Do you think Animal Testing is right?

[Tash.]

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]

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]

Then people would moan about human rights

[Black_Apalachi]

Perform tests on criminals.

Lol that's good . 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]

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]

For medication; yes

For anything else; no

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.]

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]

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]

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)