Stop trolling my topic. Count her grammy's and then come back here.

Well, whether you think it's morally wrong or not doesn't change the fact that it will continue to happen. Nations don't grow stronger by bending over like a little bitch every time an animal's life is put at risk. The World isn't all rainbows and butterflies. Development depends on this kind of stuff, and I just think it's hypocritical that the same people who cry "morally wrong" are the people using the products resulted from experimentation. The same people who are scuffling down the medicines produced from these studies. These same studies were absolutely crucial in understanding populations and genetics ... the list of benefits can go.

I hate it when people who have absolutely no idea of what they're talking about act knowledgeable. I know PS3 is just trying to get a reaction by making this thread without actually believing the crap he says half the time, but I thought I'd get this off my chest anywho.

Ever hear of Sepparation from Church and state? That's not 100% factual, but I do see what you're saying.

I'm glad you see the other side of the fence though. I just can't get over how they must feel. :(

If there was something wrong with either of my kids and it took the life of every chimp on the planet to find a cure, then sorry, but the chimps are expendable.

Firstly, as funny as the Taylor Swift comparisons are, they're not really on topic, so let's try to keep this as a discussion of animal testing.

Now, an animal is worth less than a human. I would much rather a mouse died of a disease, or its treatment, than a human. As such, to test for, say, HIV treatment, or cancer treatment, or even something like dengue treatment, I see no alternative. Note that nobody is proposing doing tests on newborn puppies or any such thing - though if that were the only option, and would benefit medicine, I would still approve of it.

The whole pharmaceutical business is fundamentally corrupt.

Advancement of human life Vs. The suffering of animals

Which side are you on?

Animal testing is necessary for modern science.

It should however be heavily regulated to remove unnecessary cruelty and so that it only occurs on research that will truly advance science - not for things like cosmetics.

I could write an article about the circumstantial contradictions herein. I could write another one about the logical contradictions. Another one could be made by analysing your philosophical world view and comparing it to the lofty philosophies of India and the Greeks and your lack of absorbing any of the lofty thoughts therein - a follow-up could view the absolute mess this world is in by considering your views as that of a typical '1st world person' of modernety.

Instead of wasting my time, I'd rather point out something simple.

''Honestly, as humans, we have to take a very cruel "care only for other humans and nothing else" stance if we don't want to completely fail as a species.''

Since your motive is based on association, i.e ''I am human'', I'm going to take your exact implicit philosophical reasoning and extrapolate it to the point it inevitably leads to:

''Honestly, as white-people, we have to take a very cruel "care only for other white-people and nothing else" stance if we don't want to completely fail as a race.''

Identical mentality - i.e. conditioning, different applications.

The western world is insane.

I agree to some extent.

In the cases of the cosmetic industry and some cases in the pharmaceutical/therapeutical researchs, were animals like chimpanzees, rabbits, lambs and pigs are used, i'm completely against, especially since more than 50% of those researchs can be done in stem cells or monoclonic cells. 

Now in the cases were the special bred laboratory mice are used (toxicology reports, genomic studies, cancer studies and so on), then those tests are completely necessary. Not only it would be impossible to use stem cells to such an extent (most toxicology reports can use over 500 mice, so it's economically unviable to use stem cells in the amounts of millions, and let's not talk about the amount of stem tissue needed). Also, those mice are specially bred for those purposes, since they're not a species that can be found in the wild. 

Plus, there are some cases that simply cannot be tested on humans directly, unless you're willing to be ethically and morally responsable (and let's not talk about the pure sociological backlash a full non-proved human study would do, it would be a lawsuit galore) for the probable death of hundreds of tests subjects. 

Animal testing is fundamentally wrong in the cases that it is not needed, but unfortunately there are cases in which is strictly required (again, following ethical regulations and the aformentioned lab mice). Would you allow yourself, morally, to anull all those tests and use humans tests subjects solely?