PDA

View Full Version : Do you think Animal Testing is right?



Meree.
28-11-2009, 01:33 PM
Hello everyone.
So recently, I have been studying alot about Animal Testing in Biology.
I've always thought about this kind of thing, and I want to know if YOU think it's right?

Animal Testing basically consists of coming up with cure's for diseases,
and the terminally ill (Maybe to extend there life span, etc)
They firstly test on a bunch of cells but the cells are not whole and are just a group so they need to then test on something whole.
Whats I find wrong about this is, they test on rats, mice, monkey's, dogs etc and acheive nothing.
Animals have a different emmune system etc, and it reacts differently to them than it does to us humans. It may work on them, doesn't mean its gonna work on us. Aswell as that, if it doesn't work, it can put the animal through alot of pain, and suffering aswell as it leading to deaths.
My brother thinks it's right to test on rats and mice, but not for Dogs and Monkeys.

In my opinion it should be stopped altogether. It's cruel. All those animals have lives just like we do.. it's not right..

Thats just my opinion!
Now I wanna know what YOU think!
So post a reply below with what you feel about this debate!

DO YOU THINK ANIMAL TESTING IS RIGHT?
Positive and nice comments only! & Please don't judge others opinions.
Thanks! = )

GommeInc
28-11-2009, 01:56 PM
Well there's different ideas really - Animals are not as sentient as Humans (particularly rats which we share alot in common with), so arguably suggesting the rat is going to suffer pain the same way as we do is debateable - we are not rats and rats are not humans, so the two different species arguably have two different thought patterns, pain receptors and so forth.

Then there's the one you pointed out, alot of the time the immune system is very different - not just species, but individual creatures like Human A might have a different immune system to Human B, or Rat A is different to Rat B. This is where testing on humans comes in to play when the product has passed testing on animals (or insects in some cases), because they usually test on multiple animals to get a successful ratio. It also depends on the product too, medicines can be quite dodgy, but we owe alot to animals. It's only medical testing (brain surgery and other organs) which appear to be animal cruelty, where the animal is opened up and played around with and the chances are it will come out brain damaged.

Isn't Animal Testing unpopular now, compared to the past? Alot of activists managed to get the major tests removed (medical and part medicinal). Beauty products are usually testing straight to humans, as they are only going to cause rashes at best, considering most ingredients in beauty products are now known to us :P

AlexOC
28-11-2009, 02:30 PM
Well, i'm subscribed to PETA, and i hate anything to do with Animal Cruelty. I wish people would open their eyes to what happens behind closed doors and refuse to purchase products from companies that test on animals. I will only use products which are not tested on animals, and i think everyone should follow suit. Besides most test results gained from testing on animals are invalid, due to the differences between our body and theirs. Like the graze test, which involves pouring a liquid such as perfume or shampoo into a rabbits eye then leaving it to see the outcome to determine wether it is safe or not for human use, even though a rabbits eye is so different in many ways than a human eye deeming the results possibly nonsense.

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 02:40 PM
If we didn't, many cures and medicines wouldn't be around today.

It's a little loss for a big gain.

AlexOC
28-11-2009, 02:44 PM
If we didn't, many cures and medicines wouldn't be around today.

It's a little loss for a big gain.

But now we have technology to aid us in research. We can't just use animals because they can't say no. We used to test on black people, orphans, gays and gypsys but that had to stop because of 'human rights', so why isn't 'animal rights' being enforced.

FlyingJesus
28-11-2009, 02:50 PM
Animals are not as sentient as Humans

As in not sentient at all :P I think there are arguments that dolphins may be but I don't know of any labs that test medicines on dolphins so kind of a moot point.


Then there's the one you pointed out, alot of the time the immune system is very different - not just species, but individual creatures like Human A might have a different immune system to Human B, or Rat A is different to Rat B.

Aye but for basic things such as finding out dosage and physical side effects it's far better for a few rats to be damaged than to kill off humans by not testing something before release, and even if you later do human testing it's best to know what you might expect first.


It's only medical testing (brain surgery and other organs) which appear to be animal cruelty, where the animal is opened up and played around with and the chances are it will come out brain damaged.

