To CMH0114: The testing of animals in a laboratory simply comes down to the value of life. You can justify nearly any action you take as long as you discount the value of life. In justifying what experiments take place you simply point to the greater good that can be realized from what is learned and how that benefits any one group. It was not that long ago the same thing was done to justify medical experimentation on humans of a different race. There was a tremendous amount of information gathered and various cures manufactured for syphilis derived from the Tuskegee Experiments.
Although this is a bit of a rehash of a previous discussion on animal testing; the concentration camps from WWII were also used for experimentation on humans and there were many valuable medical gains made from those experiments. Again, it’s a matter of the value of life. The justification for all of these experiments was that it was done on a group from a different race.
I can only assume that at some point in the future, as we evolve, we will look back on the events of today’s experiments with the same horror and disapproval.
When you discuss the damage caused by rats throughout history, try to compare that to the damage and loss of life caused by humans. Based on your logic of damage vs. the sanctity of life, then humans are by far, as a species, the most destructive force on the planet. Extending your argument simply means that humans should be used for experimentation.
The experiments on white mice are not really accurate depictions of the nature of experiments. They are given dosages designed to cause death with the dosages being gradually reduced to safer and safer levels. While I would never argue about the eventual quality of information derived from these experiments, nor would anyone argue the level of the quality of information garnered about hypothermia or the treatment of burns derived from the concentration camps.
It’s simply a matter of your opinion of the quality of life. Is there a species on the planet where you would draw a line and say that is not acceptable?

accipiter
Jul 02, 2009

7 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to: cmh0114 Show

To CMH0114:
Your argument about alternatives is specious at best. There are already several methods of testing on human cells and tissue. They are time consuming and expensive, no doubt but does the sense of expediency and cost really come into play while doing animal experimentation?
If animal testing became illegal tomorrow do you really believe there would be no other alternative offered?
Since you have made a clear delineation between testing for cosmetics and drugs, have you also defined, at least in your own mind, what sorts of drugs are worthy of pursuing? The research into obesity and additions is a huge part of the drug industry research? Yet these are not really diseases. What are your thoughts on these areas?
Hurting animals to save humans? Are you serious about this?
Do the ends really justify the means to you?

accipiter
Jul 04, 2009

5 convinced
Rebuttal

Rebuttal to: cmh0114 Show

To CMH0114:
Please read my argument again. I stated that they were time consuming and expensive. That they exist and are highly effective was the point. Your arguments revolve around the costs as it does for the companies doing the testing. The costs would, as with everything else, be developed through