"Sure, there are alternatives to eating meat, but it's not quite the same thing. I'm sure there's plenty of good stuff in meat that you can't get from tofu or what have you. Similarly, just as Aeris said, there is no perfect substitute for animal testing. You'd have to sacrifice accuracy for the sake of the animal."

There is no substitute period for medical animal testing, not yet, especially the kind that I do (which is learning how to restrain and do injections). You can have a perfect diet free of meat. It's not the same.

Besides that, it's not like it was an easy choice, I struggled with it for weeks, and I almost dropped out. But if I don't do this now, then I can't help animals later.

"Furthermore, if animal testing is necessary for veterinary purposes, why do we use animals for human medical purposes? After all, there are some pretty significant differences between human and animal physiology (though they are mostly similar), so why aren't we experimenting on human beings? It's necessary, don't you agree?"

Yeah, that's a point made by many animal rights activists, and I agree. A lot of testing done is unnecessary. We DO test on humans, and yes, we should. Testing done on only animals was responsible for the horrible birth defects that thalidomide caused (among other things).

"I just know that one day something will feed off of me, so there's no moral reason for me to NOT eat animals that were treated kindly during their lives, and killed humanely."

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.