| </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Sodfather,)
If not animals, what are we going to test the product out on? Is a rabbit's well-being more important than ours?
I got an idea: let's develop some skin cream that may or may not be corrosive when it comes in contact with epidermal cells. Then, let's test it on a human rather than a rabbit and let that human have a big scar on his arm rather than the rabbit.
Stupid...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Why is it stupid? Someone puts himself forward, knowing the risk involved. Or another life is captured and against its will is tested on.
IF the research was important, then I would, although disliking it, be prepared to accept it as neccesary, just as I do with stem cell research. But as much of todays research is regarding minor improvements to current drugs, which is profitable, rather than truelly benefitting research, like AIDS research, which is not profitable since the people who need the cure couldn't afford to buy it, I still stand by my objection to most testing.
Nature, I'll get back to you later, yours is going to take more time to write.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Winston Churchill |