PDA

View Full Version : Animal rights and animal experimentation [ENDS: 07/06/2011]



Eoin247
25-05-2011, 08:59 PM
http://www.animalsuffering.com/img/monkeysscared.gif




Animal rights and experimentation on animals.



The question of whether or not animals have rights has been asked many times throughout history. Animals have provided us humans with food, transport, entertainment and much more since before any written records were made. In more recent times animals have been used to provide scientists with subjects for their experiments.


The people that say animals have no rights would put out the argument that animals are unintelligent. They believe that since humans are far superior in intelligence to animals, humans should be able to do whatever they please to animals.


The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?


One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!


On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.


So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?


Debate!


This Debate will end on the 07/06/2011. Once the debate has ended the top contributer to this debate will recieve a month of VIP in a colour of their choice


http://watermarked.cutcaster.com/cutcaster-photo-100483167-Vet-giving-dog-needle-injection.jpg

Mathew
25-05-2011, 09:28 PM
The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?
This is a bit of an unrealistic and inappropriate comment in my opinion because there is a massive, clear difference between the intelligence of humans and that of animals. Animals have a completely different anatomy to humans and it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out that there is a strong possibility their intelligence is significantly lower!
Of course lesser intelligent humans shouldn't become slaves because that is stupidly immoral and goes against the British Psychological Society Ethics and Guidelines. This is the exact reason why they are in place.



One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!
This is the deal. If I'm not very much mistaken, animal testing goes ahead on mice and rats as they are vermin. Dogs, monkeys and the likes are only tested on when the product is just about to be released - naturally perhaps, because monkeys have the closest anatomy to us. I think this is fair enough, really. While I'm not a major fan of injecting monkeys with bleach-looking-liquids, it is indeed the lesser of two evils in the Circle of Life, as the opposition would be to inject it into a human. The world will turn, the ecosystem will continue and the Circle of Life will never end - we, as humans, are responsible for this and it is the widely accepted perception to keep our species the dominant one.



On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.
I don't think dogs are "used very early on", but there is a strong possibility that mice are. Mice are vermin which means anyone is allowed to kill them. Experimentation is necessary and drugs cannot be easily developed without animals. Without them, you would have to either test them on humans or not at all - and which is the lesser of two evils?



So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?
Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

At the end of the day, we must consider which is the lesser of two evils and look at whether we would rather test on vermin (which are allowed to be killed, anyway) or test on humans. Which is the most morally acceptable?
On that note however, this post has been considered with medicines in mind. If you were to aim the debate at cosmetics, then that is a whole new ball game as I find experimenting cosmetic treatments and products on animals is simply stupid, despite whether they are mice or not. Cosmetics are there to improve a human's life, whereas medicine is there to save a human's life. This is why animals sometimes have to test medicines, but it would be horrendous for them to test cosmetics.

Narnat,
26-05-2011, 12:52 AM
Animals can't speak for themselves so they really have no say in it. I feel that it is rather cruel to do this because for instance if you injure and animal accidental they tend to yelp so they can feel it so what is to say they can't feel whatever is being done to them. It is basically torture. I think they're should be new ways found to test products rather than using it on a living thing. We all live in this world and many people say that we to are animals so why put them through the horror like that, it's like saying rules for one person and a different rule for another. Which is completely wrong!

Rachel
26-05-2011, 01:38 AM
The people that say animals have no rights would put out the argument that animals are unintelligent. They believe that since humans are far superior in intelligence to animals, humans should be able to do whatever they please to animals.

I personally think that humans should respect the animals rights. Humans and animals has different capacity. We shouldn't abuse of this.




The people that say animals have rights would try to counter that argument. They would question why animals should suffer and have no rights simply for being less intelligent than us. Should less intelligent humans become slaves to more intelligent humans in that case?

Like I said before, animals and humans holds a certain amount of capacity. Animals are intelligent in the own way and humans has their own way of being smart.




One of the most controversial aspects of animal rights is probably experimentation on animals.
The most obvious benefit of this is that experimentation of drugs on animals might help cure human diseases. Lives and lifestyles of humans could potentially be saved!


I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.




On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.

I agree. I hate to see people testing things on animals. I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us? Vise versa.




So do you believe animals have rights? If you do, then to what level do you believe they have rights? Should we torture and kill animals in cruel experiments to potentially enhance our understanding of things like medicine?

