Also, while I don't agree with it. I can understand Slimebeasts point... however it confuses me because I didn't think he was an atheist let alone that kind of atheist.

It's actually somewhat the explination Jeffery Dahmer gave for why he was a serial killer.

Either way is there any animal as smart as a retarded human anyway?

Depends... how retarded? There are people who simply can't take care of themselves due to mental reasons, while all healthy adult animals can.

But from an "intellegence" perspective.

Even then, of course there is the fact that people care about those retarded people.  Just how if people found out pets were being stolen and expiermented on people would be outraged even though the same animals are tested on.

Man mental retardation is depressing though.  I've volenteered in a developmental center before... stuff like that isn't depressing... but when you see someone out with their retarded child... like a grown man wheeling around their 20-30 year old retarded child in a shopping cart... man the look on their faces.  Heartbreaking.

You can tell their childs condition weighs on them, and they're constantly thinking about how this wasn't what they expected and worry about what would happen to their child after they die.

Really sad stuff.

That is a really, really tough one for me TBH. On the one hand I don't like the idea of it at all, but on the other I look at medical needs and value to our species and I get terribly torn.

Currently my views are:

1 - not for any form of cosmetic or non-medical reasons. If we want to put on some nice perfume I figure we find out ourselves if it causes a rash or not

2 - I accept it for medical research, however I feel that it should be a priority to minimise the need for animal testing, and the goal should be to develop research models and simulation based capabilities that eventually render animal testing unnecessary. A huge complication here is the uneasy mix of medical research for obvious illness and the better of our species vs the commercial aspects of medicine (which I believe is a huge conflict of interest but hey we would have an overly commercial society (IMHO)).

3 - I do not accept campaigners attacking or intimidating medical researchers. They absolutely should campaign, but medical progress is for the species and a minority just can't make the decision nor has the right to harm those legally going about curing illness for the rest of us

So in short I think it is acceptable within careful boundaries for medical research, but only as a temporary approach due to our current level of capability, and that the long term goal should be to reduce it to zero.

I'm for it for medical or major technical breakthroughs. If possible though I would far prefer it if they used forms of life that aren't too intelligent - though I am aware that the great apes are closest to humans and as such the best for testing.

I would also like it if they continued to work on technology that allows them to replicate living human cells in a lab which would remove the need for huge amounts of the current animal testing.

It is an evil, but I don't place the same values on the lives of any other species that I do on humans (I don't believe any animals should be entitled to the human-rights) but I do believe it must be hugely regulated to cause the least suffering possible.

It's right. It gives the animals a purpose/demand and makes sure that the species survive.

For example; by eating egg sandwiches, I make sure that humans keep breeding and raising chickens.

Animal testing is basically evil, you can twist and juggle words and definitions as much as you want, but it come's down to one species killing another despite sharing plenty of similar traits such as emotion, intelligence, pain, purpose etc. I honestly think there are to many humans and not enough certain species of animals. We don't need extensive medical treatment just let everyone die as nature intended, survival of the fittest. In the word's of George Carlin, "The kid who shoves marbles up his nose shouldnt be allowed to have children of his own".

You do understand that every living thing basically consumes other living things?  There are tribes of monkeys that hunt other, smaller monkeys, catch them and dismember them alive and eat them on the spot.  Is it really evil to take that same small monkey and kill it to cure cancer vs eat it to survive another day until your next meal - how do you draw that distinction?  Both approaches are based on securing the future viability of your species at the expense of another.  Is every animal in the world evil?

Nature really is 'red in tooth and claw' to use the old adage, and it's not the case every animal in the world will live a nice comfortable life in co-existance if we stop experimenting.  Also, another angle (which I agree with in the sense you allude to it) is that we are happily doing far more general damage to other species through simple expansion of our constructions and demolition of their environments than anything in terms of animal testing.  Not to mention the animals we kill for food, which far outweighs the relatively small numbers killed in animal testing.

Like I said in my post, I'd like to see us aim to reduce it to zero by researching and adopting other approaches to medical research, but I think it's just strange to label it evil.  Evil is a purely human trait I believe, and is where we maliciously and purposely cause harm for no intent.  Murdering children and taping it is evil just because you like it is evil.  A dedicated medical researcher trying hard to cure a major disease who kills some animals in the process, in a controlled and regulated manner, harder seems evil to me.  We might decide as a soceity that animal testing isn't how we're going to conduct such research anymore, but there is no evil involved, just acceptable actions for the survival of our species.

Of course this excluces commercial testing and for anything like cosmetics.  I wouldn't call that evil, but it's certainly not acceptable and heading in that direction.

^^ I pretty much agree with you on your first paragraph, like I said let nature take it's course, survival of the fittest. Animal's shouldn't have the luxury of being treated better than human's, but they shouldn't have to be mass produced and killed either. Evil may be a strong word but I still stand by it, only because I link evil with causing the death of another without any moral reason behind besides keeping another creature alive.

I just believe that when someone has an advantage over another, then the playing field should be leveled a little or we restrict ourselves, we should kill animals for food so that we can eat. To me, killing them for anything else is taking advantage of their disabilities. It's like me going up to a man with no leg's and stealing his money and running away.

I am not politically correct when it come's to the topic, but whatver it's my crazy opinion. I also don't agree with extensive medical research, if someone get's severe Diarrhea then it's their fault for eating the bad guacamole. Survival of the Fittest.

I don't mind animal testing. Its better then testing on humans. And how are we going to know if it works if we don't test it?