Debate animal testing

Just Becuase there are an abundance of animals, there is no reason to test cosmetic products on them. We have no right to do that. Animals arent willingly giving them selves to us and alowing us to test things on them. It is the same as a human not wanting to be tested on.

 

Devils advocate: What if cloned animals without brains for that then?

 

They could live without brains? Like a jellyfish perhaps? 0_o

Anyway... animal testing. I figure that, as Ark said, we've made a lot of advances with it, and it's saved a lot of lives in some cases. If you don't test anything period, then people can end up getting hurt, and then there's lawsuits and so on. I'm not saying that it's GOOD for animals to die for the sake of research, but it's that or testing on humans, or not at all, which would make for an even BIGGER problem.

The only solution I can think of that would solve the animal testing problem period would be perhaps testing things on human skin samples (those could be obtained in the same way skin is grown for skin grafting; it's not like I want scientists to go cutting off skin from people at random ) or on cells, ones that can be obtained without causing pain (like cells you can get from scraping the inside of your mouth with a toothpick -- doesn't hurt, and you come away with live cells). No animals suffer, no people suffer. It's not a solution that would likely work, and I know that people might have issues with this idea too, but it's the best I can think of.

 

I have an idea. How about we destroy the entire human race, that way, we don't have to WORRY about testing. I think it sounds like a good idea. Then all the animals can duke it out to see who's the king of the suburban jungle (of course the squirrel will win, without a doubt).

Anyways... as far as medicinal reasons go, I'm all for animal testing. Just so long as it isn't on squirrels.

But as for cosmetics... well...

I blame it on women and drag-queens.

 

im all for distroying the human race zack


animals do not walk into labs and say "yo man im here for you to test on me"

 

Neither do most homo sapiens.

So tell me, Miss Noodle, what do you propose we do about the whole thing? Use coconuts to test on?

 

There are too many humans on this planet and more animals going extinct and yet we continue to test on animals. Animals if they could use reasoning would obviously disavow our acts on them, but they cannot because evolution has found no need to bestow it upon them. We complain about overpopulation, and animal extinctions but yet we continue to do these acts upon them even if they do not agree with it. Of course the solution to both the said problems would require a harsher approach which would only further cause infuration from the very people who complain about it in the first place and therefore there is no solution.

 

YAAAAAAARGH!

Neph see poor argument with misrepresentation! Neph SMASH!

Then go volunteer. Help us reduce the population!

Yeah, they tend to do that regardless of our involvement. All we've done is made the process somewhat faster. However we also have programs in action to help slow down if not counteract our involvement.

Regardless sometimes they simply cannot be saved.

For reasons, VERY GOOD REASONS, that have been stated several times in this thread.

You mean protest? Disagree? Disavow means to disclaim knowledge of an incident.

Moving along, how can you be sure they would disavow it? What of the noble dog, now domesticated to the point where they will willingly sacrifice themselves for us?

Evolution is not some semi-sentient being which hands down advantages as it sees fit. Evolution is NOT a deity. You would be just as silly saying that gravity wants to hold us down. It's not a matter of what it wants.

Yeah. Life isn't fair, cry me a river.

..............................And this harsh approach you call for is........ oh wait. You didn't say.

And yes there ARE solutions. Just because a solution isn't found agreeable with people doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

And in case it hasn't been said in this thread enough: lab animals are typically bred for the lab in a controlled environment. They do not drive extinction. It's not often somebody goes out and hunts down a thousand white mice.

 

it may be sick tragic or whatever but it happens and there isnt much we can do to completely stop it. My view is if society wants society does and there is certainly nothing i can do to stop this. I personally believe that life is too short for such debates even though they may be as important as this one. Just try and live through life to the fullest if you can. If have a problem with society try and solve it.


I dont think that it would be suitable for the economy or for people's rights if we experimented on humans. Many people would not want to do it anyway for fear of what will happen.


I think that as long as the animals have decent numbers it would be ok. If they werent or arent in decent numbers thats the real bugger.

