Animal Testing - Let it carry on? [Closes 06/03/07]

[velvet]

Well, I have mixed veiws.
But I think people are forgetting that animals are not sentient beings like humans.
They experience and react to 'pain' differently to us. I try my best not to buy products that have not been tested on animals, and i'm also vegan, but in some cases animal testing is the only way.
I'm sure half the people in this thread still buy products that have been tested on animals, or used antibiotics, which have been tested on animals also.
It's a part of life.
However, for cosmetic testing I think it's wrong, since there is a skin substitute that could be used instead of testing it on animals, but using animals is cheaper, so people continue to do that.

[GommeInc]

I take penicillen, which might of been tested on animals. It's very harmless unless you have a properly working immune system which rejects help. Animals, I believe, have a different immune system, so they should hopefully react in a positive way.

[RedStratocas]

Depends on what it is. Makeup and making them do something thats unessesary even for humans? No. Drugs to save lives? Yes

[:Hazel]

the drugs might react differently with animals than on humans. i don't think should be done either.

[dog-egg]

Well, I have mixed veiws.
But I think people are forgetting that animals are not sentient beings like humans.
They experience and react to 'pain' differently to us. I try my best not to buy products that have not been tested on animals, and i'm also vegan, but in some cases animal testing is the only way.
I'm sure half the people in this thread still buy products that have been tested on animals, or used antibiotics, which have been tested on animals also.
It's a part of life.
However, for cosmetic testing I think it's wrong, since there is a skin substitute that could be used instead of testing it on animals, but using animals is cheaper, so people continue to do that.

not sentient? - sentient is the ability to feel - maybe you mean sapient, because i'm pretty sure that when i stepped on my dog's tail by mistake, it yelped

experience and react to 'pain' differently? - how exactly do you KNOW that it isn't actually worse for them? after all, a human crying in reponse to pain could just be viewed as a reflex action if that's the direction you want to head in, but personally i wouldn't

It's a part of life. - well so is racism unfortunately, but we're trying to sort that one out, so why don't we all make more effort?

i'm not highlighting your words to make you feel bad Romance, it's just these are the same beliefs as a large percentage of people, and it worries me that when an animal doesn't exhibit the same perceived symptoms of suffering as humans then people think that testing must be ok

i think the most pertinent question in this debate is the one about choosing between an animal's life and the life of a relative - the answer (i believe) would always be in favour of the relative (unless you really don't like your brother lol) but that decision is a symptom of our general lack of respect for anything that we don't know. we know the relative, so they become important to us. we don't know the animal and aren't clever enough to communicate with it, so we call it less 'sentient' and condemn it to die

there are comparisons that can be drawn between:
a) the vision of humans as a kind of 'super animal' having the right to treat 'lesser' species with contempt, and
b) the dubious thinking employed by some of the world's fascist dictators

and as for using the advancement of medical science as a justification for animal testing - think about this... somebody contracts a disease, so we pump them full of drugs, and they survive - maybe have children - and resistance to diseases may well be genetically passed down, so our children and our childrens' children may get weaker and weaker and require more and more drugs to survive... i'm not saying we should get rid of medicine, but maybe we ought to try drinking a few extra glasses of water before reaching for the headache tablets?

omg i need to shut up now lol - i went on a bit didn't i?

[velvet]

I ment sentient as they are not sentient in the way humans are. :]
As animals feel pain so that they can respond to danger, and get away.
I think for medical reasons animal testing will never stop, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it.
& +rep for a good argument.

[Oni]

I am a strong vegetarian so you would imagine id be against this however I am not.

Like most people here I am against it for cosmetics but not for disease testing. We would have so many more diseases if it werent for animal testing and millions more people would die. Oh and also they dont just go down the shop and buy the animals they are bred for this and they have to apply for a certain amount and they are either accepted or rejected.

Some of the animal protesters are like terrorists they blow up peoples cars, garages etc its crazy. In oxford they smashed the science lab and then threw stones at the builders who were sent in to fix it.

