Unfortunatley
The cold hard facts are that without animal testing many, many people would die and many more would never be able to live their life in the relative comfort that pharmaceuticals would provide them. Unfortunately these facts don't seem emotive enough for some.
( shambla www.gagaprinthouse.com, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 9:59, archived)

But why are singular people more important than the
hundreds of animals that die being tested on? Especially when it's only for 10 more minutes of pain free life?

We all die, if something goes wrong with my heart I wouldn't want a pig slaughtered so that I could have its one.
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:01, archived)

What makes people more special than, say, rocks?
Whatever the answer to that is, it's the same reason.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:08, archived)

Its a difficult and very emotive issue
and to be honest, one that I am too heavily involved in to be objective. I work in pharmaceutical research for a bio-tech company specialising in genetic disorders. The products that I work on are enzyme replacement therapies. This means that if you take it, you have a full and normal life, if you don't take it, you will die an excruciating death by the age of 3 or 4. I would kill a lot of rabbits to give a child that.
( shambla www.gagaprinthouse.com, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:11, archived)

What if that child grows up to be a murderer
or animal rights activist?


I honestly fail to see why human life is regarded as so important. Something must be broken in me.
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:14, archived)

I think there is something broken in all of us if we post on here. :)
Ask yourself this, if you were walking past a burning building and you hear a dog whimpering and a baby crying, which would you rescue first?
( shambla www.gagaprinthouse.com, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:17, archived)

honestly?

If it was someone I knew's child then the child.

Otherwise, couldn't say. I would assume if faced with the situation then instinct would take over and my caveman genes would send me toward the child.

But sitting back thinking about it, neither deserve to die, so they are equal in their need to be saved.
The usual arguement is the child could grow up to be an astrophysisist or a heart surgeon. But as I said before, they could also grow up to be a crack addict that beats me to death for my pension in 40 years.
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:22, archived)

the alleged caveman genes you shift responsibility to here are just more deeply-held, intuitive values.
This doesn't necessarily make them right, of course.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:29, archived)

they're the more animal ones
proving that animals are more important than the self loving, money grabbing idiots the human race has become :D

Out of curiosity I just posed the same question to the missus, wondering if a natural maternal instinct would guide her.
She said grab the baby and call the dog at the same time. A dog of almost any age can look after itself and come when called, babies and people are useless and need you to do it for them.

Again, animals rule :D
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:44, archived)

Neither of you really want to face the question
of how much you like people compared to dogs.
I suppose that misses the point a bit, though, really. Different kinds of people are excluded (usually) from having the worth of their lives evaluated in a crisis. It's not a matter of how much we like them, but whether it makes sense to fit them into the scheme of equality.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:50, archived)

hahhahahaha, yes, we're in denial.
We're more cat people really, I'm not actually a big fan of dogs.
But the question to me may as well honestly be "there are two identical pebbles in a field equally far from you. If you must pick one, which do you go and pick up?"

life is life, the dog could become the pet of an old lady, rescue her from burglars and provide her with years of companionship. The kid could grow up to be the next Prime Minister. Or the dog could die 3 days later from smoke inhalation and the kids could get knocked down by a bus on his 5th birthday.
Neither matter when the end comes and this planet falls in to a Black Hole.
Life is life, enjoy it while you can, no matter what the species.
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 11:02, archived)

What if the choice was a cat versus a dog?

(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 11:06, archived)

tougher
I would be led by my favouritism to cats in this case. Which is a bad thing.

Could still call for the dog while grabbing the cat though :D
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 11:12, archived)

I think animal rights
is just a way to rub my nose in human failings. The argument for equality with animals isn't a sincere argument for a better system at all, but just a way to draw attention to people sometimes being bastards.
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 11:26, archived)

Awww.
This is quite persuasive.
*joins peta*
(_Felix suspicious character from prehistoric caucasus, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:18, archived)

What if
It had already been slaughtered to make food, and the heart would go to waste?
(Count Fwapula tragically only has one bum, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:11, archived)

hahahahah
a) they don't use the same animals.
b) I don't eat pork

:)
( HappyToast sorted on, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:15, archived)

The pig...
i'd have it's heart, hell i'd ask them to butcher it up for me take home and eat it. Mmmm...tasty.
( Cliff Apparently enjoys fishing for leopards on weekends, Sat 10 Feb 2007, 10:57, archived)