Poll: Morality (Yep, another one)

[Brawndo]

Hell no. To me, human suffering is always more important than animal suffering. With the exception of some higher primates, all other animals are not even self-aware.

Americans rage about abuse to pets and animals, but the majority do not care about human suffering throughout the world. The average person is more outraged about Marines throwing a puppy over a cliff than the Darfur crisis. I've never harmed any animal bigger than an insect, but I would kill 100 puppies before I would kill a human baby.

 

[Kurokami]

So I know there's a lot of morality threads around here, but I thought this one would be interesting to see your opinions on, Escapists. So...

Would you stop the research and development of an important and revolutionary drug that could save many, many lives if you knew there were hundreds of animals that the drug was being tested on?

This question is of course assuming that you have the power to abort the research. And the drug is perfectly legal, and will save millions and millions of lives.

Why do I ask? I'm just curious for your opinions.

I don't care about animals so its a no brainer, really.

Test away.

 

[badgersprite]

Despite being a vegetarian, I really don't have a problem with the testing done on lab rats. My Dad works in medical research. I know there's not really an alternative. The things produced here can do so much good in the world, not just for humans, but for other animals as well. I feel no qualms in saying that this is completely moral and ethical, although I'm not sure I would feel comfortable doing this myself, which is why I'm the only person in my family not in medicine.

Science is good.

 

[Kurokami]

Looking at the big picture, the good far outweighs the bad.

So no

If the testing were done on humans it would be alright then? The humans being tested on having varying results ranging from death to whatever else would be outweighed by the amount of people who could after words use the drug to save or rather extend their life.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

No, I don't care about some animal if I get life-saving medicines.

 

[Naheal]

Looking at the big picture, the good far outweighs the bad.

So no

If the testing were done on humans it would be alright then? The humans being tested on having varying results ranging from death to whatever else would be outweighed by the amount of people who could after words use the drug to save or rather extend their life.

Depends, doesn't it? Are we talking about a treatment that can save countless lives and requires human testing? Then, yes. Are we talking about something that could be tested on animals, but isn't? Then, no. Are we talking about a time difference between the two of ten years? Depends on how deadly the disease is, isn't it?

 

[CheesusCrust]

No, animal testing has been a staple of scientific research for years. Also, as a human I'm more concerned about the well being of other humans, my species is more important than all other species.

 

[dogenzakaminion]

No I wouldn't stop the animal testing. Many people will flame me for this but an animal life isn't as valiable as a human life. In my opinion at least. Not that we shold kill animals at random or anything, be kind to all creatures, but if theres a choice between a human life and an animal life I'd always choose the human.

 

[Ace of Spades]

No, and with no hesitation. Whose lives take priority, animals, or humans?

 

[BlackStar42]

Medical testing on animals = a nessicary evil

cosmetic testing on animals = should be outlawed.

End of discussion.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Hman121]

what must be done, must be done. I choose no.

 

[likalaruku]

When I was in Jr, High, I beat the shit out of a kid half my age for stepping on ants, so yeah.

I say we start testing on the suicidal, the elderly with dimentia, the incurably insane, people on death row, & the vegetable-like comatose.

 

[Nouw]

There are thousands of products that test itself on animals and we don't even know. I think we should start testing

When I was in Jr, High, I beat the shit out of a kid half my age for stepping on ants, so yeah.

I say we start testing on the suicidal, the elderly with dimentia, the incurably insane, people on death row, & the vegetable-like comatose.

Yeah he gets it.

Nevertheless, I chose no.

 

[Manicotti]

I've probably EATEN hundreds of animals in my lifetime and it's never been an issue no matter how many naked celebrities PETA throws at me, of course I support the possibly equal disposal of animals to create and perfect a revolutionary drug that will be around much longer than my appetite.

 

[Merkavar]

depends on a few things i guess. what sort of animal testing? what sort of animals?

and if the drug is so good why not test it on human volunteers. im sure if a drug could save millions you would easily find volunteers.

but i probably would. the testing would take a few months to a few years and then its over.

 

[blankedboy]

Well, if it's a life-saving one, yes. Not if it's just some shitty makeup perfume or something.

EDIT: Gah, the other way round. Double negatives piss me off :/

 

[Jedoro]

Unless I get human volunteers, no. That shit needs to be tested for toxicity so my ass doesn't get sued.

 

[Thundero13]

This thread is too vague, I wouldn't stop the production of the drug but I would stop them from testing it on animals.