Animal Testing

[jordanisonfire]

So, what are your thoughts on animal testing? :)

[Crocolyle]

Animal Testing should be allowed. It is impossible to know the full implications on human life of certain cosmetics and foods without testing it on an animal. Humans cannot be used, because the death of a human is much more tragic and immoral than the death of an animal; the animal died in order to ensure that humans were safe.

Some animal rights activists claim that computers would work and be able to determine whether or not the product is harmful. According to the book, The Republican War On Science, in the chapter that discusses about how Liberal Democrats have misused scientific fact (even though it mostly focused on Republicans), it argued that animals must be used, because computers cannot account for every single side affect.

Animals sometimes must die in order to protect human life.

If you're talking about the other kind of animal testing. I think rabbits should not be forced to take algebra tests and neither should people.

[Zaphkiel]

Ha! Animal Testing is quite necessary in the world we live in. As Croc said, we can find out a lot of things through these tests. Besides, there's a big difference between animal testing and animal Cruelty. Also, animals were made for the use of mankind in the first place. Don't get me wrongs, I love animals, especially cats and baby pigs.

[Quietus]

Wow... I love how we put ourselves above other creatures. I think animal testing is completely and utterly wrong. In my opinion, we're all God's creatures and we should treat the others the same as we treat ourselves. I mean, if the product is that important, why can't we test it on a human? Oh wait, that's not ethical. Yet it's fine and dandy to take an innocent animals life.

[Nyx]

I think when animal testing is necessary it's necessary. But when it comes to cosmetics, well I don't really consider that necessary. Should animals die so we can have makeup?Hell No.

[Quietus]

I don't think animals should die for us to have anything. We have people in prisons, just wasting the rest of their lives (the ones with life sentences) and like people with the death penalty. If it's so important, why can't we experiment on them?

[Nyx]

I don't think it's right to use people in prison for lab testing. That's cruel, they could die, or get serious diseases.

[Crocolyle]

Wow... I love how we put ourselves above other creatures. I think animal testing is completely and utterly wrong. In my opinion, we're all God's creatures and we should treat the others the same as we treat ourselves. I mean, if the product is that important, why can't we test it on a human? Oh wait, that's not ethical. Yet it's fine and dandy to take an innocent animals life.

Animals aren't exactly innocent. And I mean, we eat them after all. If using them for food is okay, why isn't it okay to use them to make sure medicines, cosmetics, and foods are safe?

[Nyx]

Animals aren't exactly innocent. And I mean, we eat them after all. If using them for food is okay, why isn't it okay to use them to make sure medicines, cosmetics, and foods are safe?

I agree with medicine and foods, because they are necessary to human life, but cosmetics...well not so much.

[Crocolyle]

Yeah... I guess Cosmetics... maybe they can use humans for that...

[Nyx]

Yea, because if some cosmetics kill an animal, now that really seems like cruelty.

[Shaun]

My position is thus:
I don't like animal testing and if there was a magical way to not have to do it for medical advancements I'd want to do it that other way. However, because there isn't another way that is feasible, we have to do it.
What I don't like about animal testing is when facilities cause unnecessary harm to the animals. If you're going to inject them with poison or whatever it is you're giving them, you should make the rest of their lives as good as possible. I don't agree with testing cosmetics on animals. Sorry, that's retarded, and quite frankly, it's cruel. They do a lot of terrible things to rabbits and the like all for testing eye shadow. Animal testing should be left to medical needs and we should do whatever we can to make sure those animals are not in any discomfort due to neglect or ill treatment. Hopefully that makes sense. Give the rabbit a shot, but don't kick it across the room afterwards...

[Rafael Domination]

Erm...why do we test human products on animals...shouldn't human products be tested on...well...humans?

Anyhoo...I'm okay with testing necessary stuff on them, while avoiding as much harms as possible. Cosmetics is also a definite no-no for me.

[Shaun]

We test products on animals because for some reason we need to revamp all the face-cosmetics over and over and every time we do that we use a new chemical and have to test it. Unfortunately, they don't test it on humans, but they shove it into the eyes of animals, which is stupid because cosmetics isn't necessary to live...really, there's no logical reason for it.

