Is it moraly and ethicaly correct to save future generations of humans through animal testing ?

I mean, if we use animals as subjects for harsh tests , be they physical or psychological - should we test out drugs and their vile effects on animals other than ourselves first, then when we get it right (if we get it right) - save ourselves ?

knock yourselves out - let me know what you really think is the way forward, i mean if the had to cage up a 10 million chimps in a span of 10 years and test out a series of man made drugs that potentialy was the answer (cure) to AIDS, would you be all for it ? or against it ?

what if it was for 'all forms of cancer' and this was the 'breakthrough' scientists were looking for, but to achive it - we would need to subject animals to distressing testing, is this is okay or not okay in your books ?

i am indecisive and not sure where my opinion stands on this, but im perhaps more PRO animal rights than saving mankind.

we are are pathetic race so to speak, with little to celebrate in terms of our own evolution etc.

give me your thoughts and

feedback on this thought evoking issue.

These are some related questions:

Is it moral to apply a medical therapy, including drugs, that has not been tested on animals if that testing is possible?

Or, would you take a therapeutic drug that had not been tested on any animals?

Or, given that all FDA approved drugs are tested on animals, is it immoral to use them?

Or, would you refuse a drug prescribed by your physician knowing that all of the prescription drugs are tested on animals?

Just a few questions.

I'd hate to know that animals were being put through tests but then again I'd hate to think that millions of people were dying because we didn't test the animals for the cure. In reality the human race depends on the animals for a lot of things. For me my opinions are on a see-saw, I cant give a definite for or against.

I abhor cruelty, be it to insects, animals or human beings.

According to the International Programs Center, U.S. Census Bureau, the total population of the World, projected to 07/23/08 at 22:55 GMT (EST+5) is 6,712,008,568

It hardly seems to me, that our world population is in danger of becoming extinct - anytime soon.

I'm into animal rights, just because I believe the human race is getting pathetic-er everyday (and will forever) and some people don't deserve to be saved by killing a bunch of animals.

Yep. Animals aren't people. We should take care to do our best to ensure research animals don't suffer. But if you kill a billion mice to save one child I'll still sleep great at night.

I think the most significant factor in this is that humans, as sentient beings, are concerned about their individual selves and the future of their progeny - in a fully concious way, unlike animals who are driven by instinct. The primary concern of a human is "I", followed by "my family" and then by "the society I live in".

I think it's more appropriate to view animals as whole species, or large groups who breed and live in their natural environment, being part of ecosystem. Individual animal lifes don't matter in the big picture. If it sounds cruel to some, it's only because they elevate animal's existence to our level of existence, and that's wrong. The day I see an animal develop full consciousness and self-awareness, is the day I will agree that animal testing should stop. Untill then, I will view animals as part of nature on the same level as trees, grass, rivers and mountains.

Is chopping a tree down morally and ethically correct? Think about that.

simply put-yes.
But you loaded the question.
Morally right-yes. 10 million chimps? Depends on the issue. AIDS is a plague in some countires. It is kiiling children that different have a choice. The older folks that are passin git on-I have no sympathy for them. It's the victims that I place over the animals.
Yes-I believe that animals are lower than people, even though many people do not behave as they should.
However...
I have found that most animal research is not necessary and "they" are coming out with new and more reliable methods to test drugs that do not involve animals. I approve of those mthods and would encourage them further.

"we are are pathetic race so to speak, with little to celebrate in terms of our own evolution etc."
If you are expecting perfection, or anywhere close to it, then you will live in dissapointment. Your thoughts are no more right than the guy next to you. And mine next to me. To say we are a pathetic race is a slap on the face of billions of hardowkring honest people. Judging the many by the few who make the headlines.


you wake up!!

No it's not. Here are some arguments against- an animal is physiologically different from a human therefore their response to a drug may be different from ours, there are other alternatives such as HUMAN tissue, cultures etc, animals are living and killing them is murder, they feel stress&pain.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/argument-...

Here is an excellent article from Natasha Bantwal a professional content writer and SEO expert . In it she explains that the public is basically being brainwashed into thinking that animal testing is neccessary and like I mentioned earlier just because something works on an animal doesn't mean it'll work for a human and in some cases it fails miserably! For all you cynics who aren't scientists- "There is a rapidly growing movement of healthcare professionals that include scientists; doctors and even some educated members of the public who are extremely opposed to animals based testing, specifically on scientific and medical grounds. They are of the opinion that animal testing and research is completely based on false premises, that the results that are obtained from such experimentation cannot be applied to the human body"

No one tests on animals by choice. It's the law as part of the process for ensuring safety for people. We COULD pass a law that said manufacturers did not have to test on animals and that they would not be held legally liable if people got harmed as a result .... but I somehow think that would be even less acceptable than animal testing.

I respect anyone's right to feel strongly about it provided they also refuse to benefit from any medication or medical process or any food, toiletry or cosmetic that has ever been tested on animals.

Some brands advertise that they have never carried out animal testing but that is only possible because they use ingredients that OTHER PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY TESTED on animals.

If it has been shown to work and shown to be safe, it has been tested on animals.