Childhood indoctrination

[Forbinator]

Animals are similar, genetically at least (depending on the animal, naturally) and are used thanks to that genetic similarity without having to test on humans directly (not exclusively the case).

Not ever the case actually. All drugs tested on animals have to then be tested on humans, making the animal testing redundant. If the testing was reliable and valid, the drugs would go straight onto the market without needing clinical trials in humans first.

...the exact same rights as a human. I read an inference in your OP that this is exactly the position you take.

No, I just expect their interests to be recognised. The exact same rights as humans would be silly, since animals don't need public schooling and lack many of the interests that we have. Animals (in particular mammals, birds and fish) have the same interest in not being force-fed toxins or injected with cancerous cells as we do.

Question: What would you do if you were diagnosed as a T1 diabetic?

I would take insulin, of course: http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...nd-Insulin

I would also say that there are clear advances in medical science that would be impossible to achieve without first conducting testing on animals (unless you wanted to just test on humans instead). Prion based research on misfolding proteins for example. There is currently no way to test for prions such as CJD in animals unless they exibit symptoms (scrapie) or until they're dead. Same with humans. The only way to analyse and test (and hopefully one day cure) diseases such as CJD and MCD is to test them in controlled environments on animals.

This may be the case in a select few examples. In cases such as CJD and MCD however, why expend such great resources looking for a cure when we already know how to prevent the disease(s)? Don't engage in cannibalism, and don't feed beef meal to cows. This is already known. There are other cases when excessive resources are expended towards a cure, when prevention would actually save more lives. There's no money in prevention though...

You'll have to explain further how clear results from medical testing on animals that result in treatments/cures thanks to the methodological enterprise that was conducted as such is a post hoc fallacy.

1. A drug exists.
2. It is tested on animals.
3. It is then tested in people.
4. It works.

You have assumed that (4) occurred as a result of (2), simply because (4) occurred after (2). This is obvious post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, unless you can prove that the advancement couldn't have occurred without the animal testing. Since the drug already existed whether it was tested on animals or not, you can't possibly claim that the animal testing was necessary for the development of the drug. http://www.vivisectioninformation.com/in...-guesswork

You will also need to explain and expand on "worst abuse(s) imaginable", and then continue to expand on how this informs all research as conducted on animals.

If we're talking about medical research on animals, then you have to experimentally induce a disease in a large sample of animals, and then try to treat it in different ways. There is no humane way to do this. Painkilling drugs have a tendency to confound the results and prevent symptoms from being noted. In any case, if the perpetrators view these animals simply as objects to be exploited, how can we reasonably expect them to care about the animals' individual needs? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPtj89MzoZk

Another question: How do you define 'animals'?

I should use the phrase "non-human animals", but for the purpose of debate it makes sense to focus on the sentient animals that we exploit the most, and who are known to experience suffering and distress much the same as we do (mammals, birds, fish, crustaceans).

Medical research is very important, and needs to be done reliably, not by scientific fraud. http://www.neavs.org/alternatives/in-testing