Welcome to Gaia! ::

But all medications that are tested on adults would need to be tested on pregnant women to see the effects on the fetus, otherwise, either pregnant women would need to stop taking medication, or we'd have thousands of children die in the womb or born with birth defects. We'd in effect be torturing thousands of human children if we didn't test on pregnant women first, and if we only tested it first, we'd be torturing as many human children as we'd be torturing animal children.

And I beg to differ. We don't need the medication as a species necessarily, but we do as individuals need the medication to live longer in many cases. Depending on what the goal is, then yes, we do need all the medication we use. No one thinks that a five year old girl going through chemotherapy is going to live forever, but the hope is she'll live longer. The same is true with people of all ages. No one taking medication is denying that death is part and parcel with life, but they do realize that life can be pro-longed. So yes, humans NEED the medication we use to live longer.

Why does the species make a difference? We're discussing organisms and organisms. Animals and animals.

Once again, I already said I would simply say not to continue with the research of the medication. See the fundamental problem with debating this? You're going "But... without animals we'd have to test on people!" whereas I'm saying "No, we don't. We could just wait until another alternative comes out, or not continue with it." You view medical advancement as a necessity, I don't.

By that arguement women NEED abortion. Seriously. Yes you NEED medication eradicate some diseases or viruses, just like women NEED abortion in order to eradicate the fetus.

I don't think the species makes any difference. What I'm saying is that if people want cure for things, such as cancer than THEY can volunteer to be tested on themselves. At least then they're consenting. If they can't consent, as I've said before, don't test on them.

No argument there

I both disagree and agree with that. Humans are adaptable creatures (Mind you its a mechanical, not organic, but adaption none the less) Given proper tools and knowledge, I would be, eventually, at the very least, on equal standing with those animals. The trial phase would be hell though. whee

Cant argue there either, that does make more sense.

Okay. Done. I am (personally) okay with animal testing for medications and cures because I (personally) feel we are biologically superior to animals in that I feel it is survival of the fittest, while at the same time I am against abortions unless they are done for the life of the mother and where damage to health will be severe and permanent.

I wouldn't say that I "agree" with product testing on animals. But that I feel that it is, in some cases, still necessary and might always be (unless that DNA chip technology your link talked about actually does work in finding what triggers cancer and such) to see the effects of new compounds on working systems over the course of a lifetime.

Eventually, working human organs will be grown in labs, and so testing can be done on them, as they won't be able to feel pain. I don't really know how many new cleaning compounds and the like need to be tested on working systems (after many other tests) every year, but I don't think it is that many.

Maybe I'm selfish and species-ist, but I would much rather than 1000 lab rats die in a controlled experiment than that one human dies because a product wasn't tested on a living system before it was released.

The idea that people should just stop making new products (or medicines) is laughable. Might as well tell everyone to sit on their hands until they die of starvation. Humans have an inborn drive to discover new things, and our society comes with the great need to make money and support oneself. People who work as researches need their jobs, to support themselves and their families. There already aren't enough jobs to go around, and stopping production on anything that needs animal testing to prove it is safe would put a lot of people out of work.

Do you refrain from using medicines and other products that contain compounds tested on animals?

To me, there is a pretty big difference between testing on non-human animals because there isn't another option and testing on humans that someone calls animals because one wants to.

However, even though medical science has benefited from unethical practices in the past (not just horrible things like Nazi experiments, but also less unethical things like digging up corpses to dissect and such things that were done of necessity long ago), I don't feel that is quite the same thing as medicines that were directly developed through animal research.

I don't use cosmetics at all, and if I did I would only use those that weren't tested on animals (do you know if they use compounds that are just safe or if they use ones that other people previously tested on animals?). And I also use herbs long before I think of using any man-made medicines (I don't even like to take basic pain-killers). You answered my question though, I was wondering if you boycotted medicines and such that were developed though animal testing, because I have heard of people that do for ethical reasons.