Pro-Choice? Animal Testing? I needa debate.
 

I dunno. I am Pro-Choice, but I HATE animal testing. So, I wanna debate.

You think animals should be free to choose whether we subject them to tests? :confused

Somebody needs to say "scrambled eggs are the result of an abortion."

Hehehe. No, I want to stop animal testing.

I approve of both abortions and animal testing.

I support testing on criminals anything that would normally be tested on animals, and in lieu of that I oppose animal testing of anything outside of medicine (as in cosmetics). But if a particular research project means I will be safer and healthier, they can sacrifice all the baboons they want for it.

And I oppose abortion in favor of adoption for all children born to unfit parents and sterilization for anyone who has a child accidentally (aside from rape cases, of course).

I agree with animal testing, as it's always well needed research, but I disagree with abortion as I favour a Soylent Green style resource management policy.

You see, the trick is in making the state the only entity with the legal authority to offer abortions. After forming this monopoly, state-run abortion clinics can be run with huge profit margins, allowing for more economically-stimulating tax cuts.






j/k.

You're right. I'd never know whether or not my shampoo is going to burn my eyes if they didn't initially stick it directly into a rabbit's.

IT'S PEOPLE!!!

theres a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice >:

i'm all for animal testing... love em or dont, animals have no rights.

I am opposed to cosmetic animal testing, as well as any animal testing that already has sufficient computer simulated programs that can replace them.

I am opposed to abortion on a personal level, but feel that democracy must prevail, whether it be right or wrong. I support the preservation of the standing law of the land set out in Roe v. Wade.

I also think this thread is utterly retarded.

Hey Kevin, no one else said the truth, why should you?

Re: Pro-Choice? Animal Testing? I needa debate.
 

I am confused as to how the two relate.

Because I'm a special snowflake.

Kevin's such a thoughtful boy.

What's Soylent Green?

MEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAT!

Only if you're eating fertilized eggs. Otherwise, it's a chicken period.

Hey, I was being honest, too. >:

People. I'm telling you, it's made from people.

I don't support abortion, neither do I support animal testing. Animal testing, as I see it, allows a scienist to circumvent the Scientific Process by testing a poorly thought out hypothesis and shift through conclusions to gain insight into a problem.

The Scientific Process was not, as you will recall, so much a means by which answers were to be found as it was a tool to teach one's mind to think critically and analytically.

Picture this. X scientist at Y research facility has a medical hypothesis (a drug or a surgical procedure, you name it), but requires a living creature to test it and not just a petri dish.

If relevant aspects of an animal's physiology are similar enough to a human's, the scientist with an analytically trained mind will realize that he can perform a test on the animal and expect similar results on a human, thus eliminating the need for a human test subject, which would either be impossible of prohibitively expensive to acquire. Without the animal test subject, the experiment could never be performed at all, and any potential scientific gain from the experiment would be unattainable.

So explain how using an animal in an experiment automatically makes the hypothesis "poorly thought out," and tell me what "shifting through conclusions to gain insight into a problem" means. You may have meant "sift," but that still doesn't tell me much.

FUCK pro lifers. I never met one who wasnt a complete fucking shitbag.

Pern, it allows the possibility of poorly thought out hypothesis' to be tested because of the ease and lack of consequences involved in applying bio and/or chemical composites becomes negligable. For instance, take shuttle tests. In our last orbital mission, I believe they were testing to see how various insects would be affected a by significantly lessened gravitational environment. That is not a hypothesis, but it is reflective of how the scientific process is undertaken in todays world.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in537344.shtml