I'd have thought cosmetic animal testing would be considered more cruel as the human benefits are so much less prominent - lathering a dog up in potentially dangerous chemicals would I'm sure be more supported if it were to put an end to some medical condition rather than if it were to test a new perfume :P


Well, i'm subscribed to PETA, and i hate anything to do with Animal Cruelty.

Puts you out of any logical argument.


I wish people would open their eyes to what happens behind closed doors and refuse to purchase products from companies that test on animals.

Why? I don't believe in non-humans having equal rights in terms of comfort and freedom as it only bothers them in a purely reflexive way rather than having any sort of understanding, and I'd rather reap the benefits of testing than see a cat smile.


I will only use products which are not tested on animals, and i think everyone should follow suit.

I only like to talk to people irl I think are attractive and think everyone should follow suit, but that's just as much a pipedream.


Besides most test results gained from testing on animals are invalid, due to the differences between our body and theirs. Like the graze test, which involves pouring a liquid such as perfume or shampoo into a rabbits eye then leaving it to see the outcome to determine wether it is safe or not for human use, even though a rabbits eye is so different in many ways than a human eye deeming the results possibly nonsense.

Well no it's still an eye, the fundamental makeup of it works similarly enough for it to be useful if there's a massive problem. I would far prefer a rough guess at the dangers of a compound at the expense of a few rabbits than leave an entire market of human consumers at risk, and believe it to be utterly ridiculous to opine otherwise.


But now we have technology to aid us in research. We can't just use animals because they can't say no. We used to test on black people, orphans, gays and gypsys but that had to stop because of 'human rights', so why isn't 'animal rights' being enforced.

Not the same in any single way except for it being alive. You may as well campaign for equal rights for plantlife and bacteria.

AlexOC
28-11-2009, 02:56 PM
As in not sentient at all :P I think there are arguments that dolphins may be but I don't know of any labs that test medicines on dolphins so kind of a moot point.



Aye but for basic things such as finding out dosage and physical side effects it's far better for a few rats to be damaged than to kill off humans by not testing something before release, and even if you later do human testing it's best to know what you might expect first.



I'd have thought cosmetic animal testing would be considered more cruel as the human benefits are so much less prominent - lathering a dog up in potentially dangerous chemicals would I'm sure be more supported if it were to put an end to some medical condition rather than if it were to test a new perfume :P



Puts you out of any logical argument.



Why? I don't believe in non-humans having equal rights in terms of comfort and freedom as it only bothers them in a purely reflexive way rather than having any sort of understanding, and I'd rather reap the benefits of testing than see a cat smile.



I only like to talk to people irl I think are attractive and think everyone should follow suit, but that's just as much a pipedream.



Well no it's still an eye, the fundamental makeup of it works similarly enough for it to be useful if there's a massive problem. I would far prefer a rough guess at the dangers of a compound at the expense of a few rabbits than leave an entire market of human consumers at risk, and believe it to be utterly ridiculous to opine otherwise.



Not the same in any single way except for it being alive. You may as well campaign for equal rights for plantlife and bacteria.

Well no, because many problems have not been detected through a graze test, which have then occured once the product has been brought out for human use. Because a rabbits eye reacts differently to a humans.

And that is a stupid thing to say, your responses show you are very narrow-minded, which is why YOU can not input logically into this argument.

Richie
28-11-2009, 03:08 PM
Nope I don't think its right

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 03:19 PM
Ok let me put it to you: you had life threatening cancer

Your one hope is that they test this new drug.

They can't because animals can't be tested on, what are you going to do?

FlyingJesus
28-11-2009, 03:20 PM
Well no, because many problems have not been detected through a graze test, which have then occured once the product has been brought out for human use. Because a rabbits eye reacts differently to a humans.

Compared to how many problems that HAVE been successfully avoided through extensive animal testing? One simply cannot deny the benefits no matter what your moral standpoint


And that is a stupid thing to say, your responses show you are very narrow-minded, which is why YOU can not input logically into this argument.

