I am going to guess your talking about using animals in testing of various procedures,products,and medicines.We do it because we as humans typically believe us to be superior to all other animals and would rather use them then ourselves since we consider risking our lives to be more important then risking theirs.So we justify the pain we put animals through by saying this is for the good of mankind, whom we believe to be more significant then them.So we basiclly do it because we seem to find ourselves more important then them and would rather risk their lives than our own.It's cruel yes,but we look the other way due to our justification about it being for the greater good.

Because our culture values gluttony over animal rights, regarding the animals raised for food. +++ As far as animal experimentation goes: Because the ones who do the torturing claim that they are saving people's lives. Many people believe them too. No one is comfortable admitting how ineffective the process really is, so I think that it is an emotional security thing. Also, it seems like something that is deeply rooted in our culture. In Leviticus, many sacrifices were made to please God. Although killing the animals did not magically grant their wishes, it was a cornerstone of their culture. +++ Science is designed to debunk superstition. Animal testing is not science. It is done for emotional security and cultural needs. It actually generates misleading and harmful information if one gives the same medical treatment to a human that worked wonderfully in rats.

well how i know and my beliefs animal cruelty is how ppl treat their dogs, cats, birds, cows/chickens/pigs when they are used as for food...thats cruelty for me i dont think cows and chickens deserve to be treated really bad even though they are used for us to eat...they should live their last days happy not by hitting them stuffing them on tight cages etc...but the mice used for science i dont think its torture its a way to figure out new medicine for us to be cured on any disease....

Torturing one animal for kicks makes you a sicko. "Torturing" animals to save human lives is a little different.

Torture is the act of inflicting pain or to force them to say or do something or as pleasure for the torturer. Scientific research doesn't fit any of these definitions.

This is what I hate about animal rights people who push their agenda. Define torture. The advancement of the quality of human life depends on animal testing. That is quite different from setting a dog on fire or other stupid stuff like that. People have no capacity for nuance and there is little, if anything at all, that is all right or wrong.

For the same reason cigarettes and alcohol are not considered illegal drugs.

The husbandry and use of laboratory animals is highly regulated. All experimental protocols have to be approved by an Institutional Animals Care and Use Committee(IACUC). I personally utilize at least several hundred animals every year for testing. These animals are created for this use, and would otherwise never have existed. If you are really so serious about animal rights you should consider desisting from the use of any product that has in some way utilized animals. I guess on the brighter side you will be able, due to animal testing, to whine about animal testing for an additional 22.5 years, or thereabouts.

Doesn't matter if it is one animal or many animals. Using animals for vivisection should be banned. Look up "Animal Liberation Front". They have graphic photographic of how animals are "humanely" killed. I think convicted killers should be used.

Yes, yes, yes. I don't know things as well as you do. Kids need meat to grow up properly. It isn't healthy for them to become vegetarian until they are 12 or so. That's not a digression. So animals feel pain? So what? Cats should stop eating mice? Look, in order for every animal to live, something has to die. Vegetables might feel pain, too. Maybe we just don't know that yet. Besides having a superiority complex about your intellect, you no doubt do about morality, too. However, we ignoramuses about widdo animoes still think you animal rights groupies don't know your butt from a Big Mac.

It isn't science to me! Cruelity is cruelity!

Oh please. Dont compair dog fighting to killing a mouse to cure a disease. It is really as simple as that. You CANT survive without consuming another living thing. I mean come ON, do you ever hear Jesus preaching against meat? No. It is in no way wrong to eat meat, the simple fact is that people who push these agenda's put animals lives before humans. And you do know that these questions end in WW III right?

The "torturing" is used to further human existence. Most drugs are tested on anatomically similar animals. How many lives have these drugs saved? The answer is probably in the millions. You might even be one of these people someday. Would you rather die than take a grug to save your life? I doubt it. Cosmetics may be unneccessary testing, but I'm not an expert. The point is that animal testing is a positive part of our lives, end of story.

Does avoiding pain make them equals? I hardly think so.

So, I take it that since you are powerless with humans, you attempt to force them into your animal fantasy. The animals themselves could care less. The human condition isn't your problem except as it concerns your holier-than-thou animal fantasies. I'll work on the human side as best as I can. That includes, by the way, unnecessary cruelty to animals.

Animal testing for whatever sake we think of is NOT essential..it all has to do with your own values which obviously differ from person to person-to one it may seem to be essential, to the other not essential. Killing/torturing animals to advance our species, good or bad? And What will happen when our species is far advanced and most our animals are extinct? Why do we use animal testing but not human testing? It is the humans that are overpopulating and damaging the planet so wouldnt it sound reasonable to use humans instead? All depends on your needs and your values, your quality of life..not what others tell you is essential so that you can live your life. Nomadic tribes live in seclusion without torturing animals to advance themselves. Native american tribes survived for thousands of years and did not torture animals to advance themselves..they respected animals and used them for the same reason as all the other species do. You may argue that I may be right but that these tribes were prone to sickness and disease. But you look at the world back then and look at it now..it was a much better place back then. Bottom line, I personally don't think animals should be used for testing..I always make sure my products are not tested on animals..that is the best place to start

I don't say that air pollution isn't harmful. I'm saying only that to claim, as you did, that some people say that it is harmful to people and therefore good for animals is sheer fantasy. Rain forest deforestation being good for humans because it's bad for animals, and such arguments, are total childishness. There are two problems I have with people like you, whom I consider to have unreasonable stances. One is that by "not contributing to the murders in Pennsylvania" is helping. How? It's indifference, not a conscious effort to help. The other is this. Why should any of us listen to people like you, who do not know how to treat people, about how to treat animals?

WOOOOOOOOO! Good question! I do not know the answer...

There's a difference between some teenage kid kicking puppies to watch them fly and scientists doing tests on animals to try to do something good. They are called sacrifices and it's really not a big deal, I figure, why worry about animals so much when humans have just as many problems? It's just how the food chain works. Why get mad at lions and tigers for killing their prey?

Get a life threatening illness and then come talk to me about how much you hate science and research.

I admit I don't know everything, Sympho de Proggy. However, I do know some things about this issue. The validity of a claim is also based on the reasonableness of it's intentions. What I'm doubting here is that these folks are any more knowledgeable about the issue than they claim to be. And I find their position to be untenable because the intention is to rule, not to do justice.

Because most humans have a harder time feeling bad for a concept (and a group of people/animals is a concept) whereas a specific case is easier for them to imagine and feel bad about.

So, the learnins of yer dear old pappy is good enough fer yew, ay? People die of disease, even children, so let's just throw up our hands and live with it so we can feel good about our dog going to doggie heaven. If people don't want their child to die of a disease, they should become doctors. If people were vegetarians, they wouldn't catch those diseases in the first place. This is your idea of reasonable? Well, buddy, it ain't mine.

Because science takes sacrifice.

Scientists aren't salesmen and people who work at McDonald's are working for money, not to enlighten the neighborhood. More distortion. The fact is that there ARE reasons to use animals in some cases and there is no sin in eating them, either.

Scientists are not salesmen, but many of them need jobs to pay the mortgage, heating bills .... So, if you've been curing cancer in mice for years you might want to sell the public the idea that this somehow will help cure the 200 forms of cancer that are uniquely human. ... Edward Sausvill, associate director of the division of cancer treatment and diagnosis for the developmental therapeutics program at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was quoted as saying, "We had basically discovered compounds that were good mouse drugs rather than good human drugs." Science vol. 278, Nov 7, 1997 p.1041 And Dr. Richard Klausner of the NCI declared, "The history of cancer research has been a history of curing cancer in the mouse. We have cured mice of cancer for decades, and it simply didn't work in humans." As quoted in LA Times Wednesday, May 6, 1998. ... These scientists would have had more success fighting cancer if they told people not to eat at McDonald's.

Money is the reason!

"...the greater good..." - Simon Pegg

Wow! I get it now! Scientists should be commercial makers! And Klausner -- now that settles it. A Dr. says that and everyone KNOWS Dr.s ONLY speak when they have scientific evidence, so. . .hey, wait a minute. Where did he get that evidence? PETA maybe? Well, at least THEY have no agenda. Maybe scientists should just get JOBS at McDonald's. WE don't need no stinking scientific research! My god. Try to be a TINY bit reasonable!

"Kill the few to save the many". That seems to apply when people are using animals for research but that doesn't mean I think it's right. It's disgusting!

Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are like us." Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is: "Because the animals are not like us." Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction. Go figure! Oh and btw i agree with your question =] +++

It has nothing to do with how many animals you torture. It depends on if yo're a scientist or not.