Thanks to anyone still here. I used to use an animal rights/philosophical argument of this issue as i, like most people, used to think that was all we had to fight vivisection (animal experimentation) with. I now know that is definitely not the case and that it was counterproductive to use the philosophical argument only. If i was going to achieve rights for lab animals rather than just using that term then i would have to show humans that animal experimentation did not benefit humans. I am pleased to say that there is overwhelming evidence to support that claim and no evidence against it. So please use the sites ive posted earlier.
While people believe that thier lives or those of their family are benefitted or saved or will be by animal exp. it will never end. Humans do not benefit from animal exp, in fact it is the main cause of human illness. The substances that harm us and pollute the planet are animal 'tested' then the animal based 'research' consistently fails to cure human disease. There is nothing to weigh up and there never will be. This is the argument the animal experimenters want supressed because it works!
Our newest case study looks at an experiment conducted by University of Adelaide which studies pain originating in the nervous system of rats.
Read about this cruel and (obviously) painful experiment, together with a critique of the study by Dr Andre Menache, and find out who you can write to in order to object to this cruel practice.
I'm totally against animal testing and I agree that animals shouldn't have their liberty violated for human purposes, however I don't agree with the assertion that a lot of animal activists often make about the efficacy of animal testing and how it translates to humans. Of course I would prefer it that testing was only done on humans that can consent to such research, but to assert the information gathered from them is not informative as to how the treatment or medicine works on humans is definitely false. But if anything it's this similarity that should be more of an argument against it.
Anyhow, there was I story I read last year about a cancer scientist who was an animal activist by night - so effectively by day he was assisting with research that involved killing mice, etc. but then he would sabotage notoriously cruel animal research labs at night.
I think we should test on humans: particularly, willing humans. I don't think humans are above animals, or more valuable (in fact I think we are the most destructive force on the earth and in fact often find myself liking animals much more than humans): and therefore we should not be testing on innocent species for our own benefit.
I would rather die of cancer or anything at all than have any animal/species tested against their will for my own sake. They should suffer and possibly die so I can live? Doesn't get more unfair than that. I agree humans arent higher or better than Any other .
Can I just say though.. aren't we trying to battle fate a little bit trying to invent "cures" out of chemicals and that that seem to work together when inserted in an animal?
Sure , if it was someone close I would want them to try absoultely everything to stay alive.. but.. I think it comes to a point where battling fate results in putting your life above another in this instance the animals that chemicals and that used for "cures" are tested on.
My nana has dementia, and while I would give the world for her to recognise me again, if it was out of the result of hundreds of animals used and abused over a number of years to reach that point I would prefer to live with her fairy land mental state.
That goes the same for if I get dementia - which according to my unfortunate genes, I'm highly likely to receive.
And as for the death penalty.. I don't agree with it. Who's to say who deserves to live and who dies? Certainly not someone sitting behind a desk.. that's too much power to one person. I'm also a big believer in karma.
Put them in prison, if what they did was wrong enough.. I'm sure they will get what's coming to them.