[Zaphkiel]

I'd rather sacrifice an innocent animal rather than an innocent human.

[GeorgeMichael]

Along with everyone else Isay that when it comes to Cosmetics and the like Animal Testing is wrong, animals shouldn't have to go through that just so people can have "the right shade of red"

I also agree however that it may be necessary to test medicines and seeing as how it is necessary to our survival, but, and this is kind of branching off a bit, any food that is going to be tested on animals is probably going to be because it is filled with harmful drugs or other crappy ingredients which shouldn't really be out to buy anyways so... not really for the animal testing with food either...

[jordanisonfire]

Well, I don't usually debate, 'cos I usually get totally flattened and made a fool of, but I agree with Quietus. Yeah, so some diseases can't be fought without animal testing. So what? If it weren't for us being so intelligent and advancing like this, and if our ancestors hadn't tried to immune themselves using medicine, humankind might have developed a natural immunity to these diseases by now.

As for cosmetics, I agree with everyone else, it's sick, it's cruel and it's just something bastards do. I mean, how does testing eyeliner on an animal actually give you an idea as to what it's gonna look like on a human. Also, yeah, we should test our medicines on other humans in the death row. They deserve it, wouldn't you agree? If you'd rather sacrifice an innocent animal rather than a guilty human, you're just blind.

*gets ready to be proved wrong in everything I have said*

[Shaun]

Well, I don't usually debate, 'cos I usually get totally flattened and made a fool of, but I agree with Quietus. Yeah, so some diseases can't be fought without animal testing. So what? If it weren't for us being so intelligent and advancing like this, and if our ancestors hadn't tried to immune themselves using medicine, humankind might have developed a natural immunity to these diseases by now.

I agree with it to a point. I don't think it is fine and dandy to sacrifice animals. I don't sit there and think "well, I'm glad they killed off a bunch of mice and plan to kill more just so I have cold medicine". Granted, I am happy we have vaccines and cures and the like, but I'm not happy that we had to use animals to get most of them. Also, by the way, a lot of vaccines that you or I have are made using horses. In fact, most of the vaccines we've created have been made using horses to cultivate the antibodies needed to fight things like the flu, hep. a, b, c, etc etc etc etc etc. The horses aren't actually hurt, except for the needle prick, and in all actuality most medical testing on animals these days doesn't involve doing terrible things to the animals with the intention of killing them. Scientists are very conscious of what an animal can take. Besides, we're helping vet. science too. We've made mice whose blood can be used to fight off cancer in mice who are infected with a lethal dose of cancer cells. Such mice now can fight that cancer off with minor side effects. 50 years ago we didn't have any of that. There are still many facilities that do really violent tests on animals, and I don't agree with those at all.
On the subject of immunities. It takes thousands, if not millions of years to develop immunities in people naturally, and there rarely any immunities that don't come with side effects that are actually deadly. Take sickle cell. Did you know that was the result of the human body attempting to develop a method for fighting malaria? Well, it is, and what happened was we ended up with a gene set where the double recessive (rr) resulted in sick cell, which basically means death, the double dominant (RR) didn't do anything at all and you could still get malaria, and the hetero (Rr) provided an immunity against most strains of malaria. (I might have those mixed around, so someone correct me if I have them backwards, but there are three options). But it took forever for that to develop. There are plenty of diseases and viruses that we've developed immunities for that would still plague us today if not for medical technology. It takes too long for us humans to develop natural immunities and, well, the human race is impatient.

As for cosmetics, I agree with everyone else, it's sick, it's cruel and it's just something bastards do. I mean, how does testing eyeliner on an animal actually give you an idea as to what it's gonna look like on a human. Also, yeah, we should test our medicines on other humans in the death row. They deserve it, wouldn't you agree? If you'd rather sacrifice an innocent animal rather than a guilty human, you're just blind.

The worst part of it is that it doesn't even serve a constructive purpose. At least in medical testing we acquire something useful, but in cosmetic testing we get nothing out of it but brutalized animals.
They actually don't test things like eyeliner on animals to see how it looks. They test for reactions so they can put warning labels on things or so they are sure the product is safe to use. But what happens is you get a bunch of animals who are neurotic, scarred, and even injured. Cosmetic testing should be illegal simply because it isn't useful to anyone. You don't HAVE to wear makeup, and it's not a requirement to live to have it. If you want to live you have to eventually get medical treatment for things...

