HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 It is so easy to close your eyes and pretend that no wrong is being done here. Then why has nobody done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sci fi Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 You haven't heard a poor excuse. Would you prefer that the experiments take place on human babies? Or would you prefer that such conditions remain forever untreatable? You are assuming that experiments are not done on human babies, I am sorry but you are very wrong. These people have no scruples, every living thing is a target to them. They just keep the really sick stuff secret and blow smoke in our eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 That isn't a solution. Genetic disorders appear because of random mutations, as well as being passed down from parents. Yes they are but a high percentage is passed on from parent to child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sci fi Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 Then why has nobody done that? People are doing that, have you not read the pro vivisection to this thread? If you are pro vivisection then you are closing your eyes and pretending nothing bad is happening. I am pro life. But not at the expense of torturing a poor animal till it's death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 If you are pro vivisection then you are closing your eyes and pretending nothing bad is happening. That is patently false. If you were actually reading what people have posted on this thread, you wouldn't try to make such an absurd claim; but clearly you are starting from a conclusion and constructing a chain of "reasoning" that allows you to reach it. There's little sense in debating with anyone who decides in advance what their eventual decision is going to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sci fi Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 That is patently false. If you were actually reading what people have posted on this thread, you wouldn't try to make such an absurd claim; but clearly you are starting from a conclusion and constructing a chain of "reasoning" that allows you to reach it. There's little sense in debating with anyone who decides in advance what their eventual decision is going to be. You are assuming this is a debate! Other than you saying yes I would happily change places with one of these animals then you have no argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce_Shark Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You are assuming this is a debate!... Well, you clearly aren't! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 You are assuming this is a debate. No; I'm pointing out to you that this is a forum, a place for people to offer differing opinions, debate issues and come to conclusions. You clearly have no interest in doing any such thing, and are intent on labelling anyone who might disagree with you as being blind, regardless of whether they actually have any good points to make or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaati Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Signed as I believe it to be disguting. Why should humans have it 'better'? Cats are living creatures as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 According to the scientists they were never in pain, and I tend to agree with you about using animals to find cures for genetic disorders, when the solution is to stop passing the genetic disorder onto next generation of people. How would you go about doing that? Would you do a full genetic evaluation on everybody, determine which people had genetic defects which were often hereditary and sterilise those people compulsorily? Would you simply identify people who you suspected had genetic (or other) 'defects', sterilise them (so they couldn't breed in future) and sterilise their children to prevent them from breeding? You could call the programme 'Eugenics'. You wouldn't be able to patent it though, it's been done before. Most recently in Sweden (which abolished compulsory sterilisation of 'defectives' in 1976 - but still sterilises transsexuals.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.