Vivisection ... wrong or right?
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!!
492535
of course it's not wrong. you couldn't stop it if you tried. Don't worry about it. Your v-card has nothing to do with it either.
169264
Would you like me to stick one of your family members in a cage and shave them bald, smear untested goop on them just to see if they break out in a rash? Or hey lets just inject them with stuff and see what happens.. I wouldnt do it to a human and I dont want it happening to animals either... ther has to be a more humane way of testing things.. if it costs more or takes longer then fine I can pay more or I can wait.
1047052
It is morally wrong not to enjoy ourselves. What about people who are blind, does that mean I should not want to see, or people who are deaf, does that mean I should not want to hear?\nWhatever it takes to enjoy life and as long as it does not hurt anyone else, it should be done.
1147304
Not really\n\nhttp://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/pleasure.htm
196101
I think it is wrong and inhumane. Killing is not a sport. all living things feel what ever happens to them, and killing them  is just wrong, why cause any thing pain when you dont have too????? killing for sport is stupid. like hunting. stupid stupid stupid.
1175777
Sorry thought this was an animal rights issue-wrong room.
1028637
Is it wrong to do a smaller bad-thing, when others are doing what in your mind is the worst bad-thing?\n\nDo you want an answer that says it is less wrong to poke holes in your body to make yourself feel beatiful and to verbally abuse people, than to take anothers life?\n\nAre you trying to draw lines between far-away things in order to blur your perception of reality?
36403
Not exactly veterinary medicine, but pre-vet zoology is more like it. Why the interest, I love animals and believe that it is our duty to be stewards of the earth and its other non-human inhabitants. Besides animals are fun, interesting, and they don't talk back!
871088
It is Debatable, Whether they Are Alive or Not, I personally Think Not, Some Neat Images: http://www.virology.net/Big_Virology/BVHomePage.html
966410
Not wrong at all.  Two consenting adults that wish to engage in the act should be more than welcome to, regardless of sex.  If that's what you want to do, do it.  Who are we to judge?
453873
That right has always been forfeited, when have we ever legally had the choice to die? Our pets do, but we do not. Its just the law. It doesnt stop anyone from doing it though, so what does it really matter. Love Heidi
778963
I totally disagree with animal testing. They do not only use unadoptable animals they use specially bred dogs, maily beagles. These animals have a miserable existence and some suffer abuse from the lab technicians if they don't tow the line i.e. allow blood to be taken from the vein in their necks without struggling. I have suffered a great deal of trauma from what I have experienced first hand of this practice. It's no good saying only necessary experiments can be done as this is just too ethically difficult to decide so a blanket 'permission' is given to the drugs companies. Each study uses about 50 dogs who only stay alive for 6 months and are then all euthanised. Some of the technicians find this funny....I have seen this! These animals respond to love .... I tried to give it to them....but it didn't save them, probably made it worse for them to accept the cruelty and suffering.
193555
I think testing on animals often times is unethical. The end does not always justify the means to me. In fact, with some religions it all about the means. Stealing and killing are often means to a desired end, but clearly unethical.\n\nAlso I believe using a human embreyo for an ethical end but by unethicals means is wrong.
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.
525233
I think that's an excellent idea.  To an extent.  I'd go more with saying who's not aloud to breed and spaying them.  Click the link below for an example that proves my case.
1068539
I think it PETA was wrong in this case, and that this was done in bad taste. First, Beyonce having dinner with them was an act of CHARITY  (benefitting "Save the Music"). What was the thinking there? "Let's make Beyonce look bad....WHILE she's doing charity!"\n\nAs a result, PETA has created this divide and hurt their cause. While Beyonce's use of fur should be questioned, they certainly chose the wrong venue. Jeers to PETA.