[dog-egg]

Hi romance!! thanks for the rep too
are you sure that humans don't feel pain so that they can respond to danger and run away?
lol sorry for still arguing!

[Mentor]

the poeple who like animal testing i think should get tested on themeselves and see how they like it

That makes no sence, those people arnt stupid hence are happy to let it continue, since testing on animals, which arnt self aware, doesnt create the same ethical problems as testing on a human subject. If you dont want animal testing, you should be the one volentearing to be tested on...

How is it right, animals are being killed for you make- up, there is areas like shoe box sized, min food and water, should be doing exercises, the argument of, the medicines thing, n oway, if we cared that much we wouldnt abuse them, people dont care so no one gives a dam, the majority of you say they dissage but I bet they dont actually LOOK at what there buying to see if it non animal tested, well I do, and also, if you CARE about animals so much, Im sure your a vegy? If yes then thats ok, but if not, your just a hippocrit, as they die in the same way.

1) i dont ware makeup
2) no there not.
3) animal tested = safe. Hence why products are all animal tested at some stadge, its actualy a legal requirment, those that say otherwize are lieing, in the same way that people often claim to be vegitarn yet still eat fish.
4) im no vegitrain and im no hypocrit.

1) Animals do not have the same gene structure as us, so a drug that doesnt harm them may harm us.

2) We are only animals.

3) There is other ways of finding cures and if so much wasnt spent on cosemtic crap then we may be able to find cures using differnt methods.

So yeah im agaisnt animal testing. In my opinion we should test them on chavs and criminals

1) point one and two contradict each other. Animals are completely differnt to us, but we are animals... Make up your mind...
2) Animals and us a very similar, so yes the testing works.
3) yes we are also animals, hence why the testing works
4) No there arnt other ways to test for cures, not any that actually work.
5) criminals/chavs... well maybe crimals at least, are self aware, centaint beings, they can comprihend pain and suffering. animals can not. Its the same reason its wrong to throw a baby out of a window, but not to do the same to a toaster.

I disagree, what about animal rights?

They only exist for human benifit, people like anthromophising animals, but the animals in question dont actualy change from how they started due to the human perception of them.

if theres nothing wrong with an animal y **** it up with medican, were all =, humans and animals are 1 of the same just bcs of are intelagance that will bring the end of us makes us better? its crap they were here before us now were destroying them, if there were alians, and obvisely they would be x100 of are intelagance how would we feal to be tested on? idk i think its crap if ur solving cancer use a cancer patiant...

Animals also get ill. You cant test a cure on an animal thats not infected with the desease your trying to cure.

And i would like to say " yes, are intelligence DOES make us better than other animals."

Not all animals were here before us, we've been around a while.

Aliens 100* smarter would know what level of inteligence = self aware hence would not test on us, dispite the fact since the entire evolution are seperate, we would be to diffent to be of any use.

Cancer paitens are real humans, humans dont like dieing. Animals, aint self aware, they dont care ether way.

I think it could be a benefit to us but it isnt a very good idea I mean its very cruel to other animals and instead of testing other animals why not test our own species I know that certainly wouldn't be approved but IMO it would be better than testing other animals.
Another thing is if we test animals for some things it might not work out properly as other animals are different to humans.

So anyway yeah it should stop and shouldn't of even started.

We do test on humans. I think people need to actualy have a clue of what animal testing is to be involved in this debate. Animal testing occurs very late in the deveopment of a product, at a stage it is almost definatly safe. Once animal testings done, to make sure there are no nasty suprises, then we have human testing, after that, then we actualy get a finished product.

Plus all other animals do it, why not us?

People who test stuff on animals should be tortured. They should spray something burning in their eyes, put something itchy and iritating on their skin, put something nasty on their tongues, they should be hummiliated in public and shot after.

People who have no understanding of reality should seek phyeatric help and yes i do mean you. Reality does not equal proerganda.

