cure.

[jooxis]

If you want to use only products that haven't been tested on animals, then you're going to have to make your own cosmetics and toiletries (no bottled shampoo - sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth sulfate and all their variations were tested on animals long ago, when the testing was much more inhumane,) eat nothing that has been grown by a commercial farm (and be cautious about what has been grown by local farms) and take no medications whatsoever, ever. No aspirin. No insulin. No heart medications. And god forbid you get cancer.

That's a strange way of looking at it. I don't think there's even any need to look at it that way.

That's kind of like saying you don't want to use knives in your kitchen because people have been stabbed with them before - and that means you're indirectly supporting the murder of those people.

Just because some chemical was once tested on an animal long ago, doesn't mean you're supporting animal torture every time you buy anything that contains that chemical.

Most people just don't want their money ending up in the pockets of companies who are STILL testing their products on animals. As in, they're testing them, today, right now - the very product you are buying. There is a difference there that you claim doesn't exist.

[grumpy_otter]

Grumpy otter, Vanito is correct about pigs. It's fairly standard procedure in many piggeries for male piglets to be castrated to avoid 'boar taint' developing in the meat as they age, and all piglets to have their tails docked and teeth clipped (to prevent tail biting/infections/cannibalism).

Thanks for the information--I was not aware of that. I'll have to do some research into the implications. I know that eating "humane" meat is not an exact thing, but I do try to avoid the more obvious cruelties.

Amtram--I'm not trying to be "morally superior." My basic premise is that humans are NOT superior to animals. And one of my greatest worries about the animal-testing industry is the degradation of the humans who perform these acts. Gandhi said, "the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way it treats its animals," and I agree with that. (And I include human animals in that number, too)

This is related to my position:

http://www.hsus.org/acf/cruelty/publiced/cruelty_serial_killers.html


Cruel animal testing for medical purposes is wrong, imo. Why should 50 chipmunks die so some random human can survive? Why is the life of a human more valuable? I know lots of people disagree with my stance, and if I had the choice between saving a drowning chipmunk and saving a drowning man, I'd save the man. I don't have a perfect moral superiority going here--I just don't revere human life above animal life, and I think the exploitation of another species for the benefit of man is wrong.

I know I can't remove my impact completely, but I can do what I can do, and try to be aware.

I think all this messing with "nature's plan" is screwing us up anyway, but that's for another thread.

[Oaktree]

I didn't make it clear in my previous post that I think that animal testing is essentially the lesser of evils. I do think that all life is special and should be protected where possible, but I think that sapience does make some animals more worth protecting. I think that a human life is more important than a dog's life, which is more important than a lizard's life, which is more important than a fly's life, which is more important than a bacterium's life. The problem is that medical testing is crucially necessary. You can maybe get away with not really testing your cosmetics, but you really need to test that vaccine you're working on, or you can risk harming or killing millions of people.

And no, animal testing does not just affect the life of "some random human" (I'm not directing the rant at you, Grumpy, just using your words :) ). Animal testing is done on treatments and cures for disorders that affect anywhere from a few people a year to a few million people a year. Combine that number with the number of years or decades that the treatment will be used, and you are talking about a loss of a few dozen to a few hundred animals for potentially millions of human lives saved.

[fakepeeps7]

Research varies from quite innocent research like fruit flies fucking in test tubes - to the very extremes of using chimpanzees for brain research and HIV. While most of us find the latter morally dubious or objective I doubt many will object to killing fruit flies.

If our medical cures are being tested on fruit flies, it's no wonder there end up being so many drug recalls because of side effects.

"Talk to your doctor if you have blurred vision, bloody urine, chest pains, or a sudden urge to hover in the air near a bowl of fruit."

[kustirider2]

I am fully against testing for cosmetics, because make-up is not necessary for survival. However, I do think that testing should be done to find cures and medication, but then you've got the added problem of that it might work on rats, but not on humans.

I saw a really sickening documentary on Iams once, and how they use dogs and cats to test their products. There were piles of dog bodies with their thighs cut out, because they wanted to test how their dog food would benefit dog's thighs. In my opinion, that is really not necessary.

[Purity4]

I am fully against testing for cosmetics, because make-up is not necessary for survival. However, I do think that testing should be done to find cures and medication, but then you've got the added problem of that it might work on rats, but not on humans.

I saw a really sickening documentary on Iams once, and how they use dogs and cats to test their products. There were piles of dog bodies with their thighs cut out, because they wanted to test how their dog food would benefit dog's thighs. In my opinion, that is really not necessary.

Iams company was bought out by proctor and gamble, a company who proudly tests on animals, several years back. Iams pet food quality went downhill with that buyout, using byproducts (miscellaneous non-nutritious animal by products instead of meat) and ground corn as their primary ingredients, putting Iams on the low par of science diet crap food.

[Vanito]

If our medical cures are being tested on fruit flies, it's no wonder there end up being so many drug recalls because of side effects.

"Talk to your doctor if you have blurred vision, bloody urine, chest pains, or a sudden urge to hover in the air near a bowl of fruit."
A lot of the current fast-patent medicines like antidepressants are hardly tested on humans compared to what they are supposed to be; long term many have NOT been tested. The run for patents makes medicines LESS tested on humans and dumped more easily on the market to gain money. The biggest problem in humanity is not the morality to kill or not to kill animals, but the desire for fast money, money, money.