I believe that animals should be respected like everyone else. I do see people abusing animals such as being cruel to them. This should stop.

Mathew
26-05-2011, 08:21 AM
Animals can't speak for themselves so they really have no say in it.
This is why the BPS has set out Ethics Guidelines which must be followed with each and every animal. :)


I think they're should be new ways found to test products rather than using it on a living thing.
How? You're not going to get a clear picture of how the medication works without testing it on something which is living. I was under the impession that real human genes had been created a couple of months ago though, which could have some medicines tested on; I do suppose that is a set in the right direction.


I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.
Would you rather they are tested on humans and we end up with 10 human lives being lost rather than 10 mice?


I agree. I hate to see people testing things on animals. I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us? Vise versa.
They wouldn't test on us because of morals. Animals are protected by guidelines which state unnecessary stress must not be placed upon the animal and animals must only be used in extreme circumstances; i.e. when the medicine is ready.

Zeptis
26-05-2011, 08:21 AM
I'm not doing any of the qoutes as you can see, to much work, an I'm lazy
In the middle ages many, almost every person believed that each and ever animal on earth had no feeling, had no emotion, and felt no pain. Since this was the case, they abused them in many ways such as using them in fighting arenas and making them do farm work. There was no such thing as the domestic house pet, today i believe there may be some people left in the world who think the same, these people would be the people you see using them for make-up product testing. For some this may be true but for others its pure selfish greed, which often causes harm sometimes even death to an innocent animal. An example of this is dog and rooster fights often used to collect bets, every match either an animal dies or gets seriously injured. I don't think any animal deserves this no matter what it's past is.
Animals like humans deserve rights since most of them just live to love humans, and the only reason they put up with abuse is because they wish to please us. Since they do not protect themselves by choice that doesn't mean we have should beat them half to death when ever the hell we fell like it. But in some cases an animal becomes so fearful for itself it chooses to turn bad and kill anyone he/she sees at a threat.
Mainly my point is yes, i think animals deserve rights because without them bad thing may and probably will happen becaause of my points made above.

Technologic
26-05-2011, 09:14 AM
Most of modern medicine begins with animal testing, i'm sure you'd choose to be protected against various nasties over protecting some rabbit somewhere

AgnesIO
26-05-2011, 11:04 AM
To be honest, I would never put myself up for human testing, so I would be a hypocrite to say test on humans not animals.

FlyingJesus
26-05-2011, 12:02 PM
Humans and animals has different capacity.

True - humans have the capacity to understand pain whereas animals simply react instinctively in all situations


I do agree that it helps us to know either the medication are good or not but it sometimes affect the animal's system and can kill them.

I would suggest that people as a whole would be far more willing to see a mouse die than thousands of humans using an untested product that's been released


I mean how would you feel if they were doing the same thing to us?

Completely different story. Testing on a sapient species is not the same as testing on non-sapient animals


In the middle ages many, almost every person believed that each and ever animal on earth had no feeling, had no emotion, and felt no pain.

This is still the case. Animal pain is a reaction to get away from something that threatens their survival or the survival of their species, nothing more


There was no such thing as the domestic house pet

Yeah there was


Animals like humans deserve rights since most of them just live to love humans, and the only reason they put up with abuse is because they wish to please us.

Whoa whoa whoa, the entire meaning of close to all animal life is to please humanity? Tell that to the HIV cells swimming around inside people. Tell it to the hungry lion who isn't going to stop and think of the moral implications before attacking if you're in a room with it. The meaning of animal life is to survive, not to give us cuddles


Mainly my point is yes, i think animals deserve rights because without them bad thing may and probably will happen becaause of my points made above.

Which bad things are these? You say it's your main point but you haven't mentioned anything about the world ending due to animal testing

Hecktix
26-05-2011, 12:11 PM
This is a bit of an unrealistic and inappropriate comment in my opinion because there is a massive, clear difference between the intelligence of humans and that of animals. Animals have a completely different anatomy to humans and it doesn't take Stephen Hawking to work out that there is a strong possibility their intelligence is significantly lower!
Of course lesser intelligent humans shouldn't become slaves because that is stupidly immoral and goes against the British Psychological Society Ethics and Guidelines. This is the exact reason why they are in place.


