The Scientific Argument Against Animal Experimentation
Print This Post
Good science versus bad science:
The scientific argument against animal experimentation:
a) animals and humans are different,
b) animal experimentation artificially sickens or injures healthy animals, which can influence the experiment,
c) better alternatives exist, such as tests on human cells,
d) science and medicine must first do no harm.
Good stuff. I’m fond of pointing out the vivisection paradox: Ask the experimenters why it is scientifically sound to experiment on animals to find treatments for humans, and the answer is: “Because animals are like us.” Ask the experimenters why they think it is morally acceptable to experiment on animals, and the answer is: “Because animals are NOT like us.”
As paradoxical as ignorant, the truth is that neither they themselves know what they do, they simply justify their economic gains, regardless of which these animals is, indeed, neither they are understood. If we are not equal, why they do it, if we are equal, why do not correspond ?…. Finally, because there are no arguments … it’s like saying … torture by torturing, killing for killing … What a pity I feel for all this … and impotence at the same time …
Please don’t feel impotent. You can make a major difference in animals’ lives by being a vocal vegan.
I pisses me off so much that with the scientific and moral argument against it animal testing still PERSISTS! I love animals and feel it is immoral and not useful to experiment on them. I do love the paradox a couple people mentioned above. I just wish scientists would listen!
I find it a little more than funny how people try to argue this with morals. Morals and ethics cannot be debated, cannot be raised in a debate, and most importantly, cannot be mistaken as fact.