Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by Teever | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Teever·

I resent the attempt to tie the entirety of science to the use of animals in experiments.

Someone can still be a strong proponent of the scientific method but be opposed to animal testing for moral reasons.

View on HN

What's more moral, experimenting on one pig or letting thousands of people die who could be helped by your research?

Or as an alternative question: is it less moral to do this experiment than eating the pig? Because society seems to be by far and large be okay with eating pigs.

I think the relevant question is: if you were the pig, would you choose the experiment over being treated as in the food industry?

>I think the relevant question is: if you were the pig, would you choose the experiment over being treated as in the food industry?

Any day. The pigs were anesthetized. A slaughter house is a positively horrific experience by contrast.

Eating is a basic necessity for life, scientific experiments are not; you can eat plants instead, too.

Scientific experiments are necessary for life if you're dying of a fatal illness.

What does this have to do with my comment?

I understand what you're saying but it's pretty much impossible to be scientific in biology or medicine without animal testing.

I say it is more moral to stop animal testing; our moral systems are different.

Fair enough, but then it would be hypocritical to take advantage of pretty much any modern medicine. All drugs and procedures were tested on animals, as well as biological research.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com