' Is it morally acceptable to experiment on non human animals to develope products and medicines that benefit human beings?'
and
'Do non human animals have rights ? '

Thalidomide and, more recently, TBN1412 passed animal trials without any indication of problems.

Whilst in vitro testing would probably have picked up the issue with TBN1412, it would have missed the birth defects thalidomide causes. Until artificial blood becomes available for transfusions, mass scale in vitro testing using human blood and blood products isn't really possible. Blood banks have enough trouble trying to get blood without having to compete with drug companies that would pay for your blood.

Computer modelling is still in it's infancy. Though I do wonder how many compounds ruled out by animal trials will be revisited once it hits maturity.
I wouldn't go so far as to say rights. But as concious beings we have a duty of care over any organism we force our will upon.

I think you need to be more specific.

I would think its safe to say that a lot of us wouldnt be here if it weren't for medicines, procedures and other advances that would have been tested on animals over the hundreds of years. Doesnt make it morally right, but it does make it easier to deal with.

If you mean products as in cosmetic testing, that type of thing where it is not actually advancing us, then no, IMO that is wrong.

Its the same argument for eating animals, is it wrong to eat animals? no, we are omnivores by nature. It is natural for one organism to feed on another. Is it wrong to use animals in such a way for food that is unnatural or inhumane, i.e. veal, caged hens, killing sharks just for their fins, etc? Then yes, that is wrong.

If a loved one has the option to die or choose a medicine that has been tested on animals, the choice would be medicine with no hesitation.
If my kids were starving and there was a cow stood next to us, you can bet it would be steak for dinner, but that does not mean I agree with certain aspects of how animals are treated or exploited for anything other than food or medicinal benefit.

Just my opinion though, im sure there will be plenty of people who disagree with me :S

It's all part of the food chain I think. If you're unlucky enough to be born as an animal it's a bummer. That doesn't mean that they should be mis-treated though. If anyone objects to animals being used then they should either volunteer to replace the animals or stop using make up, medicine, health treatment, eating, wearing leather shoes, using caged birds as pets, going to the zoo etc. etc. etc. It's just life, get on with it or top yourself to save you worrying.

If the shoe was on the other foot i'm sure animals would use us and other species to aid their wellbeing.
It's been seen many times in history :

The dinosaurs ate cave men to survive
Apes enslaved humans in the future after a nuclear war
Dolphins took over Springfield and persecuted the Simpsons family and friends.


On another note, can vegetarians eat jellyfish? Are jellyfish animals, as they don't have brains?

i think the operative word here is " benefit"


in my opinion testing should be allowed for medicines and beneficial uses, as for cosmetics/shampoos and the like then
not at all

test em on lifers if u ask me

How come no-one fights for vegetable rights? They are living organisms too arent they?

Because they haven't got brains like jellyfish, scarecrows and PCSO's

Plenty of scrotes serving life in prison for very nasty crimes to test these things on - that way, we know what the reaction will be on a "human"

I tend not to think about it. No matter what I think or say, it's still going to happen. Gradually, I think the problem is improving, in light of efforts by campaign groups, and is certainly a lot better than 30 years ago.

But still, it shouldn't happen, but it does, tis just a fact of life, like many things. All those people who buy clothes stitched by 4 year olds getting paid nothing, and all those people who pay hundreds/thousands for their swanky iPhones etc, and then you hear the excessive rate of suicides and terrible working conditions for the people who make them. It will always happen, it's the way of the modern world unfortunately.

Not particualarly morally acceptable but in the grand scheme of things if it saving human life (medicinal research etc) then the means justify an end. Better tan testing on Refugees, minors or others Medical scandal


If it is for cosmetic purposes, then thats just bang out of order