>>6 Is that a fucking challenge
I lol'd at "vivisectamy." I guess the words are close enough to be misconstrued, but it's still hilarious to me. Also, I would be able to take it more seriously if it didn't have flagrant usage of allcaps all over the place. It just seems like you were really angry, and not necessarily putting forth good points.
I mean, you were, which is why I'm going to respond with seriousness - I just had difficulty seeing that due to the presentation.
Anyway.
Throwing in "mutilation" among the words used to describe what vivisection is is a blatant exaggeration. Understand that while the process is controversial, it does have an arguably good purpose. Whether or not the ends justify the means is a topic that may never be completely resolved between scientists and animal rights activists.
Your arguments are also pretty fallacious, and indicative of someone who attempts to rebut scientific facts with uninformed but "believable" falsifications. You say you cannot compare an animal's anatomy, DNA, behavioral patterns, bodily functions, etc. to humans, and that such an idea is ludicrous. Are you at all aware how similar the DNA of all animals are?
If you take a step back and look at the entire scope of organisms that exist on earth, you will note that there are countless lifeforms that have completely different internal body structures and functions. Sure, this could mean that it's silly to compare them to one another.
But do you find it at all a coincidence that, even with all the difference,
all land animals have lungs? What about the fact that
nearly every multicellular organism has a brain, or at the very least a system of nerves that dictate behavior? These are mundane things that are often overlooked. Though appearances may differ, functionality is actually way more common than you think.
This is a basic fact of evolution that biologists come to terms with. For example, figuring out how lungs work explained lungs for humans, mice, cats, dogs, and every other animal that has lungs, since they all work the same with only slight variation. Similarly, it's entirely plausible that operating on human lungs is the same as operating on the lungs of these animals.
You bring up one instance where science failed. This does not rule out the countless times that it succeeded. Science is not something any random jackass will learn and become an expert in, and they do not throw around experiments unless they are
damned sure that what they are doing will be safe. Of course, to err is human unfortunately, and try as they might they can never be 100%. But they can get really fucking close.
You seem to be dead-set on this, to think that anyone who brings up the
very valid fact that experimentation has led to the discover of countless cures, as well as biological understanding, is a troll. This is very narrow-minded, and I have no respect for the fact that you just called bullshit on what science has brought in terms of the modern medical field.
The only part of your post that is a valid argument is potential animal cruelty. It's true - a legitimate part of certain experiments is to induce specific reactions in animals, to observe its effects on its body. Things like pain affecting neurons in the brain, and sickness affecting its bodily systems. To believe that it stops there is dumb though - why would any scientist inflict pain on an animal for absolutely no reason?
Try to understand what it is you are arguing against before arguing in the first place. To give just one reason why these things are necessary in the experimentation process, they have to observe these behaviors and physiological effects in order to
treat them with the drug they are testing. To cure the ailment, they have to test it on something that is suffering from it in the first place; that's common sense.
I know you're way too far over the edge of reason to hear me out on my personal opinion (yes, this is the start of my opinion. Everything above was irrefutable fact), but here's what I think:
Animal experimentation is necessary. And I say "animal" in the biological sense, which includes humans. Ideally, we would test on human beings to see direct, conclusive results, without the middleman of translating it from the observation of biologically similar animals.
But think about it for just a moment. Do you not see the potential problem with this?
We are human beings. There is a very good, albeit selfish, natural reason why we don't test on other humans. I believe people test on animals simply because of the
far worse backlash they would receive from testing on humans. If you think operating on the bodily systems of mice is bad already, how the hell do you think anyone would be okay with operating on the bodily systems of human beings in the same manner? And on top of that,
who would volunteer for that?
The animal rights solution would be to stop testing altogether. To completely shut off biological research, preventing the further harm of any animal, human or not, but also preventing the progress of our medical technology. We will never cure cancer, we will never invent better ways to treat disease, and we will never see where this road takes us because we chose to abandon it.
The scientific solution would be to continue. Animals will be killed in the process, yes, and there is the off chance that some humans will be adversely affected as well. There is a saying: "No risk, no reward." Perhaps in the future, we will develop technology and have so much understanding in the medical field thanks to these experiments, that they won't even be necessary anymore. This is an ideal that many doctors would strive for indeed, but until then, science would have to make do with what it is capable of.
Those are my thoughts.
