The post that was quoted here has been removedI am not a squemish person, but I found this very difficult for me to watch. We are very biologically simular to monkeys.
The Huntingdon Life Sciences website say that they have ethical limitations on what they can do to humans, hence use animals. The same ethical limitations should be applied. If some kind of medical research require animal testing, then tough. They should find alternatives.
Although I do not condone animal testing, this does not mean that I also condone protestors attacking people. Education is the key.
Ugg, I loathe this debate. Just because an animal is all cute and stuff, people apply more vehemence and instant, unreasoned reaction to an issue which is far smaller than many others they should be outraged against and yet do nothing about.
Modern medicine just would not be possible without vivisection, people would die from all sorts of things because the research which enabled the development of drugs we all take for granted, would never have happened. If you are outraged by the use of vivisection then I suggest you stop using any cosmetics as well as prescription drugs or ever undergo any serious surgery, none of these would have been possible wihtout vivisection.
Now to my mind that's another subject to the one of cruelty, cruelty is not acceptable at face value and there are meant to be methods in place to stop suffering. Unfortunately what one man considers cruel is what another considers a necessary evil of providing medical treatment, is what another considers perfectly reasonable because animals aren't human. Where you sit on that scale is a debate to do with animal rights, not vivisection. At the end of the day, serious debate about the rights of animals and legislation that is well balanced and reasoned will never happen because those on the one hand are motivated by the money they can make from drug research and those on the other are motivated by misplaced and sometimes militant emotional connection. So it is that we continue to turn away from videos without any contextual explanation whilst still buying a variety of products and medicines tested on animals, on a regular basis.
Despite all of this I am still annoyed that people don't rally about human rights abuses in anywhere near the frequency or numbers as those who do about animal rights abuse.
I didn't realise they tested exploding cigars on beagles........absolutely appalling
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/ksm/lowres/ksmn291l.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/e/exploding_cigars.asp&h=400&w=395&sz=42&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=31fTYM473XAcfM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=122&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dexploding%2Bbeagle%2B%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
The post that was quoted here has been removedShow me what the claim that this is the norm is founded on. The behaviour in the videos was pretty rough, and it's good to see that people don't get away with it. If a minority behave badly it shouldn't infringe on the rest of science.
As I said before, if you believe that this is the way that all animal experiments are done, then how could you use any modern medicine and not be hypocritical?
The post that was quoted here has been removedThere are quite a few claims you make here that really need support if you are to get beyond the emotion of the debate.
the scale of vivisection
the cruelty that goes on
unreliable data
extent to which it helps is exaggerated
many top Doctors and scientists oppose the practice
and so on ...
I'm not saying you are wrong on any or all of these, but for anti-vivisectionists to be taken seriously by the scientific and wider communities, you need to go beyond the rhetoric and the emotion and show how alternatives to these practices can achieve better results for humans.
If you can't, you're banging your head against a wall ...