This is the deal. If I'm not very much mistaken, animal testing goes ahead on mice and rats as they are vermin. Dogs, monkeys and the likes are only tested on when the product is just about to be released - naturally perhaps, because monkeys have the closest anatomy to us. I think this is fair enough, really. While I'm not a major fan of injecting monkeys with bleach-looking-liquids, it is indeed the lesser of two evils in the Circle of Life, as the opposition would be to inject it into a human. The world will turn, the ecosystem will continue and the Circle of Life will never end - we, as humans, are responsible for this and it is the widely accepted perception to keep our species the dominant one.


I don't think dogs are "used very early on", but there is a strong possibility that mice are. Mice are vermin which means anyone is allowed to kill them. Experimentation is necessary and drugs cannot be easily developed without animals. Without them, you would have to either test them on humans or not at all - and which is the lesser of two evils?


Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

At the end of the day, we must consider which is the lesser of two evils and look at whether we would rather test on vermin (which are allowed to be killed, anyway) or test on humans. Which is the most morally acceptable?
On that note however, this post has been considered with medicines in mind. If you were to aim the debate at cosmetics, then that is a whole new ball game as I find experimenting cosmetic treatments and products on animals is simply stupid, despite whether they are mice or not. Cosmetics are there to improve a human's life, whereas medicine is there to save a human's life. This is why animals sometimes have to test medicines, but it would be horrendous for them to test cosmetics.

Whilst I agree with a lot of your views Matt, I need to highlight this part:


Animals aren't tortured deliberately in experiments as that would go against the BPS Ethics and Guidelines. They aren't killed intentionally either.

In psychological research (and let's remember the majority of animal research is not psychological therefore not covered by the BPS) if you are using an animal separated from parents, or an animal you have had in captivity for years doing different kinds of tests on - when you no longer need this animal, the BPS ethics guidelines state you must kill it in a humane manner as after a lot of psychological experiments the animals tend to be completely different to how they should be in behaviour and they wouldn't last in the wild etc, so the guidelines state to kill them.

I'm quite impartial on animal research, with being a psychologist I understand the importance of animals in behavioural research so I'm not really going to mention much on that. Product-testing research however, is something that gets me, I don't mind animals being used to test pharmaceuticals becaue as Mathew highlighted, it's the lesser of two evils than testing (and killing) humans, however cosmetic experimentation is absurd.

Inseriousity.
26-05-2011, 01:21 PM
I have two views on this.

Firstly, I agree with the people who say it's the lesser of two evils approach. There have been many cases where untested medicines tested on humans has had a negative effect on their lives (if they survive). I think the majority of animals being tested on have been brought into the world for that particular purpose and therefore will not have any experience of anything else.

Despite that, new advances in techology may mean that these issues can be avoided in the future and I will therefore support using that instead when it's possible.

:.JessLiu.:
26-05-2011, 01:30 PM
But how would you like it if I tested products on you? Just because animals can't speak in a language we understand doesn't mean they don't have feelings. And yes there are two sides to this argument I agree to that but you can't just say humans should be put before animals. It's pretty unfair to the animals. I'm no animal lover but I respect them. Without them I don't think some of mankind's achievements would exist.

Maybe scientists should find other subjects to test products on for example plants maybe? Cause if we test it on animals it is considered torture practically.

FlyingJesus
26-05-2011, 01:35 PM
Plants have just as much understanding of pain as non-human animals, not to mention the fact that plant cells are radically different to animal cells and so the only test we could use plants for instead is to check if something's corrosive or something, which you can test on literally anything.

I don't think anyone's suggesting animals should be tested on because they don't speak our language

GommeInc
26-05-2011, 01:40 PM
Testing on animals is a small sacrifice for the survival of more animals and humans. I do however dislike the idea of testing previously untested (on other organic material like plants etc.) on some animals if it's guaranteed the animal will be in great pain and suffer, but that sort of testing very rarely happens these days. I think human testing happens quite often now too - thank animal rights protestors and environmentalists who volunteer for such a thing :P

To the subject at hand, I believe animals have rights which should protect them from harm, misuse and cruelty as with any human - a slimmed down right to life, if you will, until the stomach beckons them in :P Animals are a natural food source for man, and if the animal is killed quickly/instantly, then I do not particularly mind. It's why I aim for food places I know and trust, and eat most things free range.


Plants have just as much understanding of pain as non-human animals
To a degree. Plants do not flinch or suffer muscle spasms like animals, the tests only really show if the product destroys cells and/or makes the plant limp or change colour :P

FlyingJesus
26-05-2011, 01:59 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/751069.stm



It was well known that plants like the Venus Fly Trap responded to touch in dramatic ways. But, says Professor Braam, now we know that probably all plants react to touch, just less dramatically.