You obviously don't know what logic is if you don't think my arguments are logical. My guess is that's aimed at the plant/bacteria thing as that was bolded, and may I ask why that's not a logical step? If humans aren't allowed to be considered more advanced and therefore more worthy of rights than other animals then why can mammals have rights over plants and microorganisms? They're just as alive as a rat or bat or the cat that sat on the mat so what you think about that

Meree.
28-11-2009, 03:24 PM
Well, i'm subscribed to PETA, and i hate anything to do with Animal Cruelty. I wish people would open their eyes to what happens behind closed doors and refuse to purchase products from companies that test on animals. I will only use products which are not tested on animals, and i think everyone should follow suit. Besides most test results gained from testing on animals are invalid, due to the differences between our body and theirs. Like the graze test, which involves pouring a liquid such as perfume or shampoo into a rabbits eye then leaving it to see the outcome to determine wether it is safe or not for human use, even though a rabbits eye is so different in many ways than a human eye deeming the results possibly nonsense.

Yeah I totally agree with you there. I hate anything to do with hurting animals in any way. And yes, about the shampoo I do agree! It could really hurt the rabbit if it ends up being a unsafe chemical. Aswell as that, they're hurting the animals with no care whatsoever, and also they KNOW its gonna be different on animals too humans, yet they still test it on the animals and put them through all that pain....

Meree.
28-11-2009, 03:26 PM
Nope I don't think its right

Very straight and simple.
Well done. lol.

Edit by Sammeth. (Assistant General Manager): Please don't make multiple posts within the 15 minute time limit.

AlexOC
28-11-2009, 03:51 PM
Ok let me put it to you: you had life threatening cancer

Your one hope is that they test this new drug.

They can't because animals can't be tested on, what are you going to do?

With the technology nowadays, they can do tests which are far more reliable, safe and correct than testing on animals.

So they can test my cancer drug on a computer.

Sharon
28-11-2009, 07:13 PM
At first I was completely against it.
But now I can reason why they do it, It's like, Like if there there was a new make up/medicine. What is the product had something wrong with it? I'd rather lose an animal than a person anyday.

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 07:56 PM
With the technology nowadays, they can do tests which are far more reliable, safe and correct than testing on animals.

So they can test my cancer drug on a computer.

I'm afraid not all of them are that simple, some do need living things, whether they be animals or humans

Keri?!
28-11-2009, 07:56 PM
Ok let me put it to you: you had life threatening cancer

Your one hope is that they test this new drug.

They can't because animals can't be tested on, what are you going to do?

I know that wasn't aimed at me but, I would rather die if I'm honest, yes people can think that's weird and that but I'm very strongly against animal testing, I think it's completely wrong in all circumstances.

Meree.
28-11-2009, 08:00 PM
I know that wasn't aimed at me but, I would rather die if I'm honest, yes people can think that's weird and that but I'm very strongly against animal testing, I think it's completely wrong in all circumstances.

100% there with you Keri.

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 08:00 PM
I know that wasn't aimed at me but, I would rather die if I'm honest, yes people can think that's weird and that but I'm very strongly against animal testing, I think it's completely wrong in all circumstances.

I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would say they'd rather die than let a bunny cure thousands or millions of people.

If you're not letting them test it on animals, it may not seem like it, but you could be killing hundreds/thousands.

Meree.
28-11-2009, 08:04 PM
I'm sorry but I don't think anyone would say they'd rather die than let a bunny cure thousands or millions of people.

If you're not letting them test it on animals, it may not seem like it, but you could be killing hundreds/thousands.

For the record they could try testing it via technology like stated above. It may not work but it's worth a try. Aswell as that I think what Keri said is what she believes. Therefore you shouldn't try & correct a well intitled opinion.

Keri?!
28-11-2009, 08:09 PM
Well that is truly how I feel, I feel it's exactly the same as killing a human being; it has feelings, it has a life..no matter what it is, a animal or not.
You can think that it's ridiculous that I think that, but if torturing a animal is okay, then it's the same thing as torturing a human, when it doesn't even need to happen in the first place.
I'm also a vegetarian, I haven't eaten meat now for 6 years.
So I'm also against killing animals, this links with it obviously.

Meree.
28-11-2009, 08:20 PM
Well that is truly how I feel, I feel it's exactly the same as killing a human being; it has feelings, it has a life..no matter what it is, a animal or not.
You can think that it's ridiculous that I think that, but if torturing a animal is okay, then it's the same thing as torturing a human, when it doesn't even need to happen in the first place.
I'm also a vegetarian, I haven't eaten meat now for 6 years.
So I'm also against killing animals, this links with it obviously.

Right there with you once again. Animals have a purpose of being in this world just like we do. Too create life etc. It's not right to put them through such terror.

