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

[GirlNextDoor15]

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]

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 ). 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]

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 ). 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

[Impeachment]

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 ). 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]

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]

When chickens rule the world they can do whatever the **** they want but for now we're in charge.

[Wig44.]

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]

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]

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.

[Wig44.]

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.