Many plants have very quick reactions (like the Venus fly trap as an obvious example) but just about every plant does have the capacity to respond to touch, just like animals do

Just realised that's actually a really rubbish article but wanted the quote lol

GommeInc
26-05-2011, 02:03 PM
It is a bit dodgy :P Do all plants really react to touch in a noticeable way? He seems to not go into much detail and touching may have its limits to growth. Testing wise they're not that useful.

EDIT: In saying the last bit, I remember something about muscle growth and hormones that were previously tested on plants and worked, so I guess they're good for that area of science and biology.

FlyingJesus
26-05-2011, 02:05 PM
I certainly agree that plants are rubbish for testing human products on because of the cell differences (as said above), I'm just saying that "ANIMALZ HAV FELLINGS TO!!" makes as much logical sense as not walking on grass in case you hurt it

Impeachment
27-05-2011, 02:20 AM
Whoa whoa whoa, the entire meaning of close to all animal life is to please humanity? Tell that to the HIV cells swimming around inside people.

I believe you are wrong sir.. HIV - human immunodeficiency virus. We can tell by the last word VIRUS, that it is not a living organism. In fact a virus isn't even a single-celled organism!

If you go on a more broader spectrum, Bacteria, and other single-celled organisms, don't really meet our expectations of an 'animal'. They are what they are, single-celled organisms. Whereas an animal MUCH larger (obviously).

As far as testing goes, I find it cruel, I don't like the thought of animals being tested on, and their lives being put into jeopardy. But, in all honesty, I don't want to be tested on, nor do I want a fellow human being tested on. It is wrong and cruel, for both sides of the story. Humans don't want to be tested on, and I doubt animals (if they knew what was going on) would want to be tested on either.

I saw someone mention that Mice and Rats are used primarily because they are vermin, and are allowed to be used for testing. Yes, that is true. But, you shouldn't just say because they are vermin they should be tested on and it is okay if they die. No, they are still living organisms. When we hear the word vermin what do you first think of? Dirty Rats, and Mice? Thats what most think, well did you ever think of the Rabbits?

Vermin is a term applied to various animal species regarded by some as pests or nuisances.

How can we call them pests or nuisances? These lab mice, are purposefully breed to be tested on. So if they are purposefully being breed to be tested on, then how are they being a nuisance? They haven't been given the chance to be a nuisance. Even then, we've encroached on their territory and they've only adapted to live with us, so how are they the nuisance? Maybe we are. However thats a different discussion.

I'm staying on the line. I don't want animals being tested on, but I sure as hell don't want to be tested on either.

Zeptis
27-05-2011, 02:37 AM
If we are still on the topic of plants, the only reason we don't they have feeling is because they do not SHOW the emotion so we do not stop and say, oops, I'm sorry, as with animals, most of them show pain by squarming or making screaming sounds. and since that is why some of us might think testing on plants is better then testing on animals since we can't tell they're feeling discomfort.

GirlNextDoor15
27-05-2011, 05:11 AM
I don't want to quote anybody because I just can't be bothered to do that now.
From my opinion, I'll stand by animal experimentation. If animals were not used for animal experimentation, we should be dead by now since there are so many kinds of diseases caused by a lot of virus and so on. Animals do have their rights but I think human rights are more important than animal rights. I am not saying just because animals such as monkeys or hamsters are smaller in size and are not big enough to defend themselves when we humans attack them doesn't mean their rights are far more important than humans'. If you were to compare between human experimentation and animal experimentation, you should choose animal experimentation. People can say animal experimentation is cruel and barely humane but using humans for experiments are more cruel and should not be done. For example, Tuskegee Syphilis experiment was carried out on black men in Tuskegee, Alabama just because they were black and racism became a big issue at that time. Therefore, we do not want to see such human experimentation happen again in the future and so, we use animals. Other than that, animal experimentation are cheaper than human experimentation. You cannot afford to end one man's life just because you do not want to carry out animal experimentation or you want to carry out an experiment on humans.

---------- Post added 27-05-2011 at 01:16 PM ----------


I believe you are wrong sir.. HIV - human immunodeficiency virus. We can tell by the last word VIRUS, that it is not a living organism. In fact a virus isn't even a single-celled organism!