Ardemax
28-11-2009, 08:58 PM
And suddenly when it comes down to save lives we have a soft spot for animals.

It's a dog eat dog world, we eat them, so why can't we make something out of them?

And I think the facts need to be learned that technology can't solve everything.

Meree.
28-11-2009, 09:05 PM
And suddenly when it comes down to save lives we have a soft spot for animals.

It's a dog eat dog world, we eat them, so why can't we make something out of them?

And I think the facts need to be learned that technology can't solve everything.

Actually... most people dont eat dogs. In China, yes. As 4 technology; OBVIOUSLY it cant solve everthing. Hense why I said "It may not work but its worth a try"

scottish
28-11-2009, 09:09 PM
Yeh i think its fine.

Sunnily
28-11-2009, 10:04 PM
I feel sick thinking about it. I hate the thoughts of animals getting tested on or used for tests. You might aswell test them on humans! I don't think it is right.

scottish
28-11-2009, 10:08 PM
I feel sick thinking about it. I hate the thoughts of animals getting tested on or used for tests. You might aswell test them on humans! I don't think it is right.

animals nothing compared to a human lol.

Sammeth.
28-11-2009, 10:14 PM
I absolutely hate animal cruelty with a passion, and animal testing would come under that. However I don't think testing on humans is that great either, so at the end of the day it has to be them or us and I would rather it be them, as sad as it is. Its just the way it goes. I really do hate unecessary animal cruelty. Also, as much as I do hate it, Peta is the root of all evil. They put down way more animals than they save. Its just a pathetic charity. WWF or WSPA is the way forward, Peta smells irl.

Technologic
29-11-2009, 12:02 AM
PETA - People Eat Tasty Animals.

We are the dominant, sentient beings on this planet, we do whatever the hell we like.

GommeInc
29-11-2009, 12:19 AM
Humans are selfish, they would rather kill a useless animal than one of their own :)

And PETA? That's like World Aid (or whatever that pointless charity event is). To save the planet, let's ship off celebrities in seperate planes to sing about saving the planet :P PETA are a terrible organisation.

FlyingJesus
29-11-2009, 12:20 AM
it's exactly the same as killing a human being; it has feelings

Science says otherwise


Animals have a purpose of being in this world just like we do

To be eaten and used to further our own happiness in life, I agree +rep irl


Peta smells irl.

The most compelling argument to date

Jordy
29-11-2009, 12:53 AM
Well that is truly how I feel, I feel it's exactly the same as killing a human being; it has feelings, it has a life..no matter what it is, a animal or not.
You can think that it's ridiculous that I think that, but if torturing a animal is okay, then it's the same thing as torturing a human, when it doesn't even need to happen in the first place.
I'm also a vegetarian, I haven't eaten meat now for 6 years.
So I'm also against killing animals, this links with it obviously.So if you had a fly in your room driving you mad for hours and hours you wouldn't kill it if you had the chance? It's not exactly the same as killing a human being, there is a little or no evidence that they endure pain the same way we do.

For medical testing I've no problems with it at all, however for cosmetics I wonder whether it really helps and if the animals need to be put through the pain. The Body Shop has managed to produce all it's stuff without testing it on animals, as far as I know, people who use their perfume don't find it corrosive or anything. They manage to produce cosmetics without testing it on animals, surely everyone else can.

For the record, I've also been a full vegetarian for 7 years.

Ardemax
29-11-2009, 12:53 PM
Actually... most people dont eat dogs. In China, yes. As 4 technology; OBVIOUSLY it cant solve everthing. Hense why I said "It may not work but its worth a try"

You're funny? So it may not work but it's worth a try.

Try saying that to a terminally ill patient who may have months to live, but instead of finding the cure on animals, we have to wait for "technology to help us".

If we didn't use some of these animals for helping cure things like cancer, they'd only probably get eaten or killed.

I know it's sad, but it's the facts.

