did you,got me eye on them for xmas,

were not loons,well i am a bit but most are'nt,

I am against all testing for any reason . If an animal is harvested for food ok kill it quick and humanely, but when animal is made to suffer for any reason IMO that is wrong.

I'm all for testing on them.

I'm against using sentient beings for experimentation without their consent. Non-sentient species, though, I don't care about. Humans are more important than them in moral terms.

I would agree with those terms. I think the act of assigning moral standards to animals that simply couldn't recipricate to us, is folly.

I don't name rocks and get upset when they are left outside in the rain.

Most species are clearly not sentient but some probably are other than humans. The other apes, elephants and dolphins, namely.

Well the next question is... what does it take to define a creature as sentient?

Can that sentiance be lost once granted? Example --- can we test human medications on people who are brain dead?

Its the grey areas that I so enjoy playing in.

Well, we do know that species differences cause real scientific problems transferring the data from nonhuman animal testing to humans. The Nazis and the Japanese used human subjects (as did the USA) and got more meaningful results (which we are still benefiting from, btw).

Vivisectors are the keenest on vivisection - they should therefore do in on themselves and each other: link [human-nonhuman.blogspot.com]


rogY

Yes there can be problems with transferring the data from nonhuman to human. But the benifits of animal outweigh not testing at all.

As far as testing things on our enemies... well thats not the topic at hand now is it? The two are definatly not one in the same.

Vivisection is still a valid form of education and information. Human to human morality pervents most of us from performing it on one another. Athought there are a perverse few who carry over the human to human morality to animals, I believe Rogy fits into that group.

According to scientific anti-vivisectionists, human health benefits would be far ahead of where they are now if animal testing had not occurred.

Human to human morality? You mean the kind that allows 30,000 people to starve every day?

rogY

And we would have alot less polution if oil was never discovered to power cars.

Yes thats the kind I'm talking about.

But just think of how many people starve because animals don't help us? Not without animal labor or us devouring thier flesh. So in a round about way... more people starve because animals don't willingly help us, than humans refusing to help each other.

If you want to assign moral standing to animals who can't possibly recipricate, you need to follow though all the way. Start holding animals responsible for letting us die of starvation. Hell.. if a dog dies of starvation in my back yard, I would be held accountable!

If its going to be a street, it needs to be a two way street.