If you go on a more broader spectrum, Bacteria, and other single-celled organisms, don't really meet our expectations of an 'animal'. They are what they are, single-celled organisms. Whereas an animal MUCH larger (obviously).

As far as testing goes, I find it cruel, I don't like the thought of animals being tested on, and their lives being put into jeopardy. But, in all honesty, I don't want to be tested on, nor do I want a fellow human being tested on. It is wrong and cruel, for both sides of the story. Humans don't want to be tested on, and I doubt animals (if they knew what was going on) would want to be tested on either.

I saw someone mention that Mice and Rats are used primarily because they are vermin, and are allowed to be used for testing. Yes, that is true. But, you shouldn't just say because they are vermin they should be tested on and it is okay if they die. No, they are still living organisms. When we hear the word vermin what do you first think of? Dirty Rats, and Mice? Thats what most think, well did you ever think of the Rabbits?

Vermin is a term applied to various animal species regarded by some as pests or nuisances.

How can we call them pests or nuisances? These lab mice, are purposefully breed to be tested on. So if they are purposefully being breed to be tested on, then how are they being a nuisance? They haven't been given the chance to be a nuisance. Even then, we've encroached on their territory and they've only adapted to live with us, so how are they the nuisance? Maybe we are. However thats a different discussion.

I'm staying on the line. I don't want animals being tested on, but I sure as hell don't want to be tested on either.

I feel like quoting and rebutting now so yup. :P

You said you don't want animals to be tested on and you don't want to be tested on either. I agree on you with this but if the experiment is for a good cause, I would sacrifice animals rather than sacrificing humans.

GirlNextDoor15
27-05-2011, 05:27 AM
If you were to say humans and animals should not be used for experiments and plants is the best choice, I would strongly disagree with you on that. Although plants do not show any emotions or feelings, that doesn't mean it's cruel to test on plants. But the most important thing is if we are testing some new medicines on plants, they won't be able to physically react even though we might know how is it chemically reacting with the help of a microscope. It's not like if we test new medicines on animals and if something went wrong, we will know. Animals show their emotions and feelings and so, if something goes wrong, they will physically react such as scream or behave weirdly. Animals are more worth it than plants or humans.

FlyingJesus
27-05-2011, 12:45 PM
Just to clarify on the plants issue - I don't think anyone's honestly suggesting that testing on plants is a good idea. They have completely different cellular structure to animals so there is very little you could use them for in terms of testing things for human use. I only brought plants into the debate to make the point that plants have just as much capacity to understand pain as non-human animals. It's only our personification of animals that makes us think that they experience pain the same way humans do.

Impeachment quite rightly corrects me -

HIV - human immunodeficiency virus. We can tell by the last word VIRUS, that it is not a living organism.

As viruses aren't quite alive or dead (odd issue, but yeah most people don't see them as "living") but then goes on to say

If you go on a more broader spectrum, Bacteria, and other single-celled organisms, don't really meet our expectations of an 'animal'. They are what they are, single-celled organisms. Whereas an animal MUCH larger (obviously).

Which frankly is a self-defeating point (or would be if he were advocating against animal testing, I'm using this part of his post as an example, not an attack :P). If one is to classify the worth of a living organism by how big they are, it suggests that size and sapience have an obvious correlation. Since there are plenty of non-sapient animals far larger than humans this can clearly be disproved, yet this idea of small lifeforms like bacteria (and in the minds of many, up to the size of bugs or even rodents) being of less worth is as I say, only due to how we personify larger animals. Plants eat, reproduce, excrete, and all sorts of other things that all animals do, but they don't have any similar features to us so we don't see them as being able to share in our emotions etc. - something we only see cats and dogs and the such like being able to do because they have some responses that look like our own

GommeInc
27-05-2011, 05:30 PM
Which frankly is a self-defeating point (or would be if he were advocating against animal testing, I'm using this part of his post as an example, not an attack :P). If one is to classify the worth of a living organism by how big they are, it suggests that size and sapience have an obvious correlation. Since there are plenty of non-sapient animals far larger than humans this can clearly be disproved, yet this idea of small lifeforms like bacteria (and in the minds of many, up to the size of bugs or even rodents) being of less worth is as I say, only due to how we personify larger animals. Plants eat, reproduce, excrete, and all sorts of other things that all animals do, but they don't have any similar features to us so we don't see them as being able to share in our emotions etc. - something we only see cats and dogs and the such like being able to do because they have some responses that look like our own
Quite an interesting post and reminded me of animal cruelty to cats and dogs which have given them more rights than what they used to have. Did you know cat insurance is a lot younger than dog insurance? You could literally mow down cats and not get in trouble like you would with dogs who are more protected by law than cats. This is slowly changing, if a cat is kicked you get money back and they are protected if they are injured in most cases. Heck, animal testing on animals, some including cats, have opened the doors to more medical advancements for them - new drugs etc. The size argument doesn't really work here either, as cats are smaller but I guess they make up for this by their unique personalities :P

