• 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    That isn’t an answer to the question:

    Why would it be ok to test on non-human animals but not on humans?

    • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      Because humans are more valuable. If you had to choose between saving one human, and one hundred rats, which would you choose? We test on rats until we deem it safe and ethical enough to progress to testing on humans.

        • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          This is like asking why is some random stranger any more valuable to you than your closest loved one.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              You value one over the other and you know it.

              You are all over this comment section attempting to slip out of good points but we see you. The good points stand.

        • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Can you answer the question, “If you had to choose between saving one human and one hundred rats,which would you choose?” The answer to your questions is related to this one.

          • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s not related because that choice is not what is happening. You don’t have one button that kills/saves rats and one that kills/saves a human.

            What is happening is that we have deemed it morall ok to medically experiment on non-human animals but not on humans.

            • KrankyKong@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              It’s absolutely related. Animal testing has indirectly saved countless lives. I think you’re refusing to answer because it doesn’t help your argument.

              • 🦄🦄🦄@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                What argument? I haven’t made an argument, I want to know your position and what it is about humans that makes them more valuable than non-human animals.

                • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  You absolutely have made an argument and you continue to. You’re saying animal testing is morally indefensible despite any outcome it’s ever produced

      • Jerkface (any/all)@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That doesn’t make the lives of animals worthless. And they are treated as less than worthless. Animals can have rights and human lives can still be saved. Is it worth one human life to save a million rats? All the rats? Humans are not infinitely valuable. Not compared to another sentient, sapient creature like a rat.