English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

some might some might not... o well just as long as they don't talk to me i'm fine

2007-04-27 12:41:57 · answer #1 · answered by *Heart~broken* 4 · 0 0

Of course not. They just don't realise the supreme hypocrasy of their situation. Ok, animal testing is sometimes undesirable and sometimes it leads to suffering. BUT without it you would not have treatments for polio (a MAJOR disease before the invention of a vaccine in 1955), diabetes (insulin was taken from pigs and tested on dogs - diabetics cannot survive without it), penicillin (still a major antibiotic), anaesthetics, artificial hearts - without them humanity would be rife with disease. Some 90% of medical research depends on animal testing, get rid of that and you effectively stop medicine. Are the lives of hundreds of millions of people who rely on these medicines to give them life less valuable than the lives of the animals they were tested on? And as for the hypocrasy of killing scientists or firebombing labs where animal research goes on in the name of "ethical treatment" - I cannot understand why people are so blind. Some organisations are even against guide dogs. That in my opinion is just sick.

I agree that where possible substitutes should be used, and that the animals that are tested on should be treated as humanely as possible. But this is not always possible. Where medical research needs to be carried out on animals I see no problems in it being done to save human life.

2007-04-29 02:00:34 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers