Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
Here is an ethical question then...
If you have a child whom, god forbid, falls prey to a disease/ailment that causes death without treatment. Treatment that was developed through the use on animals.
Do you or do you not allow the treatment to be allowed on your child?
Where I sit, and i think i can safely speak for about 99.999% of the population when i say it is a no brainer and you get that teatment going immediately. Animal activists SHOULD do exactly the same thing as well...and not ONLY because of their love for their child but because the human race WAS superior enough to come up with said treatment even if it was tested on animals. Yes or no?
And yes diss....the human race is superior to that of any animal population on earth. Thats how nature works. The smarter, bigger, and faster win at EVERY level of nature when it comes to animals. Thats why you see cheetahs chasing down gazelles, thats why you see wolves hunting in packs to devour an elk, and its why you see schools of sharks swimming together in the pursuit of the thousands of fish they eat everyday. Christ..there are species of animals that eat each other. Some eat their own children.
|
Good post. I would save my son in a second with the medicine even though I am opposed to how said medicine was found. A person can be against guns for example but if one is in reach and someone is trying to kill them I am betting they try to use it. I just think there are better alternatives then animals and because 99% of people do believe human life no matter what is greater then an animals they think it's twisted and that's fine, I don't though.