Animal testing substitute
- Thread starter Bnjemann
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,615
- Reaction score
- 4,231
- Points
- 845
Ask yourself the following:
The majority of what we know about hypoythermia and how to treat it comes from research in Auschwitz. Research that saved thousands if not more lives since then. Does that justify the crimes commited there?
We don't test on criminals, because unlike them, we accepted human rights and non-barbaric standards. These people are still humans, and some of them are even in prison for non-violent crimes which is retarded. The largest amount of wrongful convictions existed of rape or murder charges.
From a philoshopical standpoint, what rights does an animal actually have? You'll have to understand that most of them are our food. Some animals torture their pray because that's just something they do, they have 0 understanding of rights and they don't self posess. So only we can decide for them. Just like children. Children and animals are unable to defend and understand their rights yet for children we choose what is best for them and in my opinion we should do so for animals aswell.
That just leaves you with two pills: We test on animals in order to save human lives and create medicine or we test on humans, which has greater risks and reduces development on medicine.
using animals to test make-up and non-essential programs is retarded though and should have never been a thing in the first place. Animal testing for medicine has extended lives but honestly you can cure someones cancer after 15 years of testing on cats and mice and that person gets hit by a bus the day after he is released from the hospital. Not every human death should be prevented at all costs.
The majority of what we know about hypoythermia and how to treat it comes from research in Auschwitz. Research that saved thousands if not more lives since then. Does that justify the crimes commited there?
We don't test on criminals, because unlike them, we accepted human rights and non-barbaric standards. These people are still humans, and some of them are even in prison for non-violent crimes which is retarded. The largest amount of wrongful convictions existed of rape or murder charges.
From a philoshopical standpoint, what rights does an animal actually have? You'll have to understand that most of them are our food. Some animals torture their pray because that's just something they do, they have 0 understanding of rights and they don't self posess. So only we can decide for them. Just like children. Children and animals are unable to defend and understand their rights yet for children we choose what is best for them and in my opinion we should do so for animals aswell.
That just leaves you with two pills: We test on animals in order to save human lives and create medicine or we test on humans, which has greater risks and reduces development on medicine.
using animals to test make-up and non-essential programs is retarded though and should have never been a thing in the first place. Animal testing for medicine has extended lives but honestly you can cure someones cancer after 15 years of testing on cats and mice and that person gets hit by a bus the day after he is released from the hospital. Not every human death should be prevented at all costs.
Similar threads