So? I don't care if those animals are bred inside those labs, they deserve freedom, they're living beings.

Not quite, there liveing at least though.

But you're right about 1 thing, animals are made to be eaten, so are we, I dissagree with the way we killed the animals though.

You mean the fact we give then a quick painless death as opposed to the slow painful one they get in the whild?

Animal testing shouldn't be allowed in any case, even if it benefits humans. Those animals didn't ask to be kidnapped and tested on, even if scientists say it doesn't harm them, because it does. If they inject them, they hurt them.

Animals dont even have a concept of asking, your entire agrument is flawed. you cant kidnap an animal, and why do you think you know better than a scientist who is obviosly substantaly better informed than you, me or anyone else here?

If they don't, they still harm them by scaring them, those animals don't know what happens to them, they're in a strange environment and it'll cause a lot of stress.

Do tests on humans, on serial killers and those kinds of people. (Not on pedo's, they can't help it.)

Humans = self aware
animals = none ware.

Humans = self aware
Toaster = none aware.

Without human beings on this planet, animals would be getting on with their lives, eating what they need to survive and no more, and certainly not ruining the earth through greed and experimentation - we're so pompous as a species that we think that just because something doesn't speak our language it's somehow inferior, and it doesn't matter if it get's destroyed for our own good.

1) Humans ARE animals
2) Humans are also part of the enviroment.
3) most hunting animals kill alot more prey than they plan on eating
4) most animals cause alot more sufferint to there prey than we do.
5) humans are also animals, so also have prey
6) If i actuly though you understood the princables of true language aquistion i would bring up the debate, but i dont think you even know exsactly what lanuage is judgeing by your claim here?

I say, if you want to use products or keep youself alive beyond your natural time for dying then be prepared to put yourself forward for testing - one horror story gets in the news and suddenly everyone thinks human testing is terrible

Human testing happens, its the next step from animal testing, although its refered to as clinical trials more often.

imagine the number of animals who die lonely and painful deaths in labs around the world with no way of complaining about it.

Aniamls have no concept of lonelyness, pain or compaining.... in the same way your car doesnt.

I'd like to see less people sitting around watching tv and getting obese, and more going out and trying to recreate some of the environments that we've trashed in our quest for science and progress

Enviroments change, it would be more natrual to keep whipeing them out, and let evolution take over, as opposed to attempting to maintain them, which simply wont work for ever.

- remember it's only a few hundred years since we thought the earth was flat, so how can we imagine that we know enough about animals to justify the torture inflicted? it makes me cry

We've come along way, plus a few 1000, the west was just somewhat behind as religious zelots were burning anyone who suggested something not in there bible.

Yes they do. They put make up on them, use shampoo and other cosmetic products to test if it doesn't sting when you get it in your eye, if you don't get allergic reactions when you use it and other stuff.

Youve been watching to much simpsons o.0

Also, people/scientists say it's bad when there are too many of one specie, it messes up the food chain. Guess what! There are too many humans and we messed it up big time.

No the dont, thats you saying it. If theres to many of one species, its food becomes scarese, they all die off but to sustainable amounts, or there prediort grows in number, kills em all of down to sustainable amounts. Thats how nature works. Where just part of it.

Humans are looked upon as the best species, the dominant ones, the smartest ones (one of the smartest ones anyway), but we aren't.

Yes we are.
Best? - being a human, i would obviously say yes, bit ****** up to think otehrwize
Domiant - Obviouslty, look around you
Smartest - by a long long way.

Most humans can't catch their own food, build their own houses, protect themselves without using weapons. I personally think humans are the weakest specie.

Yes, as when the first humans came in to the world, we alreayd had houses, running water and all of todays conveniances... Are inteliegence is what makes us the most dangerous animal on the planet.

Why should humans be allowed to test on animals to cure human disseases? Animals aren't testing on us or other animals to cure their disseases. In the wild you get eaten when you're sick and/or old, humans should have the same destiny.

