Animal testing - right or wrong?

[warri0r45]

 

 

 

Medicine - right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If it wasn't for animal testing we wouldn't have at least 80% of the treatments we have today. This was mentioned on an episode of Penn & Teller's Bulls**t, where it was revealed that head members of PETA use treatments that were developed by animal testing - for example, one of them is a diabetic who needs insulin (developed through testing with dogs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're against animal testing for medicines, you'd sure as hell better not accept any medical treatments developed through animal testing. That would make you a big old hypocrite. If that means you die, well, that's one less idiot for the world to worry about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ditto. It's essential to find the workings of medications without killing ourselves. Is it more wrong to kill humans or animals? Humans, of course. Therefore, testing medicine on animals is the lesser necessary of two evils, even though it's not evil (just thought i'd use the term).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@ Parabola, nice research in the post on this page. What I like to see in an argumentative discussion.

[lawrencekill]

I had a debate about this.

[lawrencekill]

Medical testing, largely acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetic testing, never acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say medically it's largely acceptable because it is for a worthwhile cause, fundamentally i would like to think that a human's life isn't worth more than an animals but it's a very difficult idea to justify. Therefore if there is a chance that through the possible death of 5 rats, we may find a cure for cancer or aids, its worth it. The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetically its not acceptable in my opinion, if your company is worried that your shampoo is gonna burn skin, try it on an employees or your own, why should animals suffer for a beauty product?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try deaths of a few million rats, or at least hundreds of thousands.

[warri0r45]

 

Medical testing, largely acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetic testing, never acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say medically it's largely acceptable because it is for a worthwhile cause, fundamentally i would like to think that a human's life isn't worth more than an animals but it's a very difficult idea to justify. Therefore if there is a chance that through the possible death of 5 rats, we may find a cure for cancer or aids, its worth it. The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetically its not acceptable in my opinion, if your company is worried that your shampoo is gonna burn skin, try it on an employees or your own, why should animals suffer for a beauty product?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try deaths of a few million rats, or at least hundreds of thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still insignificant compared to worldwide rat/mice populations. Those used in science are basically at 0 risk of extinction, if thats what your getting at.

[ktmcf121]

Well, would you rather they tested this stuff on people?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How else to test it if not on some living being? Might as well be animals... or criminals maybe?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol that reminds me of my english class, my professor was obsessed with martial arts, and we had to write 3 papers on a specific martial art.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hua to, a chinese surgeon, supposedly used criminals to test his accupuncture and dim-mak techniques.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or maybe that was chang san feng.... i dont remember.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as far as animals go, i believe that any test that has the potential to benefit humans can be justified. anything other than that, well, let peta deal with them.

[lawrencekill]

 

 

Medical testing, largely acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetic testing, never acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I say medically it's largely acceptable because it is for a worthwhile cause, fundamentally i would like to think that a human's life isn't worth more than an animals but it's a very difficult idea to justify. Therefore if there is a chance that through the possible death of 5 rats, we may find a cure for cancer or aids, its worth it. The crap like sticking an ear on a mouse's back or whatever is not worth it though, that achieves nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetically its not acceptable in my opinion, if your company is worried that your shampoo is gonna burn skin, try it on an employees or your own, why should animals suffer for a beauty product?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Try deaths of a few million rats, or at least hundreds of thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still insignificant compared to worldwide rat/mice populations. Those used in science are basically at 0 risk of extinction, if thats what your getting at.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just pointing out figures were incorrect.

[Parabola]

Try deaths of a few million rats, or at least hundreds of thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.armyths.org/ - section 2.18:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 million rats per year worldwide, that's one per person per 100 years. Given the benefits of this research that is nothing.

[lawrencekill]

 

Try deaths of a few million rats, or at least hundreds of thousands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.armyths.org/ - section 2.18:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 million rats per year worldwide, that's one per person per 100 years. Given the benefits of this research that is nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't find the specified sections, and I don't understand what you're trying to say, although it may be from just lack of sleep.

[Parabola]

You go to the site, you scroll down to section 2.18 then you read it. It says that 50 million rats are used worldwide every year. This means either one rat per 100 people per year, or one rat per person per 100 years - it is to show how few rats are used compared to how many people benefit from the discoveries.

[lawrencekill]

You go to the site, you scroll down to section 2.18 then you read it. It says that 50 million rats are used worldwide every year. This means either one rat per 100 people per year, or one rat per person per 100 years - it is to show how few rats are used compared to how many people benefit from the discoveries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh I get what I did wrong, I looked for 2.1.8.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways I was just pointing out the incorrect figures of rats used.

[menot]

You go to the site, you scroll down to section 2.18 then you read it. It says that 50 million rats are used worldwide every year. This means either one rat per 100 people per year, or one rat per person per 100 years - it is to show how few rats are used compared to how many people benefit from the discoveries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

one rat per person per 100 years? if anyone has a problem with that, they'd better be vegan. interesting statistic you found :-)

[unknownmasterofnothing]

Would you prefer human testing?

[rocketman089]

Seems to me like no matter how you try to put it it comes down to either us or them. Even with cosmetics wouldn't you rather a few hundred rats die from some allergic reaction to your shampoo than your fellow human?

[warri0r45]

Seems to me like no matter how you try to put it it comes down to either us or them. Even with cosmetics wouldn't you rather a few hundred rats die from some allergic reaction to your shampoo than your fellow human?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes. Something you put on your skin can be just as dangerous as that which you consume. There are some pretty nasty substances out there, if we don't test them (no matter how they are taken), they can kill.

[monkeypie10]

It really does come to a crossroad. Test it on poor animals, or not.

[Parabola]

It really does come to a crossroad. Test it on poor animals, or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test it on poor animals, or not, and let poor humans suffer instead. Could you form a more biased sentence?

[monkeypie10]

 

It really does come to a crossroad. Test it on poor animals, or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Test it on poor animals, or not, and let poor humans suffer instead. Could you form a more biased sentence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nvm.

[dusqi]

People make a bigger deal about animal testing than it is worth - compared to the condition of animals that are being raised to be slaughtered.

[monkeypie10]

I would only ever support animal testing if it fits this criteria:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. It has a purpose, its not just cutting up a live monkey to see what happens.

 

 

 

2. It will save lives in the long run.

 

 

 

3. The animals do not suffer, or do not suffer very much.

 

 

 

4. The test is reliable in comparison between the intended user and the test subject. (In other words, dont use something obscure like an elephant on something for humans)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They never do that. It always has a purpose, they are not going to jump in the lab and say " Lets cut up a monkey! :) "

[Biabf]

Testing for medicines is fine imo. The protesters don't realise the injections and medicines (such as asprine, ibuprofen, calpol, etc.) have been tested on animals. We need animal testing for medicines.

[darkforaster]

I diagree with it, and would like to find another way if possible, but there is not. So i have to grin and bear it really. But personally, we need us humans to become smart enough to know which chemicals are deadly, instead of testing every one we find in all sorts of combinations possible. Or we could try to mimic the animals reactions on a virtual model. although i suppose it would take years of research to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I must admit humans are pretty selfish and stupid. All we do is risk the lives of animals for our own needs. Even for cosmetics. and things like cats are smarter- they know how to hunt with what is naturally given to them. We however are so weak that we use weapons, which are a lot harder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some animals we do not need to test so much on. Did you know that in 2004 over 1 million rodents were used for testing? Thousands of dogs and hundreds of cats. in fact are most common relative- the primate- is used less that rodents.

[menot]

I diagree with it, and would like to find another way if possible, but there is not. So i have to grin and bear it really. But personally, we need us humans to become smart enough to know which chemicals are deadly, instead of testing every one we find in all sorts of combinations possible. Or we could try to mimic the animals reactions on a virtual model. although i suppose it would take years of research to do this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I must admit humans are pretty selfish and stupid. All we do is risk the lives of animals for our own needs. Even for cosmetics. and things like cats are smarter- they know how to hunt with what is naturally given to them. We however are so weak that we use weapons, which are a lot harder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some animals we do not need to test so much on. Did you know that in 2004 over 1 million rodents were used for testing? Thousands of dogs and hundreds of cats. in fact are most common relative- the primate- is used less that rodents.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yea its generally avoided when there is another possibility, which i think is definitely a good thing.

 

 

 

how do we find out which chemicals are deadly without testing them?

 

 

 

a virtual model of an entire animal down to the level of detail which would be required to have ANY relevance whatsoever... i would like to see that.

 

 

 

we do put ourselves above animals yes, and in some respects this is wrong. its a matter of opinion really whether you call weapons "what is naturally given to us" since we MADE them. (well not ourselves personally to be fair, but you get my point.)

 

 

 

the reason primates are less used than rodents is imho largely because rodents are simpler.. and there is more understanding of the important mechanisms in rodent. this makes it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR easier to do anything with them.

[Striker6]

Maybe we should test it on criminals instead

[Biabf]

Maybe we should test it on criminals instead

If your serious, death row sentances only.

[Bloodredsword]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cosmetics - wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Medicine - right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

completely true

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its just sad how "evil" makeup artists stab animals with needles filled with chemicals. Then on top of that they liter by just throwing the dead animals into dumps...Its sad.