Tash.
29-11-2009, 07:02 PM
I'm completely against it. For the purposes of cosmetics I think its absolutely selfish to test something on an animal for our own vanity. As for the medical side of it, like other people have said already, different people react differently to drugs. Bearing this in mind, how can anyone possibly say that testing on animals is going to help? If humans react differently to the same drug, we definitely can't say any human is going to react similarly to a drug thats fine on an animal. Often the testing itself causes distress and harm thats much beyond what is needed anyway. I see people arguing that if you're going to defend the rights of animals such as rats/mice/dogs/monkeys then you might aswell defend bacteria and plant life, but the two things aren't comparable. Humans interact with rats/mice and on a higher level with dogs/monkeys so we form an attachment to them (or at least many people do). Bacteria and plant life are incapable of showing us their discomfort so they aren't considered within the same bracket of life. I despise all forms of animal cruelty, not much makes me angrier or more upset than to see a human being, supposedly of a higher intelligence, inflict pain upon a defenceless creature simply because it's their belief that they are a higher form of life. It's disgusting.

FlyingJesus
30-11-2009, 10:48 PM
I see people arguing that if you're going to defend the rights of animals such as rats/mice/dogs/monkeys then you might aswell defend bacteria and plant life, but the two things aren't comparable. Humans interact with rats/mice and on a higher level with dogs/monkeys so we form an attachment to them (or at least many people do). Bacteria and plant life are incapable of showing us their discomfort so they aren't considered within the same bracket of life. I despise all forms of animal cruelty, not much makes me angrier or more upset than to see a human being, supposedly of a higher intelligence, inflict pain upon a defenceless creature simply because it's their belief that they are a higher form of life. It's disgusting.

In a similar way there's a difference between humans and animals though, which was my point. Non-sentient animals do not understand pain and distress, and can only react in such a way as their very basic survival instincts allow. Many plants do shy away from physical connections just like you reflexively do if someone taps you unexpectedly and a fair amount even have defence mechanisms such as the release of hidden spurs or gas emissions, but quite clearly they're not altogether too able to run away.

Not sure where you were going with the attachment thing.. some people have pet rocks but that doesn't make silicaceous objects open to rights discussions

Smits
30-11-2009, 10:57 PM
Before i start reading what others have put, i'm going to say what i think.

Personally i do believe that animal testing is right. Why? Simply because if we didn't use animals, we would have to use humans, and i'd much rather a rabbit or even a monkey die, than a human. At the end of the day, it is in most cases done as humanely as possible, and many of the animals are bread specifically for the purpose of testing, they porbably wouldn't be around if there was no testing.

However, i do agree that some criminals should be tested on as an alternative, as some really do deserve it and would provide us with much better results, but the human rights act prevents it.

Overall, the animals are bread for the purpose of testing, yes it is a dreadful life, and nobody enjoys the idea, but it has to happen in order to ensure we get safe products on our shelves.

Bun
01-12-2009, 05:24 PM
i'm all game for it. we're intelluctually superior to any other animal and top of the food chain. i'd rather sacrifice 100 animals than 1 human being. plus it's sooo beneficial, for both medical and erm the other side.. :P

Tash.
01-12-2009, 06:54 PM
In a similar way there's a difference between humans and animals though, which was my point. Non-sentient animals do not understand pain and distress, and can only react in such a way as their very basic survival instincts allow. Many plants do shy away from physical connections just like you reflexively do if someone taps you unexpectedly and a fair amount even have defence mechanisms such as the release of hidden spurs or gas emissions, but quite clearly they're not altogether too able to run away.

Not sure where you were going with the attachment thing.. some people have pet rocks but that doesn't make silicaceous objects open to rights discussions

What do you consider to be non-sentient animals though? For instance, I have a puppy and i'm sure that when she's hurt her reaction to it is purely instinctive but if she shows distress then how can she not understand it? Her distress is shown through the yelp she lets out if she stands on something sharp, the same as what me or you might do if we stood on something that hurt. She whines for attention, just as you can argue a human baby would. What i'm trying to say is, I understand what you mean about plants, and yes they may show their defence mechanisms too but they are so different to a humans reaction we don't empathise with them in the same way as we might a dogs.

What I meant by the attachment part was that if we are able to form one with an animal we interact with it, making them seem more human to us. Perhaps this isnt the case for you, but for most 'animal people' that bond means something and would prevent us from hurting them purposely.

Black_Apalachi
01-12-2009, 09:46 PM
... In my opinion it should be stopped altogether. It's cruel. All those animals have lives just like we do.. it's not right.. ...

To you and everyone else opposed to it: what alternative do you suggest?