A) Where above them in the food chain, like every other animal we use the animals below to survive, that includes testing and eating.
b) animals also benifit from cures
c) humans being socal animals, look after there olders more, hence the exstened family unit, tribes etc. other animals dont, which is why the old and sick tend to die.

I don't really see the point in testing on animals because they may react differently than humans do, they could of found a cure for cancer, tried it on a rabbit and it turns out bad because the rabbit reacted badly, a human might not react like that so testing on animals isn't really 100% effective, testing make-up and stuff on animals is dumb because make-up is just as pointless as cigarettes are, drugs should be tested on criminals that are sentenced to death, not animals or just random people

Same decises work the same in differnt animals, most animals are really very simlar, hence we do get useful results.
Animals being non centaint, dont have the problems with suffering, you get if you use humans.

Good Points

* It will show if some products are unsafe and potentially saving human lives.
* It will save the company from a law suit about harming human beings.
* It will sort out the harmful products from the non-harmful products.

Bad Points

* The product may not react the same on animals as it does on humans, therefore showing that the product is safe on animals and not on humans when they try to release the product onto the market.
* The animals themselves could be hurt or injured for life, even killed.
* The animals will get upset and will gradually die.

My View

I am opposed to animal testing because i think it is wrong to harm any other living thing on the planet intentinally for human vanity. They only test on animals so they don't harm any of the humans who want to wear make-up and other products for pure vanity.

They have human testing, after the animal testing to make sure products are safe.
The animal doesnt care, its not self aware, stop anthromophising em.
Animals cant get upset...

I dont really use cosemetics, and i talk more in terms of medical application.

Ok let me rub crap that stings like hell in your eye, and then tell me how that isnt treating you badly ;o not to mention the death of the animal in many cases, but i guess that isnt miss-treating them either?

Real life is not like your fantiscy world.. sorry.

the drugs might react differently with animals than on humans. i don't think should be done either.

The mignt, but they dont, the sun may not rise tommrow. chances are its till will.

not sentient? - sentient is the ability to feel - maybe you mean sapient, because i'm pretty sure that when i stepped on my dog's tail by mistake, it yelped

I can make my computer bleed when you touch a button the they keybored? It it now sentient as well?

experience and react to 'pain' differently? - how exactly do you KNOW that it isn't actually worse for them? after all, a human crying in reponse to pain could just be viewed as a reflex action if that's the direction you want to head in, but personally i wouldn't

Crying is a reflex action, it releaces endorphins with nulife phiscal pain. Animals other than us, dont have a frontal lobe, there not self aware, hence arnt aware of pain, or anything else, the entire mental world is lost to them, they are little more in reality than complex biological machines, they do not have "Mind" as we do.

It's a part of life. - well so is racism unfortunately, but we're trying to sort that one out, so why don't we all make more effort?

Im now sceptical youve been reading the right debate?

i'm not highlighting your words to make you feel bad Romance, it's just these are the same beliefs as a large percentage of people, and it worries me that when an animal doesn't exhibit the same perceived symptoms of suffering as humans then people think that testing must be ok

No one is talking about perceived symptoms, where talking about the brain states assoiated with and the concepts of pain and suffering. Your simply anthromorphising animals, which doesnt really help.

i think the most pertinent question in this debate is the one about choosing between an animal's life and the life of a relative - the answer (i believe) would always be in favour of the relative (unless you really don't like your brother lol) but that decision is a symptom of our general lack of respect for anything that we don't know. we know the relative, so they become important to us. we don't know the animal and aren't clever enough to communicate with it, so we call it less 'sentient' and condemn it to die

1) we choose family becuse we like family more than a misolunus rat.
2) Family = people. People = self aware. Rat <> self aware. Hence people more important
3) The rat would choose another rat over a person, all animals choose there species over another.
4) we do know animals arent clever, and we know there not capable of communication. So back to the real world please.

