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

[Inseriousity.]

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.:]

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]

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]

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

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 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

[FlyingJesus]

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]

It is a bit dodgy 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.