Then again everything stated above is an opinion and just about every cultural struggle routes from opinion.

P.S. i'm not against or with anyone on this. (i must say my instincts are leading me toward what Neph is saying)

 

CAN'T GIVE IN MUST FIGHT :anime:. . . yeah neph is starting to persuad me. He is making very good points. But i am stilll agenst animal testing.

 

Neph see poor argument with misrepresentation! Neph SMASH!



Then go volunteer. Help us reduce the population!

My ideals contradict with my fears, it cannot be done willingly.

Yeah, they tend to do that regardless of our involvement. All we've done is made the process somewhat faster. However we also have programs in action to help slow down if not counteract our involvement.

I would rather think that we do more than a helping hand. There is not near as many animals as there were in the ancients times. We continue to hold vast amounts of land with no veritable habitat for many animals save for those that have gotten lucky or the parks that are not of near size as their original range of existence. In many countries countless amounts of rainforest is destroyed by us, we introduce pestilent species to severly harm or eradicate those in place for centuries, we send enormous amounts of air pollution to harm not only ourselves but our air content as well as affecting our ozone layer that protects us from the deleterious effects of Ultraviolent Rays.

For reasons, VERY GOOD REASONS, that have been stated several times in this thread.

So we can allow for further subjugation and subversion of our planet? So we can allow the further enroachment upon the lands still untouched by our malignant and pernicious hands? So we can allow for further pollution and tainting of our planet's land?

You mean protest? Disagree? Disavow means to disclaim knowledge of an incident.

I meant it as disagree, which if they used reasoning would be their temperament, just as we do they would logically realize that what we are doing is annulling not furthering their existence.

Moving along, how can you be sure they would disavow it? What of the noble dog, now domesticated to the point where they will willingly sacrifice themselves for us?

The dog cannot reason, he accepts what we ask because he cannot think of the consequences of it. He has no reasoning that the end result will negate his right to exist.

Evolution is not some semi-sentient being which hands down advantages as it sees fit. Evolution is NOT a deity. You would be just as silly saying that gravity wants to hold us down. It's not a matter of what it wants.

Of course evolution is not of a celestial being, bestow was merely a figure of speech in a way. it was a fancy way of saying that nature has of yet found a reason to grant such upon them.

Yeah. Life isn't fair, cry me a river.

I was just saying that we contradict ourselves in complaining on overpopulation and animal extinctions and yet continuing to allow it even so.

..............................And this harsh approach you call for is........ oh wait. You didn't say.

A reduction of the human population by whatever means however harsh those means are. Of course even if this happens the past effects will linger on, but still this is possibly better than to continue this harmful degration of our planets state until it will finally no longer support us and then in the end we will reap what we sow. By not stalling this effect we can do it before our state reaches this point where further degradation is no longer a possibility..


And yes there ARE solutions. Just because a solution isn't found agreeable with people doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Let us hope that the above effect does not work out, let us hope that the technology that we are at such mercy to will solve our problems and provide the solution that we desire. Only the future can forsee what the present actions cannot find sight upon so only in the future will it be shown which has verity.

And in case it hasn't been said in this thread enough: lab animals are typically bred for the lab in a controlled environment. They do not drive extinction. It's not often somebody goes out and hunts down a thousand white mice.

You have a point, I guess my post was of a more general range.

 

"I like to talk the talk, but not walk the walk. So sue me, I'm cowardly."

In essence, we lend a helping hand to extinction (acceleration of the process).

If you STILL disagree that we are only accelerating the path towards the inevitable, keep in mind that one day the sun shall explode, and ducks do not have interplanetary flight capabilities.

No, so we can live longer and healthier and maybe even save some animal lives along the way. Furthermore, stop with this "subjugating" talk, it's not like we've truly made Earth our *****. Until we figure out a way to get off this rock en masse and terraform other worlds, we're pretty much screwed once living conditions change, while the Earth would simply keep going and eventually change.

People like to go on about how we're making Earth so different from it's "beginning". They tend to forget Earth was a barren, lifeless rock in the beginning.