*gets ready to be proved wrong in everything I have said*

You're not really wrong in anything, just maybe need some correction the fact that natural immunities don't just happen every 5 minutes :P. Well, maybe they do and we don't realize it because the immunity that is created doesn't really affect us :P.

[Hollyflight]

I think animal testing should not be aloud. I mean, why risk animals' lives for some make up or medicine? Humans could step up and volunteer. Anyways, different things effect different species differently. What if it cured a dog, cat, hamster, and guinea pig but killed a human? Also, animals wouldn't bother us as much if we just left them alone. Eventually animals will just die out because people are testing on them, eating them when they don't need to, hunting them, etc. Don't you care if animals die out because of us. If you're thinking, Oh, wow, chickens went extinct. Who cares? At least think about it this way: chickens went extinct. No more chicken for you. If we can spare animals, can't we make it fair to them and spare some humans too?

[Shaun]

Humans WON'T step up and volunteer. If you don't think animals shouldn't be tested on then stop using the products and medicines created by such testing...which means all of them.

And actually, we can accurately deduce how a chemical will affect us based on how it will affect a dog because, for the most part, we're not that different. Mammals share a variety of things in common, including how we react to chemicals. The only difference is in the quantity.

Animals are not going to die because we're testing on them. Animals will die either because it's the will of nature or because we or other animals hunt them to distinction. All the animals used for testing are produced in captivity. It has absolutely no affect on the wild population. Mice are a big one for animal testing and there's really no concern over them going extinct...in fact it's quite the opposite.
We won't kill off all the animals from hunting them if we put specific rules on how much we are allowed to hunt, etc. Most of the animals we eat won't go extinct because we won't eat them all. Primarily you should be concerned about hunting for sport, where animals are killed and not used for anything. What you're talking about right now is typical vegetarian/vegan propaganda. Do you know how many animals have gone extinct since humans began mass hunting? Do you know how many of them are from direct involvement of humans? The amount of species that go extinct because of nature outnumbers the species we are blamed for killing by a lot. Species die all the time. This is part of nature. It just so happens that we're built to survive. Remember, we're a part of nature too. Just because we're the most dominant species on the planet doesn't mean that we don't figure into the general scheme of things. How can you say that what we do is not part of the natural order of things? Does that mean we should go around blaming other species for their part in making their fellow animals go extinct? Do you realize how pointless that will be. The only reason we blame humans for making animals go extinct is because we're intelligent enough to make that assertion. If chimpanzees were capable of the same thought processes and speech as us they would be saying the same exact things. This is the God Complex in all of us, to assume that we are greater than all the other animals simply because we can speak and think on a highly intelligent level. We try to make ourselves more than just animals, when in reality we're nothing more than animals.
As for the "we don't need to eat meat" crap. That's a lie which is a product of more vegetarian/vegan propaganda. They've attempted to make people believe that there is no reason for the consumption of meat. Well, actually, there is. It's a biological imperative that I have explained before. Your body requires certain amino acids to produce proteins so you can survive. Without these proteins...you die. End of story. It just so happens that meats contain most of the amino acids we need to create most of the proteins we need to survive. It's natural in meat. Hence why we have been eating meat or insects since the dawn of human existence. We've been doing this for hundreds of thousands of years because it's a biological necessity. There are very very very very FEW vegetables or fruits that contain the appropriate proteins for human survival. In fact, early humans would not have had access to these fruits and veggies at all, at least until they moved into different regions, but even then there was no way for them to know which ones to eat and how much. There were no diet plans back then; there were no vegetarians, because to be one meant to die from malnutrition. Meat was a complete and total necessity for human survival. So this whole idea that we don't need to eat meat only exists because we can supplement our diets with those necessary proteins and become vegetarians. Vegetarianism is a choice, not biological or even logical. Most people are not good vegetarians either. They don't get the proper nutrients because they don't eat the right things. Or they don't take supplements.
Your argument is flawed. The animals we eat on a regular basis aren't going anywhere. They won't go extinct because we won't let them. But you also have to realize we can't save every animal on this planet. That is unrealistic. And what do you mean by animals bothering us so much? If we left them alone? How the heck do you propose we do that? Are we supposed to magically live in bubbles and never come out? It's impossible for us to leave animals alone because we all share the same planet. They bother us no different than they bothered us 100,000 years ago. This is just nature. That's what it does.

