It seems to me that when the animal rights activists protest there's not much logic to their view points, with the exception of say baby cows as I disagree with the way they are farmed but my question concerns more of medical research in particular research that involves curing disease and illness. And I guess the sub question to this would be of course why not embryonic research? Again I ask for logical answers not ones with religious bias or perspective because that arguement is based on beliefs rather than facts. Thank you for your time an answers in advance.
2007-01-26 06:45:19 · 11 answers · asked by Spartacus 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This is a great question that demonstrates that their is no amount of "reasoning" that can take place outside of your worldview frame of reference. Everyone starts their logic built on a bed of assumption about what is "valuable" or "okay".
Oh, and I agree that baby cows are cute and should be fully grown before harvesting my steak. But that's just me...
2007-01-26 07:02:34 · answer #1 · answered by Harold 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think hurting animals is kind necessarily, but testing in order to cure human diseases is necessary. So long as their are guidelines for such research, it's okay. To me there aren't too many convincing reasons not to. either. If animals can be raised particulary as stock to feed humans, doesn't it make sense to use animals as well for the perpetuation of the human race. Particularly, the development of penicillin, which just about everybody has used at one time or another in their life as an antibiotic to treat even minor illnesses. This was developed largerly through the testing of mice. For those that are against it, I ask this: Would you mind suffering from illnesses and disease each time you are stricken, with even a common plight like tonsilitis? If not, then you might want to consider that although animal testing is not the most intriguing idea, it is necessary in many ways.
2007-01-26 07:00:39 · answer #2 · answered by eastchic2001 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people believe that humans and animals are too similar to say that humans have the right to test harmful things on them. Humans and chimps have almost completely the same DNA, we're just a slightly different species. It's like saying that dogs have a right to tourture rabbits for their own needs. Not really very fair. And some people believe that life begins the second an egg is feritlized, and that since if left to grow it would become a human, an embryo should have the rights of a human.
2007-01-26 06:57:39 · answer #3 · answered by imnotachickenyoureaturkey 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i hate the thought of hurting another animal. yet, i hate the thought that a human being is hurting and suffering from an illness or a disease. i have been a nurse for 6 years and i have seen the torment some of these diseases can and have caused. to use an animal for treatments and cures seems more logical then allowing a human to suffer in agony. embryonic research on the other hand is hurting another human being that could be born to lead a nation, be a prophet, or come up with the cure for aids, bird flu virus, etc. in the book of jeremiah, chapter one, God said that he knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was born and had called on him to prophecy. to destroy one life for another is homicide. to kill and animal to save a human is research.
2007-01-26 06:58:56 · answer #4 · answered by Jesus junkie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Personally I have no problem with animal testing provided there are stringent rules for doing so. Both Dawkins and the Australian philosopher Peter Singer have written extensively on the subject, I would particularly recommend the latters work to get an insight into the animal rights movement.
2007-01-26 06:54:33 · answer #5 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'll play devils advocate here - I personally am for animal testing in some circumstances, so here goes.
Animals are living creatures and do not have a human "voice" to speak with, so we have to speak for them. They can not tell us that it "hurts" or whatnot, so essentially, we are torturing them for our gain.
The court system would never allow unwilling human medical testing, so until little fuzzy bunnies learn the human languages, it will always be unwilling because we are bigger (sometimes) and we are stronger (sometimes) and we will always say that we know best (sometimes).
2007-01-26 06:57:16 · answer #6 · answered by quatrapiller 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i feel it is fine until animals are evolved enough to help us invent cures. as for embryonic research, i did think that was fine and did not agree with pres views of banning funds. however now last week they have found stems cells in amniotic fluid so funding should be available and the ball should get rolling.
2007-01-26 06:56:26 · answer #7 · answered by therernonameleft 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for human testing. If they are going to make products for humans, why not test it on humans? Sure, a few may die or get incredibly ill in the process, but science isn't perfect. Then again, I'm a Druid, and I'm all about preserving nature.
2007-01-26 06:55:46 · answer #8 · answered by lavos1412 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I personally would say that it is okay for animal testing. The people who don't think it is okay believe that animals have right, the same that humans do . They believe that testing something on an animal should be equal to testing on a human.
2007-01-26 06:54:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
According to naturalism, since it is wrong to harm humans (because suffering humans just isn't good but they can't say why) it ought to be wrong to cause animals to suffer as well, especially those that are distant ancestors.
2007-01-26 07:20:45 · answer #10 · answered by Jerry 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