Research into building synthetic human bodies would be illegal if you weren’t allowed to test on animals first as the legislation currently stands. The laws on human medical trials often mandate this kind of testing. New vaccines, for example, must be tested on animals (primates) before they are approved by Public Health Agency of Canada. Whether or not that is correct or useful or justified is definitely up for debate, but we would not be able to pursue or utilize any of these advancements or medicines without first changing the regulations. That’s the place to start, for sure.

That ks for confirming that you live in a filter bubble and assume everyone with a different opinion than you is arguing in bad faith.

Get off the internet. Talk to a real person.

How about no, and also stuff your holes up to the elbow, turdheap.

Giving beagle puppies 3 hr heart attacks and then killing them gives science a bad name.

If you’re going to do animal research you should be prepared to openly explain why it’s necessary.

Oh my god, someone disagreed with you, they must be arguing in bad faith!!! Run back to your curated filter bubble, don’t let a real conversation spoil your brain rot.

I’m not going to continue to feed your fatherless attention seeking behaviour you pathetic whelp, there is no good faith in your molecules, so don’t presume to lecture me FROM the internet about getting off it.

It works the other way too though, it doesn’t mean that we won’t learn anything that will help humans.

Generally, human lives are prioritized over animal lives.

Firemen rescue humans from burning buildings first, animals secondary. There’s a hierarchy, it works the same in medicine too.

Unfortunately, animal testing and research has given us some of the greatest medical advancements in history: https://hms.harvard.edu/research/animal-research/what-animal-research-has-given-us

Citizens arguing over animal testing and bicycles while paying some of the highest rent prices in the world? = 1

Dougie likes finding stupid shit to distract everyone so he can ignore real issues like our piss poor healthcare and high unemployment rates.

This completely fails to address the actual gaps in scientific animal care legislation, in this case lack of oversight to make sure they actually adhered to the CCAC guidelines and a major lack of transparency. This legislation just sets back science that has good reason to use dogs as model organisms while letting abuse of other animals continue (especially non-government-funded work which has no requirement to follow CCAC rules!)

One thing is to prioritize human lives in a fire or an accident and another one is to torture an animal, a fully conscious being, with the same ability for sense perception as you or me, for the small chance that it might produce some kind of insight. More often than not it doesn’t produce anything useful, even if there are a few instances where it does. I’m not entirely against animal experimentation but it needs to be justified at such a level that there must be almost no doubt that it will produce the required data. If there’s any doubt, you need more research to prove that an animal model will reproduce appropriately in human physiology.

I don’t need you to explain to me that human lives are prioritized, I’m not a retard. I need you to answer why John Everyman who clearly doesn’t value his life enough to stop eating slop, is worth torturing thousands of animals so that we may win him a few more years of life?

Testing should be limited to the researchers and owners trying to make money out of their questionable concoctions.

Get off the internet and have a real conversation with a real person.

Try not to be triggered by that suggestion.

I mean, I literally linked you the incredible medical advancements that have been made possible from animal testing and research.

It’s not just about giving John Everyman a few more years of life. I don’t think you even looked at the page I linked, it’s about organ transplants, antibiotics, insulin, anaesthetics, blood transfusions, and so many other things that have nothing to do with people who “don’t value their life” and instead can affect anyone and everyone and can literally extend lives of millions of people world-wide by decades.

You’re arguing for something that is already in place, it already does have to be justified where there is almost no doubt it will produce the required data.

and cows and pigs and chickens

Animals are property in Canada. We have perhaps the worst animal rights in the western world. You can ship a hundred thinking, feeling creatures in an open grill trailer, 500km in -40C or +40C weather, without water, KNOWING for CERTAIN that most of them will arrive dead, and it is still not a crime. Animals need your attention and protection, because the people you trust won’t do it for them. Please go vegan.

Like they need an excuse. How do you know when someone abuses animals? Don’t worry, they never ever stop telling you.

People who are willing out of altruism, yes. But unfortunately you know that consent would be coerced. Prisoners and the poor would make up all experiment subjects. The only ethical way to do it is by lottery. People would look at the overall cost/benefit analysis of medical testing a lot more pragmatically if it was THEIR children being tested on.

They will always have poor excuses.

But are you aware of all the literally useless experiments that have been conducted that have given us 0 knowledge about anything? Were talking easily billions of animals tortured for nothing, and often it is pretty common sense that we were gonna learn nothing. Often it is more about using those research funds for something, to collect data for the heck of having the data because it might be useful to someone sometime. I’m not entirely against animal experiments but you need to have, I’ll repeat, absolute certainty that whatever process or Illness you are trying to understand is replicable in humans perfectly. This more often than not is not the case.

For example I can see very clearly how organ transplant techniques may be learned from testing in nonhuman animals, it’s almost self evident that it will because even if anatomy is different the mechanics that allow it to be possible are clearly the same across mammal species. But things like metabolic diseases or toxins are entirely different because chemical processes are different across species. My argument would also be that the only animal that should be used are chimps, which many people will oppose because they think them “rational” as if we have conclusive evidence of the non-rationality of other species.

I’m not entirely sure that it is the case but if it is the case that that is how it is done then good. But I have my serious doubts seeing how beauty products are still tested on animals.

That’s a terrible way to do it because you and me and 99.999% of the population are not qualified to make the decision about that and understand the very difficult but ethical rationale behind it.