devil’s advocate

http://hartfordadvocate.com/gbase/News/content?oid=oid:142230

came across an article about testing on animals. now, i really like animals although i’m an out&out omnivore but when it comes to drawing the line where does one draw it?

i think that if it’s for medical purposes and it might help in even just shedding a light on a disease or a way to prevent it, then animal testing can be carried out. but if it’s to find out if a particular cosmetic will cause an adverse reaction in humans, then animal testing is crap!

it can also be argued that if something’s meant for the people then why not test on people themselves to begin with. why not indeed? but who do you choose as candidates?the homeless, teh winos, the ne’er do wells? who? at least with a human being there is a chance to realise their potentials and actually achieve something in life at some point or the other. with animals that potential doesnt exist. they can be taught many things, they’re quite intelligent but eveything that we know about them has been brought to the forefront by humans through years of testing. to the extent that if we talk of conditioning in people Pavlov’s dogs immediately come to mind.

at the end of the day, callous as it may sound, an animal is still expendable to a degree that a human being wont ever be. and that’s the accepted truth, atleast for now.