Why are we still experimenting/ testing on animals when we have humans

I am not defending lab testing of animals, but there are companies that pay humans to do drugs. A friend got paid $300 to take opiates and something else, I forget. It was legitimate human testing of narcotics.

You volunteer first, then I'll be on your side. Just like the right to life cretins. If each and every one of them adopts a baby, THEN they have a right to preach to others.

The only reason nothing preys on us now is because we have established the means to become apex predators. You walk out in to the wilderness where animals of prey that are large enough (such as wolves, bears, etc) and you go on and tell me how "nothing preys on us" as if we don't look like tasty pieces of meet to many animals out there.

The balance of life thing is one of opinion. If you would prefer to live in the wilderness to bring what you view as balance back in to the world, then you do that.

We coexist with many animals. However we do not abandon our primitive nature. We simply improved on it.

Ofcourse animals matter but this is the circle of life. Animals prey on other animals.

Ok, and if we stop eating meat for the sake of animals, then what? Should we also try to destroy our civilization and no longer expand our civilizations so that we can give back the environment and space for other animals which we forced out to create our own environment?

Would you feel comforable with that happening to you? You are aware that you benefit, and willingly so, from the negatives effected on animals for our own progression?

"Animals are living creatures just like humans."

Alright, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Plants are alive. Bacteria are alive. When you grow crops in a farming setting you're inevitably killing a ton of animals to make that land usable.

"The only thing that separates us is how we use our brains."

And how they function. And their size and shape. Human brains are significantly more complex and have way way way proportionally larger frontal lobes than any other animal.

"We are all guinea pigs in a sense. How many products /medicine do you know that have come out and have had horrible side effects and have been recalled and sued because it harms or killed someone."

I think you vastly overestimate the number of criminals that would fit your definition of "heinous enough that they should be killed." If we don't use animals to test these products, it will be humans who die instead. I would value the life of a human over a mouse.

"We are capable of using more % of our brain than most species except dolphins and some sea mammals who actually use more of their brain than we do."

Source?

Also, dolphins rape porpoises and killer whales torture seal babies to death before they eat them.

"So if a child molester / serial killer who has no remorse for their crimes and has admitted to what they done and would rather choose a test subject over death than i say why not?"

According to (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executions-year), there's, at the very most, 98 executions in a given year. If you've only got 98 test subjects you're not going to have a very comprehensive test. Unless you want to expand the pool of potential candidates. Sure, throw in all murderers and rapists (even dolphin ones). Still too small of a pool? Why not throw in thieves and recreational drug users. Still too small? Throw in speeders, too.

My point is that somewhere you're going to have to draw a line. There's a reason why the death penalty is so rarely used: as a society, collectively deciding to kill people isn't something that should be taken lightly. Writing off another person's life entirely is ill-advised in the best of circumstances.