Animal Testing

[King Hydro]

Not for the cosmetic type. But medical.

What's your position on animal testing to further our medial knowledge and ability.


I disagree with alot of the conditions that the animals are kept in and pout through.. however, as a part-utilitarian I find that animal testing is for the greater good.

There have been major medical breakthroughs via this method, and, as a result, have saved lives and profited for the greater good.
To lose an animal, or to harm an animal is less evil. The animals generically used do not form attatchments (if they do it is a lengthy process), so if one dies there is no pain for others. Whereas, us being human's an' all...we have feelings and can experience grief, hysteria, shock, etc..


for or against?

[Ugly Casanova]

Animal testing for like..cancer or AIDs, yea.


Animal testing for shampoo and make up, no...

[Apples]

In my opinion, it is better to test upon animals than to test upon human life; of all kinds. Why damage your own
species? That should be the question.

[FadedDreams]

I'm against.


idk.... I have a soft spot for animals.

[King Hydro]

Originally Posted by Apples

In my opinion, it is better to test upon animals than to test upon human life; of all kinds. Why damage your own
species? That should be the question.

Not really. I asked what peoples views on animal testing/animal rights were.

Asking that question would be focusing on Speciesism.

[Apples]

Originally Posted by King Hydro

Not really. I asked what peoples views on animal testing/animal rights were.

Asking that question would be focusing on Speciesism.

True, but the two issues often tie together. Indeed, don't we need living subjects to test new medicines on? I believe it would be
better than to resort to human testing. Of course, I am completely against testing for cosmetic purposes.

[Larsa]

I am for it but I so damn mad at them and what they sometimes do to get their cats.

My uncle had a cat that he had had for like 19 years and he loved this cat beyond many things and one day it got sick and he took it to the vet and the vet doctor said to him "I'm now going to take custody of this cat." My uncle got so extremely mad and found out that after they kill the sick cats there they send them to labratories for testing and research. But he got a little back at the doctor because he got a can of gasoline and went to the guys house tourched the guys car and made it look like the gasoline trail was from his garage so the veterinarians insurance would cover it. lol that's what you get for taking away a hippies cat mother****ers!

[Wei Yan]

I'm for, I just don't need to see anything involving it, or hearing about it. I'm pro medical advancement, but I also have a soft spot for animals.

As for Larsa, seriously, get your uncle some valium because he's seriously ****ed up

[King Hydro]

Originally Posted by Larsa

I am for it but I so damn mad at them and what they sometimes do to get their cats.

My uncle had a cat that he had had for like 19 years and he loved this cat beyond many things and one day it got sick and he took it to the vet and the vet doctor said to him "I'm now going to take custody of this cat." My uncle got so extremely mad and found out that after they kill the sick cats there they send them to labratories for testing and research. But he got a little back at the doctor because he got a can of gasoline and went to the guys house tourched the guys car and made it look like the gasoline trail was from his garage so the veterinarians insurance would cover it. lol that's what you get for taking away a hippies cat mother****ers!

I don't believe this story, tbh. Why would he need to make the trail look like it came from the garage? The most basic insurance covers for 3rd party, fire, and theft. If his car has been burnt, moreso by a 3rd party rather than it being an "accident" then it'd have covered him regardless.

I also highly doubt that a vett would just "claim custody" of a cat. Perhaps the vet put the cat down because it was too sick to recover, but vets are not animal thefts.

[Larsa]

You can go check it out on either the Tennesse state laws or the Oregon state laws, I don't know which it was. But they really did.

[King Hydro]

Originally Posted by Larsa

You can go check it out on either the Tennesse state laws or the Oregon state laws, I don't know which it was. But they really did.

There's no need to check it out. I'm sure it wasn't as black and white as "this cat is now mien, lulz. Now gimme all ur GP too!"

[Kakyoin]

There aren't enough murderers and rapists to go around for the amount of medical testing needed. Testing doesn't take place one animal-per-drug/procedure. You need thousands of them for a viable test spectrum, and the testing has to be done for several years to see if there are any long-term effects: medical testing is a process of problem elimination. That is why rats and rabbits are generally used, because you can breed a bunch in no time, and you can make clones which are useful. You can't do that with human beings - they're only useful for the most final tests.

Animal testing is necessary in my view. And it's going to be even more necessary in the near future.

[Commandie070792]

I'm glad that the 'For' is winning the poll.

