Cybernetics
Registered Member
I personaly belive that In my self centered Ethical ideas anything which has good results for me is fine including animal testing.
Discus but dont flame
Discus but dont flame
there are virtualy no realy horifying tests, all prelim tests are on microbes in labs.
I also offer that one, is it worse than batrey farming? and two you are streching onto the grounds of the mental incapacity act, are people who are incapable of making decisions still in posesion of full rights?
yes these are decent working criteria, but given enough money people would do virtualy anything. also dose this mean you would just as happily see a person die as a pet?
if somthing can only be done to an animal if it could be done to a human then the same is in reverse and you apply the esame ethos
P.S. I know this is a vile exageration but i am making a point
Then there's probably nothing wrong with testing it on animals either.For certain tests I would happily volunteer for a fairly minimal sum
These tests do happen though..the pictures you aded in an eirlier post were all from extremist groups and activists which give a lopsided story
It was just an aside.This infringes on the mental capacity act which refers to choice.
It's largely an unnecessary evil. The main reason companies still test on animals is an economic one.In my solution i would offer that actualy human testing is preferabale and this is infact where i stand but animal testing is a necesary evil and it comes back to the question of the value of a life.
Yes.Would you sacrifice the one for many?
What do you mean here ?I totaly reject cosmetic testing as unecesary.
My apologies for not making myself clear with agreement I will change the thread to medical testing since I cannot argue for cosmetics.
The one for the many quote was retorical but it makes the point.
Short of paying human testing wages are there any other ecanomic reasions