I don't mean for cosmetic products.

But with regards testing on animals to create better medical treatments I am in faour and am angry at those people who actively try and prevent it.

What about you?

With clear scientific purpose, rigorous controls, having them effected as humanely and as sparingly as possible and making the results and methods transparent and open to scrutiny I think a good case can be argued in favour of them.

I am concerned for animal welfare and think their lives worthy of our respect but given the stakes and the recorded benefits I would say I'm cautiously in favour of it.

cjh wrote:With clear scientific purpose, rigorous controls, having them effected as humanely and as sparingly as possible and making the results and methods transparent and open to scrutiny I think a good case can be argued in favour of them.

I am concerned for animal welfare and think their lives worthy of our respect but given the stakes and the recorded benefits I would say I'm cautiously in favour of it.

Well said. That pretty much sums it up for me.

I remember a someone saying "if hooking a monkey's head up to a car battery will find a cure for AIDS, I only have one thing to say: Black is negative and red is positive."

I stand by that.

We have no right at all.
We should test on prisoners instead.

evolu wrote:We have no right at all.
We should test on prisoners instead.

I'm grateful to have the compassionate conservative viewpoint on this issue.

It has been proven time and again that animal testing is inconclusive and unnecessary. This is not from animal rights advocates, but from scientists and doctors who have spent their careers testing on animals.

Furthermore there are significant alternatives to this type of testing. It's just not necessary, but there is an industry built around it and they want their money, plain and simple.

If you really believe in animal testing and vivisection, allow me to borrow your dog/cat and test the impact velocity of my cock to their eye socket.

evolu wrote:We have no right at all.
We should test on prisoners instead.

I agree. Let's start with the animal rights activists that are in jail.

Kidding aside, if this weren't a morally reprehensible thing to advocate, which it is, how would you pick which classes of prisoners to test on, evolu?

I propose testing on Humans. Well-paid, knowledgeable, people that know exactly what will happen, completely voluntary testing.

EDIT: Not prisoners.

Skronk wrote:I propose testing on Humans. Well-paid, knowledgeable, people that know exactly what will happen, completely voluntary testing.

EDIT: Not prisoners.

Um, isn't this done now? Well, aside from the well-paid, and maybe fully knowledgeable parts.

I believe there is some fully voluntary, prison testing medical testing being done, or at least proposed. I think in return for time off your sentence. Although, I would question how voluntary it is in those circumstances.