there are comparisons that can be drawn between:
a) the vision of humans as a kind of 'super animal' having the right to treat 'lesser' species with contempt, and
b) the dubious thinking employed by some of the world's fascist dictators

Not really. Humans dominace over animals is the same as any other animals domincae over ones lower than it. Is a lion like hitler becuse it has dominace over a gazell?

and as for using the advancement of medical science as a justification for animal testing - think about this... somebody contracts a disease, so we pump them full of drugs, and they survive - maybe have children - and resistance to diseases may well be genetically passed down, so our children and our childrens' children may get weaker and weaker and require more and more drugs to survive... i'm not saying we should get rid of medicine, but maybe we ought to try drinking a few extra glasses of water before reaching for the headache tablets?

I dont take pain killers or any drugs i dont specificaly need to stay alive. Although your analogy is flawed. Being immune to a desise, means that desease wont kill us, deseases evolve, so another one will come about will need a medicalion to cure as well, and so on. People arnt getting weaker, the only difference is there just not dead so fast...


In summery. im pro animal testing. Anti animal testing comes from ignorance of the subject and peoples need to anthromorphise animals.

[dog-egg]

"Without human beings on this planet, animals would be getting on with their lives, eating what they need to survive and no more, and certainly not ruining the earth through greed and experimentation - we're so pompous as a species that we think that just because something doesn't speak our language it's somehow inferior, and it doesn't matter if it get's destroyed for our own good.
1) Humans ARE animals
2) Humans are also part of the enviroment.
3) most hunting animals kill alot more prey than they plan on eating
4) most animals cause alot more sufferint to there prey than we do.
5) humans are also animals, so also have prey
6) If i actuly though you understood the princables of true language aquistion i would bring up the debate, but i dont think you even know exsactly what lanuage is judgeing by your claim here?"

hahahahaha ok here we go - I'd happily sit here for some time and pull the rather obvious loose threads of most of your arguments, but I think I'll just concentrate on your response to the things that I wrote...

1) I KNOW humans are animals - if I'd said 'without tigers on this planet...' would it have meant I was saying tigers aren't animals? doh
2) Yes they are part of the environment - taking it over, ruining it, propagating with an alarming lack of control for such a superior self-aware animal ;P
3) 'Most' is untrue - which animals are you basing this on? If you're thinking about creatures like foxes killing chickens then you should maybe study them a bit more closely because you'll find that they take any chickens that they can't eat and bury them so that they can survive the winter... that sounds like a plan to eat it to me - how about you, or did your eyes and ears seize up at birth?
4) When was the last time you were out measuring suffering? Come to think of it, what prey have you dealt with recently? - not a lot unless you actually go out and catch your own food which btw I think is an excellent idea. So keeping domesticated animals in tiny spaces and feeding them reconstituted ****** for their lifespan causes less suffering than a relatively short kill by a predator?
5) This one's pretty much covered by the above...
6) I think this one is my favourite
So what you're saying is that you doubt that I understand what language is, and therefore you deem me incapable of communicating on your level in a debate on how it's acquired? Hmmmm - you wouldn't by any chance be feeling superior there would you? Maybe you're thinking (assuming actually) that a lack of knowledge of a subject matter on my part would mean that I would be unable to offer any rational or valid thoughts?

Maybe you could try it, and then we'll see

Oh, and isn't language something like a bunch of sonic or visual gestures used to represent concepts and to communicate? Maybe something that has developed as part of the social interaction of a species through the generations, being passed down and evolving over time? Ever notice that scientists have discovered that some other animals even have senses that humans don't have? Ever wonder if they might communicate through means that we have yet to find? Ever wonder if your entire belief system might be based on the useless meanderings of the collective human conciousness, as mine may well be? I would presume that you haven't else you might demonstrate the ability to debate with an open mind... the best debates are not about point-scoring at the expense of individuals - they explore the concepts and pave the way for new and informed thought... I accept the possibility that I could be wrong