Animal experiments.  Both sides of the debate say 'anything goes'.  we will all die one day, so is it ethical?
821737
i can understand why they do it but...\n\ni dont agree because animals are not humans and they do have different d.n.a to us.
637802
Euthenasia is *infinitely* more humane, but it goes against some archaic religious rules so we starve our terminally ill instead.\n\nTragic.
723621
there r enough humans and enough blood for now.. so v r feeding animals once we get selfish enough to donate blood.
230317
Jerry, you raise an interesting question.  How can we justify consuming so much? We don't.  We don't like to "think" about it usually.  Just a few days ago, I wrote a study that for a cow to produce 1 lb. of meat, it must consume 6 lbs. of grain.  But instead of consuming 6 pounds of grain, we go for 1 lb of meat.\n\nSuch as the conditions are, should we be allowed to exist?  From a religious perspective yes.  God made us and he provided the things for us; thus, they ought to be consumed.\n\nNow the problem arises when don't have such an egoistical point of view.  Dostoevsky once said that the only question worth answering is if we should commit suicide.  Is life worth living?  Yes, but we must return some of what we consume.  We can only justify living if we are truly alive and not just existing.\n\nIn my opinion, living is what makes the difference.
926979
In an ideal world, no, not at all. Sadly, a lot of the time animals are not given the respect they deserve by Man.\n\nHowever, for some medical research, animal testing is necessary. We simply cannot test new drugs etc on people 'straight out of the box' - a lot of people would die, which I don't think anyone would accept. Trust me, a lot of scientists wish animal testing wasn't needed! This is why a lot of research is going into the devlopment of alternatives. Some branches of bioinformatics for example, aim to create accurate computer models for 'human testing', so that a lot of side-effects can be accurately predicted before human trials begin, so avoided the need for animal testing. This technology is still only in the development stage though.\n\nHowever, it is worth noting that not all labs treat animals in such cruel ways. Different countries have different rules. In many labs now, the animals used are extremely well cared for. Sadly, this is not the case everywhere.\n\nWhile I do not like it, I do see the benifits. Until a suitable, permanent alternative can be found, I think it is important to campaign for better treatment of animals used in this way.\n\nI will never support animal testing for anything but medical uses. There is simply no excuse for testing cosmetics on animlas!!
780969
Question: Where are you going to find an authentic sample of his cells?\n\nNo, it's not ethical, but it would most certainly be done if the scientists thought they had an authentic viable sample. \n\nPeople would kill to get their hands on it. One to protect the sample from being debased by science, another in the belief it will heal or provide immortality, one to see if the clone would have perfect morality and miraculous powers, one to prevent the sample or clone from becoming an object of worship, one to keep Jesus a mystery only attestable to by faith, one to prevent the other from getting it... each would have thier own motivation.
524598
First things first: I am against animal testing for cosmetic and vanity purposes. Yay for the Body Shop. I buy not-tested-on-animal shampoo etc., I'm vegetarian, and I don't wear leather.\n\nBut...\n\nI'm also a doctor. And was a lab scientist, until I decided I personally didn't like the rat killing, even though I understood the rationale. Almost *every* advance in medicine today is built on preliminary tests in animals. Dissolvable sutures? New antibiotics? Cancer treatments? Vaccines? Balloons and stents instead of open heart surgery? Heck, anti-bird-flu drugs??\n\nAll of these are tried out first in animals. Because when it comes right down to it, people are selfish. And if I personally was asked if I'd rather have something tried on me first in the world, or if I'd rather it were tried in a rat to see if it killed it - I'm sorry. I want to live. I vote to try it on the rat. And if it were a question of my child or a rat? Rat. Your child or a rat?\n\nWell, that's your call.\n\nHaving said that - yes, there are limitations to animal tests. Yes, there are some tests that can be done in cell culture, computer models, or donated cadaver tissue. But, and PETA don't point this out, there are lots that can't. I don't know if a new method for stapling the gut back together after cancer surgery (which, if it works, is vastly preferable to sutures) is going to leak and kill my patient. You can't test that in cell culture. It has to be an animal model. Or a real patient.\n\nIf you personally wish to volunteer for these tests - good for you. Perhaps we should start a website, collecting names of people who are willing to be guinea pigs, rather than using actual guinea pigs. \n\nNo, wait. That's been done. Experimenting on black men with untreated syphilis. Experimenting on condemned prisoners. Experimenting on concentration camp inmates. There have been lots of cases where humans were used as primary test subjects. I disagree with this philosophy, myself.
153130
neither are considered ethical. As long as you are preventing a birth from happening weither it is through a tubal legation, abortion, and any from of birth control it is not ethical.
