3 ms·

OP and their family of course, since OP clearly believes animal lives are as valuable, if not more, than humans'.

by melony 4y ago

FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
We are animals, we're not more valuable than animals, since we ARE THEM, we have always and will always be equally valuable to animals. There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. If OP and their family AGREE to, then yes, of course, it would be infinitely better than testing on unwilling sentient beings.
- tsol 4y ago
  >There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with. If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
  - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
    "Expecting humans not to have a bias" "There isn't one rational reason " Are you that bad at contradicting someone?
phphphphp 4y ago
I think that if the animal testing is so important because it’s fundamental to the future of the human race, you will absolutely find people willing to participate in early medical trials: after-all, we already do! I’m sure many people here have family who have participated in clinical trials. Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough. There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.

OP and their family of course, since OP clearly believes animal lives are as valuable, if not more, than humans'.

by melony 4y ago

OP and their family of course, since OP clearly believes animal lives are as valuable, if not more, than humans'.

We are animals, we're not more valuable than animals, since we ARE THEM, we have always and will always be equally valuable to animals. There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. If OP and their family AGREE to, then yes, of course, it would be infinitely better than testing on unwilling sentient beings.

tsol 4y ago
>There isn't one rational reason why a human should be worth more than any other animal. Simple-- because the one pondering it is a human. Expecting humans not to have a bias for their own species is like expecting a lion to choose to go vegetarian; in general they that's not the nature these animals are endowed with. If we're all animals, why is it okay for a lion to violently follow its nature, but humans cannot?
- FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
  "Expecting humans not to have a bias" "There isn't one rational reason " Are you that bad at contradicting someone?

phphphphp 4y ago

I think that if the animal testing is so important because it’s fundamental to the future of the human race, you will absolutely find people willing to participate in early medical trials: after-all, we already do! I’m sure many people here have family who have participated in clinical trials. Animal testing is rarely necessary, it’s just the easiest option, and when it is absolutely necessary to test on a living being, it should be possible to find someone to volunteer. If you can’t find anyone to volunteer, it’s clearly not necessary enough. There’s already significant restrictions on what can/can’t be done to animals in many countries: I am not suggesting anything radical, just following these restrictions to their logical conclusion — no experiments on beings that haven’t consented.