[grumpy_otter]

And no, animal testing does not just affect the life of "some random human" (I'm not directing the rant at you, Grumpy, just using your words :) ). Animal testing is done on treatments and cures for disorders that affect anywhere from a few people a year to a few million people a year. Combine that number with the number of years or decades that the treatment will be used, and you are talking about a loss of a few dozen to a few hundred animals for potentially millions of human lives saved.

I know you're not after me--I know you are a thoughtful poster. To me, it IS "some random human," or, if you prefer, "a group of random humans."

If terrorists kidnap my daughter and demand that I torture 50 horses to secure her safety--that will happen.

But that's not how medical research works--other creatures of this planet are deemed to be less important than humans--and therefore subjected to sometimes horrific acts.

It doesn't matter the number--humans are NOT more important than chipmunks.

Humans are special ONLY as they express their empathy for all living things--and recognize their insignificance. It is WRONG to exploit other creatures for the sole benefit of humans--they have as much right to freedom as humans do.

I don't lack empathy, and I help my fellow creatures all I can--I just don't raise humans on some great pedestal. (Just FYI, I don't approve of the ALF--I propose more education-based methods)

[paksetti]

So, if it's for your daughter, it's okay to torture animals. That seems a little selfish. That's like saying she deserves a vaccine more than any other person when they're both people- both equal.

[grumpy_otter]

I didn't mean it that way--I meant that my empathy toward my daughter would override any moral principles I have on this matter--as happens for any human, I'm sure! Which is why hostage negotiators are not assigned to situations where their relatives are being held hostage.

I meant that as an indication that I am as flawed as the next person when it comes to personal issues.

But I try to stay objective when it comes to ideology--and my basic one is--it is wrong to revere human life.

[Oaktree]

It doesn't matter the number--humans are NOT more important than chipmunks.

Humans are special ONLY as they express their empathy for all living things--and recognize their insignificance. It is WRONG to exploit other creatures for the sole benefit of humans--they have as much right to freedom as humans do.

I don't lack empathy, and I help my fellow creatures all I can--I just don't raise humans on some great pedestal. (Just FYI, I don't approve of the ALF--I propose more education-based methods)

Alright, if we leave off any presumption of human superiority, we still have more lives (both human and other animals) saved than are ruined by medical testing. I'm not a utilitarian, so I wouldn't say that that fact itself automatically makes it right, but I think that it can be better than the alternative. The alternative is prolonged pain and suffering for any creature who has the illness that cannot be cured without testing. I can't really make much of a generalization about the suffering that occurs due to testing, but I doubt that researchers torture animals just for the sake of it. The animals used in testing are most likely kept around for as long as the trial requires and then put down afterward if they develop any complications. I think there is less suffering overall on the route of animal testing where it is necessary than on the route of no animal testing whatsoever.

There is a difference between the suffering that occurs due to disease vs. the suffering due to animal testing. The first is the province of nature, meaning that no one is responsible for it, while the second is the responsibility of man. It means that we do bear some guilt for animal testing, but we are also deserving of any moral praise that might be given for alleviating the suffering of the ill.

I realize that I'm not going to sway you and I understand where you're coming from on the matter of empathy, but I personally consider scientific improvement and a higher quality of life more important, though there should be a balance between the two.

[Amtram]

So, then, is it OK if the researchers are doing it because they feel empathy for all people who are suffering from the disease or condition that's being tested for? That's often the case, because researchers who lead clinical trials and research specific afflictions do so because they've seen how those things they're testing for affect people in real life.

[pinketamine]

I made some sort of school work about animal testing some years ago.
In my opinion, animal testing for cosmetics is absolutely stupid, useless and cruel. It does not make any sense to make experiments with that kind of products, and companies who do it should be legally punished. I read about some experiments which were really... sick. There was a company who applied a sun lotion is testing to a pig and then burn the pig alive, to see how damaged the skin resulted (nonsense but real), and there is a very common experiment which consists in applying various substances to rabbits' eyes, to see the effects; note that rabbits' eyes are much more sensitive than our eyes.

When it comes to medicin... well, I find it more difficult. On one hand, animals and humans are not the same. As an example, aspirin can kill a cat, and it does not cause any bad effect in humans. On the other hand, a lot of medical advances have been possible thanks to animal testing. I think we should start doing the medical testing with humans. If you are testing the cure of cancer, I bet that many people who have cancer will volunteer for testing the experimental medicin.

Also, you have to think about military experiments with animals, which should also be totally forbidden. For some years, the US army used to test their new weapons with living pigs... which is cruel and disgusting.

The problem is that there are very cruel and selfish humans around the world who think that torturing an animal until it dies is ok if you can "discover something".

[paksetti]

I didn't mean it that way--I meant that my empathy toward my daughter would override any moral principles I have on this matter--as happens for any human, I'm sure! Which is why hostage negotiators are not assigned to situations where their relatives are being held hostage.

I meant that as an indication that I am as flawed as the next person when it comes to personal issues.

But I try to stay objective when it comes to ideology--and my basic one is--it is wrong to revere human life.

I understand. We're human. I just I just don't see things the same way you do. Humans are more important than animals, though animals are imortant (If my dog and my neighbor were drowning, I'd save my neighbor-and I really love my dog. If I could save both-by all means I would.) And every human is as important as the next.

[fakepeeps7]

If my dog and my neighbor were drowning, I'd save my neighbor-and I really love my dog.

Damn! You must have awesome neighbours. It would be a tough call for me. :lol: