When it comes to finding a cure for whatever ailment, why not just get down to what's needed and test on humans? That would be the most accurate test, wouldn't it? Any volunteers?

No? No one? That's not surprising, is it? Well, if not you, then who?

Could you, in good conscience, volunteer some OTHER person to die in your place for research? Of course not. You have no moral authority or domain to decide whether some other person should die in the name of finding a cure for condition XYZ, right? How is that different from volunteering a presumably unwilling monkey? Of course we're all in agreement that mankind is plagued with some terrible diseases that can affect anyone, even the young and innocent. And it is just that: terrible! But until you're ready to give up your own life for a cause, I fail to see how you can condone others being forced to give up their lives for that cause. No doubt, I would hate to be afflicted with a serious condition of any sort, but could I justify someone or something else paying for my tragedy with their life against their will? If you want to volunteer your own life in the hopes of one day curing me, that's tremendously generous of you, and it's your choice. But who am I to force you? I don't have the (moral) right to volunteer some guy off the street to be my proverbial lab rat and to suffer for my illness. And I equally don't have the (moral) right to volunteer some rat out of a field to be my literal lab rat. I imagine animals suffer enough from their own diseases... should they suffer for ours too?

Of course, no disrespect meant to anyone who has benefited from animal-tested medicines and consequently defends the practice. It's wonderful that all of you are here and healthier. And I'm not saying I'm perfect by any means. I'm sure I've benefited from animal testing in ways I don't even know about. But the point is I shouldn't have. It's not justifiable.

People always give me the "sacrifice a few (animals) to save the many (humans)" argument. Well, who wouldn't agree that it's better to sacrifice the few to save the many? But my whole point is that the "few" that are sacrificed to save the rest of us should be other humans! Why should animals have to bear our load? Allow me to regurgitate PETA:

"PETA believes that animals deserve the most basic rights — consideration of their own best interests regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have interests in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use — for food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation, or for any other reason."

- Benzilla