Testing on Animals

Should testing on Animals be allowed or should we not do to them what we wouldn't want doing to ourselves?

Vivisection has long been a contentious issue.

Why should we be allowed to inflict suffering on any living being just so that we can make money? The argument that they are doing “for the benefit of mankind” is complete rubbish 99% of the time. And even when it may be justified, I don’t agree that humans are so special that we are justified to harm another creature even to save another human beings’ life. In reality, where testing needs to be done in order to save human life, then that testing still need not be done on animals, as it can be done on artificially grown cells in a lab, so not harming any living creature (but, of course, using the rabbit is much cheaper than growing and developing the cells in the lab, so guess which option the company will go for?).

Any testing that goes on upon animals today is purely due to profit margins, and I challenge anyone to justify making money is more important than whether or not any living creature is harmed.

I've got mixed feelings about this. I don't think that animal testing is ever justified when it comes to cosmetics, nor do I think that animal ingredients should be used in products like aphrodisiacs. These are luxury products which aren't worth the value of an animal's life. However, I think that some animal testing can be justified in medical research, as long as it can be proven that the research is relevant and the best option. The reason for this is that many medical procedures save lives. I don't like to admit it, but I do think that peoples' lives are more important than animals' lives, so the loss of, say a hundred animals to medical science could be justified if it means it saves a thousand people.
By the way, do other people see a moral difference between vivisection and eating animals for food? Surely, there's little difference as both practices are avoidable and involve suffering for the animal?

It may once have been necessary to sacrifice a few animals for the "good of humanity" (although I still point out that it is only our own arrogance and self-interest that makes us believe that we are any better or have more right to life than any other creature), but that is no longer the case, as technology has already advanced enough that we may conduct any testing on artificially created cells and structures so there is no longer any need to use other animals.

I do see a big difference between vivisection and eating other animals for food, as we are omnivores and naturally developed to need the nutrients that are obtained from feeding on other animals, as well as fruit and vegetables. Any move towards changing our diets to cut out meat completely inevitably leads to long term nutritional problems and the need to supplement our diet to replace what we are missing out on from eating meats.

Also in travelling as much as I have, all over the world, and spending so much of my life “homeless” (this applies to sleeping rough while travelling as well as the issue of not having a home within a city where I would normally live), I long ago learnt to eat whatever I could find or catch. This means that I have eaten many things that others consider to be disgusting and would turn their noses up at (such as insects, spiders, scorpions, snakes, rats, any animal that I could catch really), simply because it was necessary to survive. When one has not eaten for a few days and the only food available is running around a field or sand-dune, then you go and catch it and eat it, no matter what you would or would not normally eat.

The one thing I do really object to when it comes to us eating other animals is when those animals are bred for food and live miserable, unnatural lives for the sake of profit for the farmer. Animals, even those raised for food, should be given the life they would normally and happily live.

Is there any proof that being vegetarian or vegan "inevitably leads to long term nutritional problems"? I'm not aware of any. Surely, avoiding animal products means that you just have to be a bit more careful about what you eat to ensure, for example, that you get enough protein? I might be wrong, but the only nutrient that is only found in animal products is vitamin B12. If vegans have to take a vitamin B12 pill every now and again, then surely this isn't too much hassle?

There you have just provided a form of proof in your own answer, that supplements are required if eating a vegan diet. There would be no need to take any supplements at all if one just ate a normal, healthy and natural diet, as we were designed to.

Eating animals may be 'natural' in the sense that people have done it for thousands of years, mostly through necessity. However, that doesn't imply that we should only do 'natural' things. If so, we could never travel by car, watch TV, buy processed food etc. I think you made this point yourself on another thread!
As for saying that eating animals is 'normal', I'm sure it is, but that doesn't imply that not eating animals is not normal. What does 'normal' mean, anyway?