Lab testing is not rain forest destruction. Stay on topic.

Lab testing is not pollution. Stay on topic.

We're furthering others existence though. And once again, a chicken never built a skyscraper. Our intellect and sentience set us apart.

Ultimately I have to ask: so what? It isn't like humans do things without thinking of the consequences beforehand, ever watch Jackass?

Evolution doesn't work on reasons to grant things, it works on capabilities.

Hey, don't look at me. I'm not out there impregnating women by the thousands.

See, now you're advocating destroying lives so that future lives may be better...

which is in essence just as "bad" as animal testing.

All you're doing is looking at the other side of the same coin, you aren't being morally "better".

I honestly have no idea what on Earth you were trying to say here.

One should never debate with excessive emotions.

 

QUIT STEALING MY WORD DAMNIT!!!


Um, *ahem* back to the subject at hand.

I'm well kinda neutral about it. i think it's wrong to test anything on a living creature, somewhat cruel, but then again, I think it'd be worse to test it on a human. I don't think it's right and I don't think it's wrong. Wait, i dod think it's wrong but there's nothing you can do about it. there's really no other alternatives anyone would like. So I feel hopeless about the situation and i let it be.

 

reply

why do people test on animal without them we would die.if we want to live forever i recomend u stop hurting are animals.
thank u

 

...What? Uh, no, it's not like we just harvests thousands of sea turtles or something... lab animals are bred. In labs. Not plucked from the wild.

 

Prove that. Did you know that elephants will touch and linger near the bones of fallen herd-mates, particularly their offspring, even returning to the site after a year or more? (Unrelated elephants don't show such interest.) Did you know that chimpanzees will actually attack members of other groups not for territory or defense, but in what appear to be premeditated, sadistic attacks? And some parrots have the intelligence and learning capacity of a three-year-old human child. Animals may not have the same capacity for abstract thought as humans do, but this does not invalid them as thinking, feeling beings which form emotional bonds and can suffer just as much as any person can.

That said, my stance on animal testing depends entirely on A.) what is being tested, B.) the way the tests are being done, and C.) what type of animal is being used and why.

First off, these days many compounds can go through their early stages of testing as computer simulations. There's no need to test makeup and other unnecessary consumables on animals. Plenty of people would participate in quality studies for small fees. Medical testing, on the other hand, is slightly more justifiable. I don't like the idea of deliberately causing cancers and horrible diseases in animals, but the benefits of these studies translate not only into human medical benefits, but also into a better understanding of animal physiology. This can be used to benefit animals through veterinary science as well. As someone else mentioned, many tests wouldn't be feasible if done only on humans, because in a rat or mouse it's far easier to see a disease progress, or measure change over generations.

I DO feel, however, that if you're going to test on animals it's absolutely necessary to provide the animal with the best quality of life possible. Animals are living and conscious, even if most have nothing like human sentience - and they deserve to be treated with respect. (I should note, here, that I feel the same way about livestock raised for meat. I'm not a vegetarian, and have no desire to become one, but that doesn't mean I can't try to support better care for dairy cows, chickens, etc.)

I absolutely do not condone the use of higher-intelligence animals in studies that regularly inflict pain and traumatic conditions on them. Hell, I don't like those sorts of studies for ANY animal... but working with fruit flies is different than working with higher primates. An animal capable of learning is capable of at least some level of thought - it might not be on the same mental level as a person, but that doesn't matter. I have three pet cats, and they are definitely not unthinking, unfeeling creatures. They have vastly different personalities, too, different preferences, and this is proof to me that animals are individuals. So what if cats don't show enough higher intelligence to practice tool use like chimps do? Mine can still open cupboards - and one understands how doorknobs work, but can't grip them well enough to actually turn them. XD

Of course, it's tough to draw a line. Where's the cut-off point for animals that it's OK to test on, and animals that aren't? I don't really think that's something any one person could decide. Overall, I desire not to see animal testing stopped - which is very unlikely - but to see conditions for the animals improved. There are some real horror stories out there.

