Animal testing?

Can animal testing ever be justified?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • No

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • Total voters
    12
bacon

bacon

!!!!!
Member
I think it's a good idea to promote some intelligent discussion here on the beach, and if this thread is sucessful then hopefully more threads like this one will be made. So, let's start with a discussion everyone can get involved in:

Can animal testing ever be justified?

Obviously I don't want "ye" or "nu" answers. Explain your opinions guys, give us text so beefy it can feed an entire country! I'll post my own views on the matter soon.
 
I don't think that people should do that to animals, that would be like doing it on humans, animals have a right to you know there not just test subjects, there living creatures. And you don't see animals testing humans do you.
 
Well, I'm against animal testing as well, but I ask you this: if we don't do the testing on animals, who/what could we test? Well, I suppose having volunteers to test is better than testing on animals - but then, if we don't test at all, all we'll be doing is hindering well-being for humans in general. It's quite a sticky-wicket.

Shawn out.
 
It's a bittersweet topic to debate over.

On the one hand, animals have their own lives, and they do not deserve being the "lab-rat" of a laboratory experiment. They deserve to grow, feed and nurture, and give off-spring, such as wild animals do. Putting them into a cold, isolated tank and force-feeding the animals pills that can and probably will kill them can be classified as an inhumane action. Slaughter is against basic human rights, so why not animals? And some of these pills that we are forcing them to take can be agonizing, so much that the animals are put to death before the slow death takes them away itself.

But on the other, if man-kind is going to take its leaps and bounds, we must show further progress in our medical community and availabilities. Diseases have not been cured by throwing together some sticks and leaves, throw them in a bottle and give it to a sick patient. No, they were carefully designed fighting machines that could have taken years to create. And I can guarantee you that they used animal testing. Taking human life is against the Constitution, against moral standards, and against everything most any country in the world stands for. So, naturally, we are not going to give a so-so medicine to a man who may die over it, and allow ourselves to feel the guilt of his death hanging over our heads and be sued by the patient’s family. So we have to find an alternate solution, and this is where we arrive at animal testing. Those animals die so we can progress our civilization. The sad truth.

I do believe that animal-testing is wrong, but I want my country and the world over to progress in its medical science without taking human life. So it’s really a hard question to answer.

Arcanine out.
 
I agree with animal testing in certain ways or to certain extents. Like sending monkeys into space and using certain things with rodents to test, because according to Wiki we share 99% of genes with them.
However I disagree with trying to grow an ear on a mouse [you can google that], and drug testing. I mean using hair products on bunnies that could burn it. I mean come on your hair is already dead.
But the big thing is cloning I disagree with that totally that I won't even go to the extent of talking about it.
 
Arcanine 274 said:
It's a bittersweet topic to debate over.

On the one hand, animals have their own lives, and they do not deserve being the "lab-rat" of a laboratory experiment. They deserve to grow, feed and nurture, and give off-spring, such as wild animals do. Putting them into a cold, isolated tank and force-feeding the animals pills that can and probably will kill them can be classified as an inhumane action. Slaughter is against basic human rights, so why not animals? And some of these pills that we are forcing them to take can be agonizing, so much that the animals are put to death before the slow death takes them away itself.

But on the other, if man-kind is going to take its leaps and bounds, we must show further progress in our medical community and availabilities. Diseases have not been cured by throwing together some sticks and leaves, throw them in a bottle and give it to a sick patient. No, they were carefully designed fighting machines that could have taken years to create. And I can guarantee you that they used animal testing. Taking human life is against the Constitution, against moral standards, and against everything most any country in the world stands for. So, naturally, we are not going to give a so-so medicine to a man who may die over it, and allow ourselves to feel the guilt of his death hanging over our heads and be sued by the patient’s family. So we have to find an alternate solution, and this is where we arrive at animal testing. Those animals die so we can progress our civilization. The sad truth.

I do believe that animal-testing is wrong, but I want my country and the world over to progress in its medical science without taking human life. So it’s really a hard question to answer.

Arcanine out.
Click to expand...
Other people keep dog/cats/chickens/hamsters/frogs/ect. as pets.Acorrding to what you said above,does that mean all us pet owners should kick our pets out into the wild?NO-WAYPlus there are a bunch of mice and rats in the world.Killing one to find a cure for a human is better than the human dieing and the mouse still being alive.
 
There's no way to be 100% sure if a product harms a human being unless you try it out on a human being, and that's where suicidals come in :F I think that they should test medicines on human that want to rather then animals.

Well, I'm going to pro/contra here (you should ALWAYS do this, even if you really hate something, you should always try to look at things from another side of view)
But, well, I'm going to argue with myself here (yes, I'm crazy)
Pro: Animals get slaughtered anyways, so why can't we test medicines on them instead of eating them?
Contra: If animals get slaughtered, we know what'll happen, the animals get a short pain or no pain at all, but with medicines, you never actually know what'll happen, it might suffer to death.
Pro: Yes, but we don't want that to happen to humans, do we?
Contra: Yes, but it's not because it happens to animals that'll happen to humans and virca virca.
Pro: True, but there's a high chance it will. So you're actually suggesting that you'd rather test out those products on humans, or not test them at all?
Contra: not testing is not the best option, but we can simulate effects now, and we know what certain materials do to humans. Testing on humans could be an option, but that might be worse then testing on animals.
Pro: Then what should we do.

