People who are for animal testing ?

[Jabberwocky 46]

I wonder if these anti testing people would be so against it if their kids life depended in it. Or if the animals being tested on were spiders, scorpions or centipedes instead of fluffy furry little things.

[Halibut 12]

I wonder if these anti testing people would be so against it if their kids life depended in it. Or if the animals being tested on were spiders, scorpions or centipedes instead of fluffy furry little things.

Good point Jabber. I think we know the answer don't you?

[Jabberwocky 46]

Good point Jabber. I think we know the answer don't you?

Yup.

and if itd give any of my offspring even an hour of life id gladly pour bleach into every rat i could track down. To save one of my kids id wipe out every ring-tailed lemur, every panda, every collobus monkey on the planet with gusto.

[peterw 10]

> Somebody posted - Call me stupid if you wish, but I have diabetes (the tablet taking kind) and arthritis (the pain-killer capsule kind). Eventually a side-effect from diabetes is likely to kill me, but that’s life — and death — in a very natural way because I don’t take those tablets that a doctor would prescribe for me. Nature will decide how long I live and when and how I will die. I much prefer that to having an animal tortured on my behalf

 

 

So if you get an infected wound after a gardening accident do you reject antibiotics?

 

Do you use a flush toilet?

 

Do you use a computer? (err obviously)

 

All of these things are "not natural". There is no such thing a "nature" making a decision - it is the luck of the dice. So if you want to accept the dice life rolls for you - fine. However, I'm sure most other people alive today over the age of 27 (which was the average adult life expectancy in the 1850s in Sheffield) firmly believe that we should intefer in "nature".

 

As I said before, I think the focus of the anti animal testing movement should be on the meat industry - and the arms industry for that matter.

 

You obviously don’t know how many years I’ve managed to live without having to rely on experiments with animals. Don’t bother to look it up, I’m 77. Whenever I’m ill I search for a natural product to help me, and so far so good.

[peterw 10]

P.S. Just a bit of light relief but my original doctor tried his best to talk me into taking his tablets. He too tablets himself when he was ill, and died at the age of 55. And here I am, still going strong!

[peterw 10]

> Somebody posted - Call me stupid if you wish, but I have diabetes (the tablet taking kind) and arthritis (the pain-killer capsule kind). Eventually a side-effect from diabetes is likely to kill me, but that’s life — and death — in a very natural way because I don’t take those tablets that a doctor would prescribe for me. Nature will decide how long I live and when and how I will die. I much prefer that to having an animal tortured on my behalf

 

 

So if you get an infected wound after a gardening accident do you reject antibiotics?

 

Do you use a flush toilet?

 

Do you use a computer? (err obviously)

 

All of these things are "not natural". There is no such thing a "nature" making a decision - it is the luck of the dice. So if you want to accept the dice life rolls for you - fine. However, I'm sure most other people alive today over the age of 27 (which was the average adult life expectancy in the 1850s in Sheffield) firmly believe that we should intefer in "nature".

 

As I said before, I think the focus of the anti animal testing movement should be on the meat industry - and the arms industry for that matter.

 

Sorry for being so boring, but missed the bit about infected wounds. I’’ve currently got one following a ‘dog’ accident (can’t do gardening) which was my own fault. No antibiotics but it’s healing well, and thank-you for asking.

[spacedoggie 10]

I test my animals all the time.

 

If they sit when I tell them to they get a biscuit.

[royjames 10]

Animal testing is wrong and ought to be banned. There can be no justification for it,morally or otherwise.

[plekhanov 10]

Animal testing is wrong and ought to be banned.

I take it you're a vegetarian then Roy? Even if you are and actually have a coherent ethical position what right do you have to impose your beliefs on others denying them life saving and pain alleviating medical treatments?

 

There can be no justification for it,morally or otherwise.

You don’t consider relieving human suffering and extending people’s lives to be a moral act?

[Andy78 10]

Animal testing is wrong and ought to be banned. There can be no justification for it,morally or otherwise.

 

I personally am not sure about animal testing, but I know if anyone I loved required treatment to save their life, I could not stand against it, even if the drug had been tested on animals. I don't believe that anyone can justifiably say that they are against it, unless they refuse related drugs and treatment for themselves and loved ones.

 

roy, if you had a choice of yourself (or loved one) dying or being treated with a drug that had been tested on animals, what would you choose?

 

It's very easy to stand up against such research, until you start to consider the effect that it will have, and already has had on your life.

 

ps. roy, you nearly sound like a 'lefty'

[peterw 10]

I personally am not sure about animal testing, but I know if anyone I loved required treatment to save their life, I could not stand against it, even if the drug had been tested on animals. I don't believe that anyone can justifiably say that they are against it, unless they refuse related drugs and treatment for themselves and loved ones.

 

roy, if you had a choice of yourself (or loved one) dying or being treated with a drug that had been tested on animals, what would you choose?

 

It's very easy to stand up against such research, until you start to consider the effect that it will have, and already has had on your life.

 

ps. roy, you nearly sound like a 'lefty'

 

What you say is quite true — except for one thing. We each have control of our own bodies and really cannot refuse or accept related drugs on behalf of anyone else, however much they are loved and however much you want them to live. I believe what I do is right for me, but when my late wife developed cancer the choice to take drugs or not to take them was a matter for her. She took the drugs and I encouraged her to do so, but spent the next 11 years fighting against the inevitable. I just do what I believe is morally right for me. To conclude, we were each given a life to live, not a life to be interfered with by scientists.

[nick2 10]

Call me stupid if you wish, but I have diabetes (the tablet taking kind) and arthritis (the pain-killer capsule kind). Eventually a side-effect from diabetes is likely to kill me, but that’s life — and death — in a very natural way because I don’t take those tablets that a doctor would prescribe for me.

 

Nature will decide how long I live and when and how I will die. I much prefer that to having an animal tortured on my behalf.

 

But animals have already been tortured on your behalf, how do you think your medication was tested ?