Stypey,
Thanks for your reply.
I understand your objections about testing a drug on an animal, and then using that as proof that it would work on human beings.
That isnt the essence of vivisection though is it. Testing on animals is done as one step in a chain of tests and studies. Sucks for the animal? Maybe. If the animal is sick and dying anyway, then the treatment may help. Otherwise yes, it is tough on the animal. Sometimes it can actually hurt the animal, and that is unfortunate.
But its an ANIMAL. If testing that hurts a hundred animals can help one person from unecessary pain, that is worth it.
Animals are not human beings. It is valid to feel sad for the animals. but as a father of two, I can say without hesitation that if it spares my children hurt, then it is worthy of doing.
Animals are not tools for human beings. We live together with them and co-operate - but not as equals. An animal is not the equal of a human being!
Re: Goldenthal and his vivisection
Date Edited: 14 Oct 2008 03:35:32 PM
Thanks for your reply.
I understand your objections about testing a drug on an animal, and then using that as proof that it would work on human beings.
That isnt the essence of vivisection though is it. Testing on animals is done as one step in a chain of tests and studies. Sucks for the animal? Maybe. If the animal is sick and dying anyway, then the treatment may help. Otherwise yes, it is tough on the animal. Sometimes it can actually hurt the animal, and that is unfortunate.
But its an ANIMAL. If testing that hurts a hundred animals can help one person from unecessary pain, that is worth it.
Animals are not human beings. It is valid to feel sad for the animals. but as a father of two, I can say without hesitation that if it spares my children hurt, then it is worthy of doing.
Animals are not tools for human beings. We live together with them and co-operate - but not as equals. An animal is not the equal of a human being!