plyrs99 said:
wow, some of you need to get your priorities set straight!
if you really think that it is okay to torture innocent little animals in the name of medicine, that it is okay as long as it furthers our own human cause, then do me one small favour...
come over right now to my place, let me slice open your head, sever your nerves and see how you like it. oh yeah, all in the name of medical advancement for generations to come of course!
on no levels whatsoever, is this right.
Plyrs99
Your sentiment is touching, but your last statement is obviously wrong and naive.
If a person was to be given a choice between their mother living and a kitten free from torture, you imply that choosing a torture-free kitten would be the morally correct act. This is obviously untrue.
Therefore, its reasonable to say that there are SOME situations in which torturing a kitten is warranted. Some more hypotheticals, suppose torturing a kitten has a 100% probability of:
1. Preventing a nuclear war?
2. Preventing a child being raped
3. Curing an infant of a devastating and painful disease.
These are of course really improbable, but illustrate a point.
One must be careful to realize that most of the time, the choices are NOT one OR the other as the examples suggest. As I said before, methods other than animal testing need to be developed and prioritized over animal-testing, so that we can have the best of both worlds. Nobody wants to torture a kitten.
But to say that it is NEVER permissable to do so is kind of head-in-the-sand of you.