[Sofiel]

Just going to add onto Shaun's argument:
Even before we existed animals came into and out of existence. They evolved, and became extinct. You can think of us as lions, or any other predator if you like, we eat those that are below us on the food chain. You really need to look at one of those things to see how little we hurt the ecosystem by eating meat.. Saying we shouldn't eat other animals because it hurts the population is like saying a caterpiller shouldn't eat leaves because the plant it eats may become extinct.. Maybe that's a bad example, but we all interact. Not just interaction by conversation, or within a species, everything on this earth interacts...

That made no sense. Oh well...

[Rafael Domination]

Just going to add onto Shaun's argument:
Even before we existed animals came into and out of existence. They evolved, and became extinct. You can think of us as lions, or any other predator if you like, we eat those that are below us on the food chain. You really need to look at one of those things to see how little we hurt the ecosystem by eating meat.. Saying we shouldn't eat other animals because it hurts the population is like saying a caterpiller shouldn't eat leaves because the plant it eats may become extinct.. Maybe that's a bad example, but we all interact. Not just interaction by conversation, or within a species, everything on this earth interacts...

That made no sense. Oh well...

I get what you mean. As naturally superior beings, we can do what me must to progress, and there's nothing wrong with that because it's only natural.

But, to cut down on the bias, I'd also like to add, that as superior beings, we also have a responsibility to maintain our survival by tending to the planet. I'd rather save cows so I can eat them later than pig out and run out of cows. ^^

[Sofiel]

Nice cow reference there... :P

Yeah, we can't totally destroy the earth while saying "Mm, we're superior... So obviously we know what we're doing." Hunting for sport or pleasure is what's getting rid of the animals, not hunting for necessity. Also, when I say hunt - I mean metaphorically. Obviously we aren't going to 'grab the bow and arrows go out and get us some meat'.

Just to get back on topic; I hate animal testing, but these people who are all so much smarter and well informed seem to think it's necessary. I'd love to get a bunch of humans together and stick some needles in them just as much as the next person, perhaps more, but that doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon. We just need to make do with alternatives. Who knows, maybe in the future we could have a method that wouldn't involve testing on anything alive... or all the animals could revolt, killing us all in the process...

[Shaun]

The big problem I'm seeing right now is this presumption that just because we're human, we're superior. Sorry, but we're not even on the top of the food chain. It all works in a big cycle. There are things that prey on us too, you know, and just because they don't run around building houses and cars doesn't mean they are inferior to us. Human beings simply have a different visual outlook on the world. We need to get rid of this view that we're superior, though. The sooner we realize that , the more capable we will be to deal with nature, because, let's face it, nature can kick our asses without thinking about it. If anything, nature is the superior thing here.

As for animal testing: I'm for animal testing so long as we get rid of the unnecessary abuse.

[Rafael Domination]

Ah, that's the thing, you see. Nature isn't some kind of Sentient being. If something happens, it happens, but Nature does not get the credit for being superior. Besides, unlike the other species, humans have the ability to direct their own genetic abilities. No other create has the ability tell 'Mother Nature' in the face, "I don't care what you have in store for the future. I'm going to do this instead." And as for the creatures that prey on us...let's take the croc for example. It does prey on us, but we can easily turn it into a nice handbag in the blink of an eye. We humans have a different outlook on things cuz' WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO. We are superior because of our intelligence. And soon, we are going to combine intellignce with physical attributes. HUMANS RULE! :crazy:


*takes a bow*

But yeah...back to animal testing...

