Intelligent Chat:

Do you think we should use animals to test for new cures for various hazardous diseases?

The intelligence of this is, like the question stated. Should we test on animals to improve the chances of getting cures for cancer, aids and other malevolent dieases. And should animal testing also be used to explain different sociological and psycological theories. An example of this would be Harlow's supporting theory on attachment.

What I wanted to ask was in brief, why shouldn't we test on animals, when in actuality it may help further the researchs for cures and etc.

''The animals weren't apart of creating this substance. Whoever was apart of it, should be tested.'' --Arnold P. (My neighbor)

Sure, why not?

[I find this to be a poor choice for intelligent chat as it's a yes or no answer question. Ok, we can explain ourselves in varying ways but it's a closed question that doesn't allow for expansion or interpretation.]

Do I think animal testing constitutes as an intelligent debate, yet it does, if it didn't it wouldn't be controversial today.

Now do I think testing on animals is ethical, ofcourse not. No person can truly say that. But do I think it is nessary, ofcourse I do. If it will help us cure dieases and help us answer sociological and psycological questions.

You said:

"I don't believe that killing animals under any guise other than for "necessary" food should be done."

So it is ok to kill an animal for nutrition, but it isn't ok for an animal to be killed to save another man or woman's life. Let me ask you a question Bob: Is it ok for a living thing to be slaughtered to help feed a family. Is it ok for a cow for example to be slaughtered to feed a family of 4. Humanity needs to survive, and when dieases plagues it, we should use methods to ensure our survival remains intact.

You may scoff at this and argue at the thought that research is another method to ensure survival,

We need food to survive, why not remove malevolent diseases to survive.

From one aspect combatting diseases is not best for humainty. It weakens us as a species and prevents us from following the creed 'Survival of the Fittest'.

And no diseases are malevolent as none are sentient life forms and they do not choose to attack, it's just how they survive and grow stronger as a genus.

We're not scoffing at the thought that research is another method to ensure survival, just it was poorly formatted to make an intelligent chat.

I'll scoff and say a question is only a question when followed by a question mark, though.

I'm all for testing things on animals.

New marinades... New ketchups... new basting sauces...

Well for me... i dont think we should use animals for testing for cures... there could be other ways we could test for cures... well i aint tottally against testing for animals, cos everyone is free, with there opinions... well for me i wouldnt like anything to be tested on animals...

For shampoo and hairspray, no. For serious medical purposes, yes, bot only animals that have been bred for the purpose and not taken from the wild.

I'd love to see the bleeding heart liberal defend the rights of animals with a relative dying of cancer for lack of a cure.

We are the top of the food chain, animals play, kill and rape each other, we are animals and though we can choose not to do these things, for the greater good of our species, animal testing should be allowed if it's ethically done.

No, I don't think they should..

I agree with Jenn's Neighbor..:/

hell no i am totally 100% against it, its not right and its not fair on animals i mean do they even get a say no which is very wrong!!! takecare mel xxx

Look at it like this: Suppose an epidemic of some new disease comes along that genuinely threatens the existence of mankind. I'm talking extinction here, as opposed to the don't-dip-your-sausage-in-a-food-blender horrors of AIDS or widespread scaremongery like bird flu (Shameless Plug: see my poem "Big New Death") and things like that.

Suppose there was a disease that genuinely threatened mankind as a species. And then suppose that our survival depended largely on testing any potential cure on our nearest genetic matches? How against testing on animals would you all be then?

^testing on animals is effective, that's why we test on animals. Look at all the stem cell developments that have been popping up lately.

There are people who will show you examples of how this went wrong and how this animal suffered. But that's what testing is all about. Would you rather these things be tested on humans before they deemed safe enough to try?

Sure, it sucks for all the bunnies and beagles who die in various ways, but they're only bunnies and beagles. Kids kill more pets in the home than testers kill animals.