By the way - did you know that there are specially-bred types of hairless mice and/or rats which are being used to grow replacement ears and noses for humans? Yeah. They basically have a cell-covered, shaped mesh frame grafted to their back, and the mouse supplies it with blood and nutrients as it grows. These can then be used in cosmetic surgery to replace and ear that's been ripped off in a car accident or the like. As horrible as that sounds, the animals are treated very well - and aside from having an ear growing on them, they don't really have such a bad life. They live in clean conditions, get good food... Not all animal testing is as horrible as the worst-case scenarios.

My stance in a nutshell: animal testing is sometimes the most logical and most beneficial option.

Yet. *snicker*

 

I'd much rather test something on an animal than on a human. The stuff being tested is meant to better our lives, and hopefully is accordingly non harmful: it shouldn't do anything to the animals. If it does, I am much happier to see an animal hurt than a human. I know flipper and Mr Ed etc are cute, but I'd rather preserve a human life anyday.

Now, concerning methodologies.. well that's something different. Killing animals when they are through testing them, testing stupid crap no one really needs etc, all of this could be changed.

But to anyone would rather see humans hurt by some new medicine that has bad effects no one new about: you are sick. Seriously, get off my planet.

 

A human can choose to voluntarily participate in a study; an animal cannot. A human can receive monetary compensation if something goes horribly wrong - which it shouldn't, in the advanced stages of testing when it would be used on human test groups.

If no one knows about the effects by that stage of testing, what's to say the product wouldn't slip onto the market anyway? It does happen. Most of these things can be tested in simulations to rule out likely problems first, though. Or human cell cultures.

And I would rather see a human, participating of their own volition and well aware of possible risks, used in potentially damaging research than an animal, where it's possible. (Obviously, you just can't use humans in all tests because of our growth and reproduction rate.) It sickens me that some people consider an animal's life less valuable than a human's. Intelligence and worth aren't the same thing. That said, I do still realize that animal testing is, in many cases, the only plausible option until we can develop and sustain organs, skin cultures, etc. so easily and cost-effectively they can replace live test subjects. Doesn't mean I have to like it.

A good way to test new medical treatments: provide the services, for free, to people who cannot afford more standard treatment (with, of course, ample explanation of the risks involved). They get a treatment option, the product gets tested. Yay. This is actually done, but not on such a scale as it could be practiced.

 

In my opinion, testing on animals is completely sick and wrong. No questions asked. I have seen the things they do in labs to animals, and even those who are not fond of animals, and those who have a strong stomach, would never forget what it's like. Myself, I love animals, I and can't stand seeing them being hurt. But I don't just think it's wrong because "they're hurting the poor fluffy babies." Animals can not control what humans do to them. And even if they do not posess "secondary feelings," they DO feel pain. Do you people have any morals at all? Put yourself in their paws; pain is not a nice feeling. Sure, we must kill animals for food. This is to live. But it isn't torture being killed instantly, (unlike the tests they do in labs, and mind you, they are NOT always bred within the laboratory, especially with kittens and dogs,) and it is also a necessity. It is NOT, however, absolutely necessary that we need to shove cosmetic products down helpless animal's bodies just so we can have sweet smelling shampoo. I realize many of you regard human's life much more, and I see where you are coming from. But I don't think that we should do such cruel acts to animals just for our luxaries. Odds are the worst we could get from a product that was never tested is a rash or something. Don't shun me because I have morals.... I care about the animals, ok? In one word, they are helpless. It's sort of like abortion, where the fetus (or baby) does not have control over his/her life.
Oh, and when I mean sick, I mean sick. In some studies (even certain dog food companies do this,) food/products are shoved down various holes in the animal's body, and other grotesque things.
Humans can volunteer for this, willingly, AND get paid. There is a strong difference.
That's what I think, I'm not much for arguing my point...

 

You've talked about cosmetics and food tests, but what about medical tests? You do realise that volunteering humans aren't numerous enough, right? You realise that humans life cycles do not move fast enough to let us notice how things go later in life, right? (unless you're willing to wait a few hundred years for each medical tech).