Impeachment
27-05-2011, 06:49 PM
Just to clarify on the plants issue - I don't think anyone's honestly suggesting that testing on plants is a good idea. They have completely different cellular structure to animals so there is very little you could use them for in terms of testing things for human use. I only brought plants into the debate to make the point that plants have just as much capacity to understand pain as non-human animals. It's only our personification of animals that makes us think that they experience pain the same way humans do.

Impeachment quite rightly corrects me -


As viruses aren't quite alive or dead (odd issue, but yeah most people don't see them as "living") but then goes on to say


Which frankly is a self-defeating point (or would be if he were advocating against animal testing, I'm using this part of his post as an example, not an attack :P). If one is to classify the worth of a living organism by how big they are, it suggests that size and sapience have an obvious correlation. Since there are plenty of non-sapient animals far larger than humans this can clearly be disproved, yet this idea of small lifeforms like bacteria (and in the minds of many, up to the size of bugs or even rodents) being of less worth is as I say, only due to how we personify larger animals. Plants eat, reproduce, excrete, and all sorts of other things that all animals do, but they don't have any similar features to us so we don't see them as being able to share in our emotions etc. - something we only see cats and dogs and the such like being able to do because they have some responses that look like our own
I apologize when I said MUCH LARGER. I did not mean in size. I meant on a cellular level. We are far from Single-Celled organisms, therefore much larger on that scale. Yes we are also larger on size. Was late when I typed that up, but I meant I cellular.

*Will be back to post more later, packing at the moment!*

FlyingJesus
27-05-2011, 11:19 PM
I apologize when I said MUCH LARGER. I did not mean in size. I meant on a cellular level. We are far from Single-Celled organisms, therefore much larger on that scale. Yes we are also larger on size. Was late when I typed that up, but I meant I cellular.

*Will be back to post more later, packing at the moment!*

As I said, my counter-argument was not a direct attack on you as such, just on the minor point which you brought up but didn't seem to stand by as a statute. If you do have views on greater cellular structure meaning more ethical value then I'd be intrigued to see an argument on that (genuinely, as I believe debate thrives on counter-counter-counter points rather than just someone agreeing with whoever says the most big words) but I took your post to mean that you didn't really believe that bigger = better. If you can provide an interesting argument to show that more cellurarly advanced organisms have greater ethical worth or process then by all means I will be happy to walk away palms to the sky as it would demonstrate to me a great development in natural science not to mention my own understanding of life, but currently to my knowledge a more complex cellular structure doesn't correlate with a more advanced societal or mental capacity

Technologic
28-05-2011, 01:13 PM
When chickens rule the world they can do whatever the **** they want but for now we're in charge.

Wig44.
28-05-2011, 01:30 PM
On the other hand many people say that it's morally wrong to make animals suffer so much. Is it right to force animals to become test subjects and give them no choice in the matter? A lot of animals that are tested are very far away from any similarity to humans. Some animals like mice and dogs are used very early on in experiments to essentially see things like"If i inject this liquid in here, will he explode or not?". A lot of people argue that this experimentation is not necessary and drugs can easily still be developed without animals.


When you 'Debates' staff make a new debate, please don't fill the original post with your own misconceptions and opinions. Doing so ruins the point of a debate. One of a few glaring examples is this quote... Mice and dogs are very similar to humans. Granted this similarity has to be considered in context; you wouldn't start mass producing a compund for human consumption on the basis of its non-toxicity to rodents. But mice (or, more often rats) being tested on in labs usually do show an appreciably similar reaction to humans. To say that the experiments are to see: 'will he explode explode or not?' or that other experiments of a similar nature are conducted is just ridiculous. We know that a lot of the testing is quite cruel and stressful or fatal, but never as pointless as 'will he explode?'. So please, don't put a slant on a debate due to your own misconceptions and limited knowledge.