FlyingJesus
02-12-2009, 01:09 AM
What do you consider to be non-sentient animals though? For instance, I have a puppy and i'm sure that when she's hurt her reaction to it is purely instinctive but if she shows distress then how can she not understand it? Her distress is shown through the yelp she lets out if she stands on something sharp, the same as what me or you might do if we stood on something that hurt. She whines for attention, just as you can argue a human baby would. What i'm trying to say is, I understand what you mean about plants, and yes they may show their defence mechanisms too but they are so different to a humans reaction we don't empathise with them in the same way as we might a dogs.

What I meant by the attachment part was that if we are able to form one with an animal we interact with it, making them seem more human to us. Perhaps this isnt the case for you, but for most 'animal people' that bond means something and would prevent us from hurting them purposely.

I may be using the wrong term, as sentience can be portrayed as simply giving the illusion of distress as animals tend to do. Sapience might be a better word as it's defined more as an understanding of such things rather than just the capability to react. What you're describing is a simple procedure of anthropomorphism - we see an animal whimpering and assume that it's feeling unhappy, because it's showing physical signs of displeasure the same way we as humans do, but there is nothing at all in conclusive proof to show that they have any way of registering anything as more than reflexive.

If you walk into your house and strut right past your pet without looking at it or acknowledging its existence it won't be hurt or offended, and if it wants your attention it'll likely make some noise about it - something most pets learn quickly as a way of getting you to take notice, just like a baby. The only difference between a human baby and most animals (in terms of sapience of course not body hair and claws) is that the human baby we know to have the potential to learn what feelings are, whereas animals adapt only in a way that reflects how their owner reacts to things they do, in which case either they don't really feel, or they do so innately from birth and are our intellectual superiors. One seems rather more likely than the other

Seatherny
02-12-2009, 02:59 PM
I may be using the wrong term, as sentience can be portrayed as simply giving the illusion of distress as animals tend to do. Sapience might be a better word as it's defined more as an understanding of such things rather than just the capability to react. What you're describing is a simple procedure of anthropomorphism - we see an animal whimpering and assume that it's feeling unhappy, because it's showing physical signs of displeasure the same way we as humans do, but there is nothing at all in conclusive proof to show that they have any way of registering anything as more than reflexive.

If you walk into your house and strut right past your pet without looking at it or acknowledging its existence it won't be hurt or offended, and if it wants your attention it'll likely make some noise about it - something most pets learn quickly as a way of getting you to take notice, just like a baby. The only difference between a human baby and most animals (in terms of sapience of course not body hair and claws) is that the human baby we know to have the potential to learn what feelings are, whereas animals adapt only in a way that reflects how their owner reacts to things they do, in which case either they don't really feel, or they do so innately from birth and are our intellectual superiors. One seems rather more likely than the other

Their facial reactions, crying of animals, screams etc all show that they can feel pain. A dog gets shot if it harms a human but its ok for a human to harm a dog.
Humans always think they are the cleverest, but don't you think its because of our body shape? A dog has saved many humans, that shows they have feeling, a brain which can think and skill.
No human can say if animals can feel pain or not because we aren't a dog or because there is no speaking dog. Otherwise I can beat you up and go you don't feel pain so its ok.

Tash.
02-12-2009, 03:10 PM
I may be using the wrong term, as sentience can be portrayed as simply giving the illusion of distress as animals tend to do. Sapience might be a better word as it's defined more as an understanding of such things rather than just the capability to react. What you're describing is a simple procedure of anthropomorphism - we see an animal whimpering and assume that it's feeling unhappy, because it's showing physical signs of displeasure the same way we as humans do, but there is nothing at all in conclusive proof to show that they have any way of registering anything as more than reflexive.

If you walk into your house and strut right past your pet without looking at it or acknowledging its existence it won't be hurt or offended, and if it wants your attention it'll likely make some noise about it - something most pets learn quickly as a way of getting you to take notice, just like a baby. The only difference between a human baby and most animals (in terms of sapience of course not body hair and claws) is that the human baby we know to have the potential to learn what feelings are, whereas animals adapt only in a way that reflects how their owner reacts to things they do, in which case either they don't really feel, or they do so innately from birth and are our intellectual superiors. One seems rather more likely than the other

Ok, but as you said we have no proof that they register anything more than reflexively, and I accept that. But that also means we don't have proof to the contrary either. If they appear to act in the same way a human baby might react then you can't definitively tell me that the feelings behind them aren't the same.