[Kimiko]

I've never really thought about it for medical purposes, but i'm deffinately against for cosmetic. I think i'm probably the same, i disagree with the conditions they are kept in and some of the experiments that are done on animals is just plain wrong, but if its for a really good cause, and they are very certain it won't kill dozens or animals then i guess its fine, which really should be the case if they are trying to find a cure for something, but at some point or another they will need to be tested on humans anyway i guess, i mean an animals body is totally different than a humans. Like what might work on a mouse might not work on a human and vice versa.

[Batman]

Meh, I'd rather not hurt a poor little animal when there's millions of people in Africa we could use for medical testing.

[Wei Yan]

Originally Posted by Batman

Meh, I'd rather not hurt a poor little animal when there's millions of people in Africa we could use for medical testing.

They have the diseases already aswell, pure win there :P

[DDR God]

NO NO NO i am totaly 110% against it!!!! there should not be animal testing i think that animals should be left in there natural habitat not be tested on for our research no matter the reason. if we need to find a cure to something than we should find someone who has the disease or medical problem and test on them. Animal testing is wrong and cruel. plus there is the fact that there DNA structure and biological systems differ from ours so even if we find a cure for them, it doesn't mean that it will work for us.

[My Final Heaven]

Originally Posted by DDR God

plus there is the fact that there DNA structure and biological systems differ from ours so even if we find a cure for them, it doesn't mean that it will work for us.

Actually that's entirely false. Because of the increadible similarities between all mammalian life and our vital systems, finding the cure, especially for a bacterial or viral disease of some sort is perfectly suited for rats and mice and cats and dogs and what have you. If the baceria or virus that infects humans can also infect the rat, then you can find the cure by testing things which will kill the bacteria or virus, but not the rat. Naturally this takes a bit of trial and error, because if you've ever had rodents as pets, you'll know just how easilly they die.

But once you've found it, you'll have something even better for humans, becuse if a rat can survive the treatment, then the human stands an even better chance.

Now lets reiterate the gestation period of rats vs humans again. Average number of offspring for a human over a life time of 80 years = 1-2 (That includes a male and a female, so for each person involved in the process, an average of 1-2). Average offspring of a rat over a period of a 3 year lifespan is somehing like twenty to thirty. Per rat. Think about that number. Think how many people would have to die in order to see these experiments through to the end. Do you remember the holocaust? Know what those German scientists did to the Jews? That is the face of human experimentation. And admittedly, they made very fast progress in understanding certain conditions because they would cut people open to see how they were working, while they were still alive, then they would roast the corpses.

Not to suggest you're advocating nazi ism, just that maybe you should think things through before forming an oppinion about them. If you'd rather see people die then rats, well then, good on you but I won't shed a tear for you when you contract a life threatening illness and then refuse treatment because the cure was found through animal testing.

[Wei Yan]

I want to add to that in reply to DDR God that it's absolutely madness and completely ethically incorrect to use an untested drug on any human being, just for the sole purpose of medical progress.

For all you know, as you haven't tested it on animals yet it might even worsen the condition. A couple of animal lives are a fair price to pay if one of your loved ones would be sick, don't you think?

+rep for MFH, excellent post

[DDR God]

i understand what both of you are saying and i under stand that rats and other animals have a higher population and that it we should test on them b/c of that. but look at it this way, i am an animal lover so i think that animal life is just as important as ours. i am not saying that i will refuse treatment b/c iit was tested on animals or that there is a 100 % difference in animals dna and what not i know that we are very similar but that is not true with all mammals. But any way what i am trying to say is that if it is rats ok i understand b/c they are one of the mammals that do closely resemble us and they are rodents and thaat rats are rodents that arn't neccesary or other rodents but what i was talking about is if we were to test on dogs, cats, etc... for our own purpose than that is what i think is wrong. now if we were testing on them( in a controled inviorment ) on the animal for the animal then i wouldn't have such a problem. sorry if i affended you guys but i think i wasn't specific enough. also i still think we should test on humans ourselves not only b/c the cure for what ever we are curing is more likely to work ( still with possibility that it won't b/c not all humans are the same either) but we should use people that are like in jail with the life sentendce or the death sentence instead of just throwing there bodys away lilke that. and thank you for saying that you weren't saying that i you didn't think that i was a nazi or something b/c i am not i do not promote stuff like that b/c they ( the jews) were innocent along with all the gypsies, polilsh and all the other people they killed but think about it if we are just going to kill them or let them rought in proson for the rest of there life while they suck of the taxpayers dallor so we can keep them alive in jail or for the execution then i think our money would be better spent finding cures on them then on animals. don't you agree?