My stance (given what I have already written) is probably clear - I believe that testing on animals is distasteful and should be limited as much as possible, but their sacrifice is needed to help develop cures that will save a far greater number of lives than the number of animals that go through testing.

I'd like to point out that plants cannot feel pain, or if they can they don't feel it in anywhere near the same way as any animal used in testing. For a start, they have no nervous system. They do not require a pain mechanism to survive, the detection of diseases and insects is achieved through use of chemicals they synthesise.

Eoin247
28-05-2011, 01:58 PM
When you 'Debates' staff make a new debate, please don't fill the original post with your own misconceptions and opinions. Doing so ruins the point of a debate. One of a few glaring examples is this quote... Mice and dogs are very similar to humans. Granted this similarity has to be considered in context; you wouldn't start mass producing a compund for human consumption on the basis of its non-toxicity to rodents. But mice (or, more often rats) being tested on in labs usually do show an appreciably similar reaction to humans. To say that the experiments are to see: 'will he explode explode or not?' or that other experiments of a similar nature are conducted is just ridiculous. We know that a lot of the testing is quite cruel and stressful or fatal, but never as pointless as 'will he explode?'. So please, don't put a slant on a debate due to your own misconceptions and limited knowledge.
.

I don't want to run off topic from the debate so i will keep this very short.

I would like to point out that the for and against arguments in the original post are the arguments that are most commonly used by both sides in this debate topic. They are not my opinions or as you might call them "misconceptions".

If you believe one of those arguments is wrong then debate against it. That is what this forum is all about.

Impeachment
28-05-2011, 02:25 PM
As I said, my counter-argument was not a direct attack on you as such, just on the minor point which you brought up but didn't seem to stand by as a statute. If you do have views on greater cellular structure meaning more ethical value then I'd be intrigued to see an argument on that (genuinely, as I believe debate thrives on counter-counter-counter points rather than just someone agreeing with whoever says the most big words) but I took your post to mean that you didn't really believe that bigger = better. If you can provide an interesting argument to show that more cellurarly advanced organisms have greater ethical worth or process then by all means I will be happy to walk away palms to the sky as it would demonstrate to me a great development in natural science not to mention my own understanding of life, but currently to my knowledge a more complex cellular structure doesn't correlate with a more advanced societal or mental capacity

Bigger doesn't mean better. Smallest of microorganisms could be the most lethal organisms to man. Insects, can kill us with their toxins. So no bigger doesn't mean better.

However, when it comes to a cellular level they are not as advanced as we are, single-celled organisms don't show emotions. They don't think "Oh well, should I go in and infect this guy?" No. They don't think that way.

A Dog or a Cat, exhibit emotions that are similar to us. They show signs of understanding their surroundings. They show signs of understanding whats right and wrong (to an extent). Of course this could be due to human influence, but that means they have the mental capacity to comprehend these things.

Can you have Bacteria as a pet, and tell it "no don't infect other people, and don't go out and do this and that." You can't bacteria don't understand that. They don't have a mental capacity to understand right from wrong. They have no understanding. They are single-celled.

Now without human influence, and animals just in the wild as they are, show that their far more advanced mentally. They have their morals too, whether we understand them or not. A Mother Bear, teaches her cub right from wrong. A Penguin teaches her chick the ropes too. Teach them whats right from wrong. Teach them how to survive, without getting killed.

Now do they recognize human morals? No. So we can't judge animals by what they do, by our morals.

*Sorry if anything is misspelled or grammar sucks. Just woke up. Minds a bit foggy. :P

Wig44.
28-05-2011, 11:36 PM
I don't want to run off topic from the debate so i will keep this very short.

I would like to point out that the for and against arguments in the original post are the arguments that are most commonly used by both sides in this debate topic. They are not my opinions or as you might call them "misconceptions".

If you believe one of those arguments is wrong then debate against it. That is what this forum is all about.

I have never, ever seen anyone in a half decent debate about testing animals that merely stated: "they inject animals with no relation to humans to see if they explode!! derp". Furthermore, since these misonceptions apparently aren't yours (by proxy saying you know these statements not to be true, or rather, don't know that they ARE true either) you should not include them in the debate at all. Pseudoscience, old wives tales and any other deviations from the truth have no place in a debate. Whether or not the ideas presented in the first post are represantitive of your own, they should not have been included.

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