How do you feel about vivisection?

Your mom.

INTELLIGENT RESPONSE PLEASELOL.

Well... at times it's really the only option. I mean it's better than testing it on people... especially since it's going to be used on people. But... I mean... seriously... if you're testing makeup on animals or something like that... stop it. I don't wanna see a rabbit looking like Elizabeth Taylor. There's no need. But if it has the potential to be lethal, there really isn't any way around animal testing.

If it's animal based, I'm all for it. Only if benefits can be gained from it such as special scientific research like improving cancer removal methodolgies or advancements in technology for people missing limbs etc.

I don't see a need for vivisections on human beings even mentally disabled or non-response human beings as there couldn't be any possible benefit that could justify it and therefore should be considered a criminal offence.

Violently opposed.

opposed.

Animal testing science hoes will be destroyed, paaainfully.

but if it aint on animals... sure, Viv away

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I want to clarify, is vivisection more than opening some creature up when it's still alive to investigate it?

If so, I guess closing the damn thing could be adequate, but it's still quite icky.

Is there a meaningful purpose for vivisection these days?

by the looks of it, yep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4808836.stm

there is a good chance these 6 guys will die because of the drug(s) that were tested on them.

Whether these drugs could have been tested on animals is unknown, but once people start dieing because of drug trails people may start asking, which life is worth more? that of a rabbit? or a human?....

[edit]I've got TOTALLY, the wrong idea of vivisection if its opening up the animal while its still alive...[/edit]

Vivisection literally means opening up an animal or a person while they're alive.
I know that at least in the UK, the law says that unless anaesthesia will affect an experiment requiring vivisection the animal must be heavily anaesthetised. If they can't drug it, they'll often knock it out with an electric stunner across the head much like is used for sheep and goats in abattoirs. Animal screams can be just as hideous as human ones (anyone who's heard a rabbit scream will tell you that) so no one really wants to see it in pain.

When there's valuable research to be made that can save lives, I'm all for vivisection.
You need animals for behaviour affecting drugs, no cell cultures can show you those changes and to test the long term effects of the drug on future generations you need a creature capable of reproducing at an early age.
It's cosmetic research on animals I can't abide, the use of animals for pure vanity just seems immoral to me. Thankfully it's banned in the UK.

Um, yes you have to cut people open to surgery on them. This thread thread lacks a topic of conversation.

There is a topic.

It was "What are your thoughts on vivisection?"

Not much to think about.

OF COURSE THERE IS.

...when they are still awake?

The definition of vivisection does not omit anesthesia.

True. But its not just simple, everyday surgery.

Well... there's local anesthesia.

Opposed.

Doh! Your post needs emoticons or some sort of explanation.

Why?