Yeah. I'd prefer to experiment on something alive if it was necessary. If it's totally irrelevant (Yo! Shaun! Let's go blow up some chickens to see if it's true or not their feathers go everywhere like in the movies) then I'm also not for it. But since there aren't things like that in labs, and since they usually treat the animals with respect, let them go ahead! :D

[Crocolyle]

The big problem I'm seeing right now is this presumption that just because we're human, we're superior. Sorry, but we're not even on the top of the food chain. It all works in a big cycle. There are things that prey on us too, you know, and just because they don't run around building houses and cars doesn't mean they are inferior to us. Human beings simply have a different visual outlook on the world. We need to get rid of this view that we're superior, though. The sooner we realize that , the more capable we will be to deal with nature, because, let's face it, nature can kick our asses without thinking about it. If anything, nature is the superior thing here.

As for animal testing: I'm for animal testing so long as we get rid of the unnecessary abuse.

I agree 100%. We should be like stewards of the earth--the earth that we inherited from our ancestors and are borrowing from our children and future generations. As you say, we are not superior to lower animals--we're just smart, able to organize, and cause destruction. In fact, we are more inferior to them, because of our great debts to them in science and nutrition. As carnivores (technically omnivores) we are barely fit to walk on the same earth as our lower brethren, and while we need to eat and test on them, they should be revered.

There is so much unnecessary abuse in animal testing that it makes me physically sick! There is so much unnecessary abuse and so much of those animals go to waste. Like in anatomy classes, with fetal pigs (clearly since aborting pig fetuses is wrong, depriving them of ever even knowing their mothers or even experiencing life as a pig, we'd have to just use a young pig) and frogs, we need to think about whether the little bit of meat they offer that goes to waste is really worth the scientific knowledge gained among the students. I mean sure you can argue "Humans learn by taking things apart" but can't you just watch a tape... or just cut the nastier aspects of science out of the curriculum (in exchange for a more "appreciate the natural world approach"? Perhaps we should even consider allowing the students to take the meat of dissecting animals home from science class. In order to maintain the freshness of the meat--because clearly we cannot use the formaldehyde and dyes to preserve it--we can also teach the students to humanely gut and slaughter the animals, thereby perpetuating a cycle of reverence of our animal brothers, even if it has a fratricidal bent.

Finally, Shaun, something we can agree on. ;)

[Rafael Domination]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but in Canada, or at least in BC, we use fetal pigs from recently slaughtered sows that were sent to the abbatoir. The farmers really don't care about giving them ultrasound, so when the chop-chop time comes, they find it too late that the sow has kids. That's why we don't dissect fetal cows. The farmers stick their arm all the way up the cows derriere to see if they're pregnant (I swear I have a point in this! :D) and so, both them and their kid is saved. Pigs, however, are a different matter, and instead of letting all those fetuses go to waste, we might as well honor their sacrifice by sending them to labs! ^^

[Shaun]

You know, in all honesty, they probably have the technology to make synthetic frog look-a-likes that wouldn't cost all that much to make. I get why we have dissection in schools. Yes, it is important. If you take it seriously you do learn a lot about the animal. There are other ways of doing it, though.

One thing I suggested somewhere (maybe here?) was that they should just use animals that we eat. Have them cut up chickens and then every cooks the chicken and eats it. That way there's no animal necessarily wasted. Granted, it might be hard to make that work everywhere, but if you live near chicken farms, why could you get a few chickens for a class, put the kids in groups, and have them work and then cook what they worked on? Free meal for everyone :P.

Abuse is disturbing in a lot of ways. And some animals that we test on seems disgusting to me. You know they do violent, horrible experiments on Beagles? Yes, those cute little dogs: http://www.vu-wien.ac.at/i109/beagle_puppies.jpg

Well they do experiments on them. They stick them with needles, all sorts of horrible things, and some doctors aren't even nice about it. The reason they use them is because Beagles are generally mild tempered and extremely loyal. I just have a problem with them using a Beagle for any sort of testing, because they're just cute, but the abuse the animals suffer is unacceptable.

I don't agree with stopping testing, because it is valuable, but I find it morally reprehensible that we would ever condone the mistreatment of animals for science when it is unnecessary. Beating dogs is not science. That's abuse. Putting makeup in rabbit's eyes is not science, that's madness. Breeding rats to find cures for cancer, that's science, so long as the way we deal with the rats is as friendly and loving as possible (yes, I understand there isn't anything loving about testing on animals, but you don't have to be a complete arse about the whole thing. You can be gentle and try to cause the animals as little harm as possible. We do it for human beings, let's do it for the animals as well. I don't know any doctors who run into a room and start stabbing little children with needles for kicks).