Like someone above has said, you can't say these things because nobody actually knows or can prove it. I personally don't need it proving to me that they are capable of understanding the feelings behind the whimpering or whatever, its enough that they feel the pain being inflicted upon them during these studies.

Neversoft
16-12-2009, 06:20 PM
In my opinion it should be stopped altogether. It's cruel. All those animals have lives just like we do.. it's not right..To you and everyone else opposed to it: what alternative do you suggest?

Perform tests on criminals.

scottish
16-12-2009, 07:08 PM
Then people would moan about human rights

Black_Apalachi
16-12-2009, 07:53 PM
Perform tests on criminals.

Lol that's good :P. Somehow I don't think that would happen. It annoys me how I seem to feel that's worse than testing on animals though :eusa_wall.

Mentor
20-12-2009, 01:43 PM
Medical testing, all for it. Cosmetics not so much as i see that as somewhat pointless.

In terms of medical testing though, it saves human life's. I'd rather a rat died than a person, so rather experimental cures for disease were tested on them rather than people. It provides a safety net so that when things do come to human testing, the chances of huge problems resulting are quite a bit lower.

Also, i don't see it as all that unnatural, just an extension to the normal means where by animals higher up the food chain use those below to keep them alive - eating them is the normal method, but using them to find cures to disease and illness is also keeping us alive, so not all that big a jump in my opinion.

Special
20-12-2009, 01:45 PM
For medication; yes

For anything else; no

-:Undertaker:-
20-12-2009, 05:03 PM
Medical yes, and I challenge anybody who disagrees to tell me that they have never used any medication which would of results from tests on animals, because they all have. I know who i'd rather live, a human over a bunny.

It's not nice what goes on in some cases, but the truth is that the animals in testing would all have to be culled anyway if animal testing was banned.

Tash.
20-12-2009, 08:43 PM
Medical yes, and I challenge anybody who disagrees to tell me that they have never used any medication which would of results from tests on animals, because they all have. I know who i'd rather live, a human over a bunny.

It's not nice what goes on in some cases, but the truth is that the animals in testing would all have to be culled anyway if animal testing was banned.

At the first bit, nobody will be able to do that because I doubt that sort of information is readily available to find out. Not to mention that the majority of medications probably have been tested on animals and there are most likely no alternatives to even try, so it'd be pretty hard to avoid.

And yes, those animals would be culled but no more would be bred. The animals that they are testing on are either killed through the testing or killed once they've achieved their means anyway so it's not much of a difference is it?

galbabe
20-12-2009, 08:47 PM
If we didn't, many cures and medicines wouldn't be around today.

It's a little loss for a big gain.
yh i agree with this i also agree with your brother as mice and rats are horriable and creepy but monkeys and dogs now that is cruel in my opinion.

FlyingJesus
20-12-2009, 08:56 PM
yh i agree with this i also agree with your brother as mice and rats are horriable and creepy but monkeys and dogs now that is cruel in my opinion.

lol so skanky animals it's ok to test on but not the more cuddly ones? That's like saying human rights shouldn't apply to ugly people (good idea imo)

e5
20-12-2009, 08:57 PM
Usually if the tests work on animals it's likely to work on humans as far as my knowledge on this goes :)... But no, I don't think it's right and it's unfair, but to be honest, the human race is more important imo, and therefore its better to test or anything other than humans, cos they need to test somewhere so they dont destroy the human race:l

-:Undertaker:-
20-12-2009, 10:31 PM
At the first bit, nobody will be able to do that because I doubt that sort of information is readily available to find out. Not to mention that the majority of medications probably have been tested on animals and there are most likely no alternatives to even try, so it'd be pretty hard to avoid.

If somebody is opposed to all animal testing, if they have never used any medication that has used animals for testing to help them get better/to save their life then i'll respect them because that would mean they are not hypocritical, if they have used them medicines then they are a hypocrite and I do not respect their point, because nor do they.

Tash.
20-12-2009, 11:07 PM
If somebody is opposed to all animal testing, if they have never used any medication that has used animals for testing to help them get better/to save their life then i'll respect them because that would mean they are not hypocritical, if they have used them medicines then they are a hypocrite and I do not respect their point, because nor do they.