Ok, I'm crazy, I'm talking to myself :S
Anyhow, I'm stuck there, I think animal testing is ok to an extend, implanting a disease to then try and cure it is wrong, but testing if something that is likely to be harmless is indeed harmless seems ok to me.

Trying to get some intelligent discussions here, are you, BB? Well, good luck with that :p
 
Seeing that I'm Nature kind of guy, and I don't mean smelling the flowers every now and then, NO. I'll have to get all my gacts straight on this before I start serious conversation *coughrantscough*, but, aren't animals mainly used for testing cosmetics, shampoos (and things related), and chemicals? Of course, it's all for the 'greater good' I keep hearing about.

Like I said, before I begin voicing my [strong] opinions on this subject, I'll do some reading on it.
 
Chatot said:
Other people keep dog/cats/chickens/hamsters/frogs/ect. as pets.Acorrding to what you said above,does that mean all us pet owners should kick our pets out into the wild?NO-WAYPlus there are a bunch of mice and rats in the world.Killing one to find a cure for a human is better than the human dieing and the mouse still being alive.
Click to expand...
That is why I said that it's important for us to advance. It's still sad that the animal must die, but I do believe in what you said.

Arcanine out.
 
Testing medicines and cures is one thing. Testing cosmetics and luxuries that don't save lives is another.
 
I think most people will agree that using animals as a means of testing cosmetics such as shampoo or eye shadow is wrong, especially since those experiments can be carried out without using the animals (I think it's just easier to do with them, or cheaper).

However, the line between right and wrong becomes blurred when we consider organs. Some human organs can be grown inside animal bodies (for example, a human heart in a pig body), and as you may or may not know the market for human organs is very small and there is a huge waiting list for donations. Understandably, people don't want to part with their own organs (even when they are dead). So the only real option here is to grow the organs inside animal bodies and transplant them.

In other words, is it wrong to sacrafice an animal life to save a human life?

Considering that Humans have lived off of animals for a very long time, I personally don't have a problem with it. I do, however, draw a line when it comes to cosmetics and other pointless products (ie Cigarettes).
 
I disagree with animal testing as well! I disagree with eating meat as well. They kill much to many animals, because of those two things.

Edit (I don't want to post another post, because it's little bit off topic, so I edited this one) :
Actually I think we (people) eat too many animals. Do you know how many animals are killed in one day for meat only?? No, nobody does, but it is HUGE number. And do you know how many/much (??) of meat per day gets out of date?? Means, that nobody eats it, too much. Actually I agree with "Eat, what you kill" (or however it is). Whatever, this is little bit off-topic.

I am vegetarian

And I disagree with cloning as well. Because they do it on sheeps. Did you hear, that they raised some animal (think it was sheep) with some human organ in it? It's disgusting. I disagree with it as well.
 
I honestly believe it's in our nature to eat meat, we have the eyes of a carnivore, we don't have a stomach to digest vegetables (not fully, we can just get the important stuff out of them) and grass and obviously we can eat meat without dying, and it actually gives us some important nutrients. Not eating meat would just go in against nature. (it's not like you should live like nature's build to live in, but trying to stick with how we evolved seems the right thing to do at times)

Actually, perfect little Belgium has a law that if someone dies and still has usable organs, those organs can be used unless the person who died made a specific request to not use them when he dies (for the selfish persons among us). And the fact is that we are probably able to create organs outside of a human body, it's because G.W. Bush disallows all kinds of stem cells research, we can't do that. Stem cells can cure numerous diseases, and even make people unable to move certain limbs move them again by forming new nerve cells, a lot of diseases we know today would not exist if stem cells could be used. Alzheimer is proven to be curable by the use of stem cells for example.
The only problem with it is that in order to obtain these stem cells, you need an embryo (yes, the thing, you are when you are not yet born). And this is where Bush (and the entire catholic church) comes in, they think that even the very beginning of life is life, and should not be used, not even to safe other lives, not even if the parents don't want the baby, and want to get an abortion (which I'm not sure is allowed in the US).

Lol, I'm giving a new twist to this discussion, maybe going a bit off-topic, but whatever :p
 
Well what about the people who have the death penalty, they are going to die anyway, and even have a death caused by humans, they might as well die knowing that they're helping research to cure other people.

And by the way, I think abortion is legal in the USA, but Christians (Georg W Bush is a Christian) are completely against abortion, which we consider as bad as murder.
 
For the love of.. leave abortion out of this; it's an UNWINNABLE topic for both sides.
 
I'll make another topic on abortion if people feel the need to discuss it, but let's leave it out of this one for now guys. Same goes for stem cell research.

I think the main issue here is transferring animal grown organs into human bodies (I think it's called Xenotransplantation). I think that this is the only part of animal testing that can ever be morally justified, I draw the line when it comes to growing an ear on a mouse or making a pig glow in the dark (seriously, they've done that).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top