Although, I won't agree that we are unfit to walk this planet. We have every right to be here just as every other species does. Just because we tend to be arrogant and not give a crap doesn't mean we don't deserve to exist. We have earned our right after tens of thousands of years of suffering and millions of years of evolution. We are fortunate, however, to have the ability to change our behavior. A lot of animals don't have that luxury. You see this a lot when you upset the balance of an ecosystem. One species starts to overrun all the others, but doesn't change the behavior and eventually dies out (or we step in and meddle). Humans can change, and that is what makes us worthy of our existence. We can make mistakes and correct ourselves. We have that ability. And look at all the amazing things our species has done. All the artwork, the amazing feats of technology (space flight, etc.), all these things that we can be remembered by. Humans are stupid at times, but we are also a great asset to the Earth in that we contribute in ways other animals generally do not.

[Rafael Domination]

WHAT! NOT THE BEAGLES! :mad:

I wanted one of those. It's their eyes! They look into your soul!

Yeah...un-necessary abuse is totally wrong by me.

[jordanisonfire]

The problem is that humans are too intelligent for their own good. I think we can all agree that, if we had never existed nor any others of our intelligence or higher ever existed, the world would be a better place. But we're here. So, that's that. Eventually, the world is going to be destroyed, either by human means, an asteroid/meteor/meteorite (I can't remember the differences between them) or the sun growing and then exploding. Or maybe some other means. Who cares? We're doomed anyway.

[Shaun]

Because we're not doomed. There are lots of other stars. If we survive the next 100 years, we'll go to them.

[jordanisonfire]

I doubt we'll survive the next 100 years. Global warming is too high to go back now. There's all this big thing about it, but I'd say less than a quarter of the world's population actually give a damn. They'd rather drive a Hummer than have a wind turbine in their backyard, or at least near their homes.

[Shaun]

Yes, because all those record rains in the Midwest and East Coast are indicative of the planet just going to complete crap.
It's all stupid. Humanity will survive unless it kills itself with weaponry. Research global warming, Shadow, and don't just accept what the media keeps cramming down our throats about it. There's a mountain of evidence that contradicts what is being said.

[ScottyMcGee]

Sorry for randomly butting in like this.

But I'd like ya'll to know that I'm trying to "save the world" by changing it.

And I'm probably gonna get into a lot of trouble when I'm older.


Like. . . .

People-are-talking-about-me-on-the-news-kinda-trouble.

So, I mean...hey...there's that at least.

100 years isn't a long time. At least for me it isn't, once you study human history. Overall, human history has been short so far.

A lot can happen in 100 years. A lot of minds can be affected and changed.

[Rose]

Animals should not have to suffer for the sake of testing out new products or medicines. Many of the scientists and government officials agree, animal testing should cause minimal pain and suffering as possible, and that testing on animals should be done only when necessary. Pardue states that, “Replacement of animal tests, reduction in the number of animals used (currently some 20 million annually in the U.S.), and refinement of experimental procedures so as to lesson animal suffering”.

Reduction means to receive maximum information from fewer animals.

Replacement means to use alternative methods other than testing on animals.

Refinement means to minimize animal pain and suffering by using alternative methods.

[trinity]

I think that testing cosmetics on animals is wrong ,but if it's something for curing a disease or that benefits medical research then its fine.There have been a lot of medical advancements due to animal testing in organ transplants and even heart surgery.There also has been vaccine development :

* Hepatitis
* Lyme Disease
* Measles
* Polio
* Rabies
* Rubella
* Tetanus
* Whooping Cough

[zero]

I think that testing cosmetics on animals is wrong ,but if it's something for curing a disease or that benefits medical research then its fine.There have been a lot of medical advancements due to animal testing in organ transplants and even heart surgery.There also has been vaccine development :

* Hepatitis
* Lyme Disease
* Measles
* Polio
* Rabies
* Rubella
* Tetanus
* Whooping Cough

I agree with trinity. But animals' should always be the resort if a person's life counts on it. In other words, no human testing either.