Animal testing

[Swastika]

Im both against and for because:
If its for research that could cure illness then im for. Like someone said earlier, i'd rather kill a animal which i could be eating rather than a human.

Im against if its for cosmetics. I dont think the pig would feel ok about it.

-Jamie

[Virgin Mary]

It's not the testing that annoys me, it's the way they treat the animals. Unless of course it's the testing where they stick a computer chip into their brain.

[asher_]

The point of the argument we are placing however, is that pain doesn't mean anything to animals. Squealing, jerky movements, struggles, they're all part of what's absolutely natural, even plants have small reactions like this (they're just very slow and basic, such as moving to feed - facing the sun), it doesn't mean real, conscious pain. What it means is that the animal's nerves sense something harmful to their existence, and instinctively tries to get away. Unless you abuse and abuse an animal over and over, you can't teach it to stay still when it's getting hurt, because they don't understand it and can only act naturally. Humans however register what's going on, and can choose what to do about it. This difference means that we can understand pain rather than simply act entirely by reflex actions.

I'm still a little dazed about what you are trying to argue here, is it that animals do not feel pain the same way that we do? Animals show the same physical reactions that humans exibit. If they get hurt they may hide, or they may bite whomever is hurting them in an act of self defense and surely that's the same reaction a human would have if in pain and in the same situation?

[FlyingJesus]

Is not the same true of a baby?

Although babies act mainly on instinct alone, they are still part of a sentient species, the only such species on Earth as it were.

[Virgin Mary]

Although babies act mainly on instinct alone, they are still part of a sentient species, the only such species on Earth as it were.

Virtually all animals are sentient, to some degree anyway. Dolphins and apes are just one example. I could just as easily and solipsistically say that no one but me is sentient.

[RedStratocas]

He can't allow stem cell research at a time like this, there are far too many hardline Christians (himself included) that believe in sanctity of life. It's not going to happen any time soon either, things are going the opposite way in terms of how pregnancies and such are controlled, with abortion becoming illegalised again in parts of America.

But he VETOED this bill. It wasent even him making this bill. Congress voted almost with out question for the allowing of stem-cell research. All Bush has to ever do is sign the damn thing. But for the first time in his 5 and 1/2 years as president, he didnt sign a bill and vetoed it. Out of all the bills, hundreds of them probably, he decided to veto one with importance such as this. It actually amazes me....

By the way, in recent polls, more than 3/4ths of the country supports stem cell research.

[jordybumz!]

do tests on people who are on death row

I like that idea ^

[Virgin Mary]

Natural life created by God is sacred. Life created artificially by humans isn't.

[Mentor]

Animals have similar electrical impulses in their brains that are much the same as those in a human; as well as, having similar areas of the brain involved in processing pain and acting upon it. I understand what you said about touching something hot and it's the same with an animal; If an animal who is being slaughtered gets killed quickly it is quick and painless because their bodies don't have enough time to react; however, if they are killed improperly, and in a lot of cases they are, the animal will die a slow, distressing and painful death. In regards to the anesthetic, it creates loss of feeling and/or awareness so no pain is felt at all.

Yes? becuse humans and animals shair the same basic workings, where pretty simlar, but if your brain were about a 1/4 its size you woulnt be half as smart or capable of half the things you are now. Your brain would still work in the same way though.
Cut out your frontal lobe, you wont be consiose or centiant no more. Animals dont have a frontal lobe at all. ONLY humans have it, and thats what makes us self aware.
I could quite easly program a peace of computer software cabale of puting out simlar responces, if its attacked or damged it will try and protect itself. This by no means my computer is consiose, or even by many deffinitions alive? so i cant see your aurgument "/

Plants don't exhibit any behaviour that indicates any form of consciousness. Also to bring back entor's point, an animal's survival depends on reacting to situations which may cause pain and suffering, plants however cannot react to these situations such as changing their position incase of a forest fire, so it's unlikely plants would develop the ability to feel pain when it has no survival advantage.

Thats becuse there not consciouse, but nore are cats, dogs, rates sheep, donkys or any other animals you cair to mention.
Since animals only need pain as warning its equaly stupid for them to eveolve the factulty that allows them to exspeince the reaction in a discomftable way as oppose to just reacting to it.
Thats why a animal caught in a trap will gnaw its own limb off, im doubful a human would do the same, becuise are consioseness actaly acts as a disadvantage when survuval is at steak, becuse we exspeince "pain" rather than just the reaction to it, we also know and understand the pain, which an animal does, and make consiose judgements on it, which an animal doesnnt.

Plants can do alot of things animals cant, Hell venus fly trap can count? far smarter than most animals then aint it...

Virtually all animals are sentient, to some degree anyway. Dolphins and apes are just one example. I could just as easily and solipsistically say that no one but me is sentient.

No they arnt? they are still not self aware, smart yes, but not self aware, the human brain is infinatly more advancaed than that or an ape? Plus it would realy help if you actaly mentioned a SMART animal when trying to make this point, an octopus for exsample, is capable of advanced communiction, tactical team work, advanced judgment and is a pretty smart animal "/
Not sentaint, but very smart.

Summary
Animal testing IS needed.
The people who oppose it dont understand it are uneducated on the subject. This is most people.
The people who support it, understand why its nessary, this is just the smarter people. Luckly the smarter people make the desisons.... most the time.

Most people here WOULD be DEAD if it were not for animal testing, the majorty of all medican has resulted from it, most of the vaccienes given to babys comes from it.
the death of a few 1000 rats means the suverival of a few million Humans.
A few deaths to save Millions aint a bad thing, keep in mind many of the cures also save the animals... 1000 rats die, a billion rats can be saved if wanted...

[Virgin Mary]

No they arnt? they are still not self aware, smart yes, but not self aware, the human brain is infinatly more advancaed than that or an ape? Plus it would realy help if you actaly mentioned a SMART animal when trying to make this point, an octopus for exsample, is capable of advanced communiction, tactical team work, advanced judgment and is a pretty smart animal "/
Not sentaint, but very smart.

Some lesser animals may not be sentient, but many are. Maybe not as much as humans but to some extent, plus an animal being intelligent or self-aware is sapience, not sentience and an animal doesn't need to be sapient to be sentient. I'm not fully against testing, I think it should just be carried out in a more humane manner.