[neptis arcos]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Would you still oppose animal testing if you knew it could bring about a cure for a disease that affected you, or a family member?

no i would not be agenst it if it will save a famly or freand life i think eny one ould yes?

Originally Posted by jennifer

Rights aren't real, you know. Society invented them.
As such, it is up to society whether or not we extend them to non-human animals

teknicly you are corect thay wer not real untill me invented them to make life a more hapy one and now thay are the law and animals do have right's
.

Originally Posted by jennifer

I would rather see a cure for a human disease than see a rat happily frolicking in the undergrowth, regardless of 'what nature intended'.

i personaly do not like rats but that dus not mean thay have no rights

Originally Posted by jennifer

My own personal take on this rights thing: Rights don't exist. If anyone had the intrinsic right to life, they would never die.

WRONG no mater if we had the right or not the only thing certen in life is that you die

Originally Posted by jennifer

What we DO have is an agreement among members of our society to not kill each other. If you don't believe in an objective moral construct, then we have no intrinsic responsibilities - all we have are the ones we agreed to when we accepted our place in this society, and the ones we impose an ourselves,

no thats cald the law

Originally Posted by jennifer

eg not drinking, not shagging before marriage, vegetarianism. So all we end up with, apart from a small set of rules that we each apply to ourselves individually, is a set of rules that we all have to follow, and that set of rules is decided by society.

thats cald your morals


neptis arcos