943624
I think embryonic stem cell research is wrong.  I am a Christian, have been all my life, and I don't like being stereo-typed because of my religious 'convictions.'  Advocates argue that Christians are against embryonic stem cell research because they, we, think when we die we will have to answer for it.  NEWS FLASH!  I have accepted Christ, I am going to Heaven when I die, and here is the kicker......I won't have to answer for THEIR transgressions!  I think embryonic stem cell is wrong because life does begin at conception.  The argument that it doesn't is just a way for those who end life to feel better about themselves.  You shouldn't be able to harvest humans like potatoes for the sake of research.  Any way you look at it, it's wrong.  No ifs, ands, or buts.  I have a hard time figuring their reasoning.  What it boils down to is that they want to kill babies to cure old people.  End new life to save one that's already been lived.  For what?  To add another 10-15 years to a persons life?  Why?  Like you said, embryonic stem cell research has yielded no results, however, adult stem cell research has been the most promising so far.  I don't have an argument with these practices.  I don't even have an argument with using aborted embryos for research.  I don't believe in abortion, but the US Supreme Court says it is the right of a woman to decide.  If she decides to end her pregnancy, then I believe the embryo can be used for research.  Is this not a good enough compromise?  I have had a great grandmother die from one of those diseases stem cell research promises to cure.  I watched her suffer, held her hand as she passed, but I would never have signed anything that would have her better if I had to kill a baby.  So many people out there would love to be parents, but they can't because of medical or financial limitations.  Democrats want us to sign on for funded programs that allow babies to be killed for research to cure illnesses and diseases.  I don't see any of these people pushing for a federally funded program to help barren women conceive the children they so desparately want.  Are they really trying to help people?
773408
Yes, I feel it is perfectly ethical. You are desposing of a parasite that can't survive outside the womb. Without an abortion, it is adding another unwanted child to this already overpopulated world.
318325
Not the least.  It is quite natural for any animal, including human beings.  The only thing hazardous about it is, one keeps on thinking with may be sense of guilt that it is not normal.  So get rid of that and enjoy.
936052
Animals are afforded some rights in our society, coinciding with their lower intellect.  That is, they do not have the right to vote, but are entitled to a clean healthy life if owned by someone.  If they are to be put to death - it must be according to nature (ex: feeding live rats to a pet snake).  People however do not have the right to experiment on animals in their own home - doing so is considered cruelty - something which the ASPCA takes very seriously!  I would highly encourage you to turn in your "friends" before they conduct further "experiments".  Or at the very least contact a local university that does some animal experimentation - and educate your friends on the standards professionals have to adhere too!   \n\nResearchers who conduct animal experiments within a laboratory environment have a license to do so, have to follow very strict protocols in caring for the animals before, during and after experimentation (everything from feeding time, amount of food, temperature, etc is documented several times per day), have to account for every step of the experiment, and answer to an oversight board.  If it is believed the animal would feel any pain whatsoever, or experienced effects detrimental to it's health during the experiment - the rules state the animal(s) must be euthanized in a humane way immediately after the experiment has concluded.  Before any such experiments begin, a true scientist also needs to justify why it is necessary to use animals, what research has already been done, and why non-animal alternatives won't suffice.  They must also lay out the entire experiment design including the expected results.  If the potential experiment is not justified - the oversight board WILL nix it before it begins.
814382
animal testing\neuthanasia\nabortion\ncloning\nstem cell research
609095
Why wouldn't it be?\nUsing contemporary moral standards:\nSeems that most people have no moral qualms about eating animals.  Vegans and vegetarians are a very, very small minority.\nSaving a human life is generally agreed to be a high moral good.\nTherefore, killing a pig to take its heart valve and transplant it into a human being who otherwise would die, appears to have a higher moral good than killing a pig so that people can eat cheeseburgers with bacon.\n\nOf course, if one wants to use other assumptions the results would be different.  If one assumes that all life is equally precious, whether human or a pig, one would find killing the pig for either reason to be wrong.\n\nIn short, like most questions of morality, it depends on your starting assumptions.
825667
My view is that if it can save a human life by killing a few dogs and cats then im all for it.\n\nIf you are talking about dogs and cats used in beauty test ... i say let humans test em, lol.\n\nok some big words coming but bear with it and keep reading.\n\nnow seriously, if you want to make a case for pro-animal test, then look up "Something the Lord Made."  It is a film about the first doctor(s) who did open heart surgery. The main doctor in the film was able to find a cure/treatment for Traumatic Shock that has saved countless lives. This procedure was tested on animals. Later this same doctor tested on animals to try and cure "Blue Babies," AKA children born with the tetrology of Ferlo (i didn't spell that one right). His procedures were once again only able to be tested on animals. This to has saved countless lives as today there are about 130,000 heart surgeries done yearly. All possible by the poineers who tested on animals first.\n\nSorry i don't remember their names out write but looking up the movie you will be able to find their names.  Your teacher might even let you use the movie as one of your sources for your essay.
694653
There are ethics and then there are morals.  Morality is what has to do with your motive: breaking some law in order to do a greater good (say to save someone) would be moral, but unethical.  Ethics are more like a code of conduct set by society, and aren't based on 'right' and 'wrong' but rather just conventions of behavior society expects you to follow so that it can operate smoothly.\n\nGenetically engineering a mutant human race wouldn't neccessarily be unethical.  However, in my opinion it'd be immoral; any motivation to make a new species is not likely a noble one.  At best, they'd be pons for research and bizarre experiments.  Furthermore, to even consider such a task with the limited understanding of genetics that we have would be wrong (morally) b/c its certain to result in abominations and travesties.  Even clones, which aren't new species, are not the same as 'normal' organisms.  They have a shorter lifespan, and some notable defects.  There's just something about it that seems wrong to me.  We should have some limitations on what we do, at least until we understand things better.
516894
We unarguably need to increase animal testing.  I think everyone can easily agree on this.