You didn't read what I said did you? It is almost impossible to avoid using medication (especially when you are seriously ill) that may have been tested on animals. You cannot stop a doctor in a hospital from giving you something and go "Oh wait, can you tell me if this was tested on animals please?" because they aren't going to know either way. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

FlyingJesus
20-12-2009, 11:18 PM
If you were truly committed to the cause that would be possible, yes. It's illegal for them to give you something you don't want and a good doctor would probably know where a drug came from

-:Undertaker:-
20-12-2009, 11:19 PM
You didn't read what I said did you? It is almost impossible to avoid using medication (especially when you are seriously ill) that may have been tested on animals. You cannot stop a doctor in a hospital from giving you something and go "Oh wait, can you tell me if this was tested on animals please?" because they aren't going to know either way. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

I did read what you said, and yes it's simple - you refuse normal medication because the likelyhood is that is has been tested on animals. If not, then its hypocrisy at its best.

Tash.
20-12-2009, 11:39 PM
I did read what you said, and yes it's simple - you refuse normal medication because the likelyhood is that is has been tested on animals. If not, then its hypocrisy at its best.

So you reject all medication just incase? What happens then if you reject it all, you die and it turns out the medication that could've saved you was infact an exception and wasn't tested on animals? Not a bright idea.

-:Undertaker:-
21-12-2009, 12:11 AM
So you reject all medication just incase? What happens then if you reject it all, you die and it turns out the medication that could've saved you was infact an exception and wasn't tested on animals? Not a bright idea.

I am not against animal testing for medical reasons, henceforth I have no reason to object to any medicines or treatments I may need.

Mentor
21-12-2009, 09:20 AM
So you reject all medication just incase? What happens then if you reject it all, you die and it turns out the medication that could've saved you was infact an exception and wasn't tested on animals? Not a bright idea.

I agree, the idea is stupid: All medication was tested on animals. You someone doesnt wanna use it, they do die, thats their choice.
The medication's would not be around at all without animal testing afterall, so if someone wants to make the case that you would rather animal testing did not exist without being a total hypocrite, they'd also have to refuse life saving medication that comes from it. At least that way though they are only singing their own death warrants if they get ill. rather than forcing the rest of the population to die from easily treated illnesses, as would be the case if animal testing really, did not exist "/

galbabe
21-12-2009, 12:29 PM
lol so skanky animals it's ok to test on but not the more cuddly ones? That's like saying human rights shouldn't apply to ugly people (good idea imo)

lol i din't mean that but who actually likes rats and dogs and monkeys would prob feel more pain also i agree with mentor


I agree, the idea is stupid: All medication was tested on animals. You someone doesnt wanna use it, they do die, thats their choice.
The medication's would not be around at all without animal testing afterall, so if someone wants to make the case that you would rather animal testing did not exist without being a total hypocrite, they'd also have to refuse life saving medication that comes from it. At least that way though they are only singing their own death warrants if they get ill. rather than forcing the rest of the population to die from easily treated illnesses, as would be the case if animal testing really, did not exist "/

as we need medicene more than rats or mice if we didn't more humans would die of illnesses and dieseses

btw i can't spell very well sorry

kmizzler
03-01-2010, 11:32 PM
Although I agree with animal testing for medical purposes, I disagree with animal testing for cosmetic and miscellaneous purposes.

Of course in an ideal world we'd be able to create medicines which worked perfectly without testing on animals or humans, but unfortunately science hasn't reached that stage yet. Therefore we have to test on animals. This may sound harsh of me to say, but I'd rather save a human than an animal. I do care about animals, after being a vegetarian since I was about 9, but if it came to choice of saving either hundreds of children or hundreds of animals; I'd choose the former. If science was able to create effective medication without animal testing, then I'm sure animal testing would've already been demolished.

Also, for a few of you which say that you'd rather die than agree with animal testing, like someone before me said; when it comes to it, you're the one that won't take the medication if it's been tested on animals, but don't let other people who do want to take it suffer, or even die, because of it.

[Jay]
09-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Is it right? No
Is it vital? Sometimes
Offcurse its not right however at the end of the day would you rather find a cure to save many people or not find a cure and save many animals?
However i dont agree with testing for cosmetic purposes.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!