Animal testing?

[Its Pretty]

What's your opinion on animal testing? Immoral abomination of nature, or useful tool in the development of modern day society?

[PinkFloyd]

If the animal(s) aren't harmed an any way, shape, or form, then I'm fine with it.

[Its Pretty]

If the animal(s) aren't harmed an any way, shape, or form, then I'm fine with it.

Well then there's no point in animal testing lmao. The point is to test if a product is harmful or not x). Also pretty much every animal used for testing is born for testing. They aren't just grabbed out of the wild for fun. And what about animals we eat? We kill a whole lot more of those.

Also, animal testing does a lot more good then it does bad. The sacrifice of a few rats can save a few humans.

[ksdnfkfr]

What's your opinion on animal testing? Immoral abomination of nature, or useful tool in the development of modern day society?

Kinda both

[Its Pretty]

Kinda both

It is indeed tragic, but it would slow down everything considerably if we were to end it. It is definitely much worth the tragedy.

[conniption]

Unnecessary animals testing for products such as make-up is a terrible thing, but animals testing for research is actually pretty darn useful.

[Typhlosion]

I am 100% in favor for animal testing. Humans before all, of course.

My mother translates medical articles and theses so I'm kinda used to what happens. A lot of pro-animal images on torture are just sensationalism. However, that does not mean animals fall short of misuse: there was a group that were applying banana to specific wounds at rats to see if it would help. I hope there's rat heaven. Still better than applying banana on humans.

Plus, studying on humans first can go really wrong: lack of subjects, deaths and even more regulation. This isn't to say that human's shouldn't be used at all, but only after good results have been obtained from animal testing. Humans are also not very reliable when it comes to long term effects and research. Unlike a controlled animal, humans' lifes pour in so many factors into the equation that large test groups are a must.

People are giving so much value to animal life when a lion would just kill you. It's life.

[CharlieHorse]

depends
if it hurts the creature. then it's mean.
if it doesn't, then what's wrong with it?
But i'd say it's better than risking a human life.
Or even better use captured murderers and criminals as testing material.

lol aren't i fucked up?

[trustn01]

I am a 100% Humans before all, and I do believe that we should continue with the tests for things like medicine and for research purposes, for it's better to kill a few rats than a few humans, IMHO.

[Its Pretty]

depends
if it hurts the creature. then it's mean.
if it doesn't, then what's wrong with it?
But i'd say it's better than risking a human life.
Or even better use captured murderers and criminals as testing material.

lol aren't i fucked up?

LOL well, how much the creature experiences pain depends on it's perception also. The same way a rat and a human both see the same image, but only a human notices everything, while if you try and get a rat to recall said image they will not be able to. Human pain is a lot more painful then animal pain, correct? Also, If the pain it prevents greatly outweighs the pain it causes, then the only not-mean choice would be to do it.

About using criminals as testing material, I think that the punishment should be ironic to the crime. I.E. One who stole should be stolen from, one who murders should be killed. One who killed 3 children with a chainsaw should feel the equivalent pain of getting killed with a chainsaw 3 times (but much more so as that is justice)

In the end, however, however much pain a being experiences is entirely irrelevant, because in the end that creature will cease to exist, and all it's memories and thoughts disappear. The same goes for humans. I think the worse thing about animal testing is the researchers who cannot help but have moral guilt over the animals whose fate they grimly must see.

[Typhlosion]

If the animal(s) aren't harmed an any way, shape, or form, then I'm fine with it.

depends
if it hurts the creature. then it's mean.
if it doesn't, then what's wrong with it?

How much could we do without harming the animal? Not an argument, true curiosity.

[PinkFloyd]

How much could we do without harming the animal? Not an argument, true curiosity.

If it's like putting lip stick on a monkey, then it's fine because no being is hurt. Once it escalates to injecting the monkey with an experimental drug with potential harm, then it's wrong.

[Its Pretty]

If it's like putting lip stick on a monkey, then it's fine because no being is hurt. Once it escalates to injecting the monkey with an experimental drug with potential harm, then it's wrong.

The reason the lipstick would be tested is to test for potential harm lmao.
Why else would it be tested, to see if it accentuates the monkey's features lol

[PinkFloyd]

The reason the lipstick would be tested is to test for potential harm lmao.
Why else would it be tested, to see if it accentuates the monkey's features lol

lol you're right. I'm dumb.. :whoops:

[Croconaw]

I hate animal testing. At least do it on a stupid animal like a pig or something.

[Human]

I think it's for the greater good really that we test on animals, I'd rather a mouse die than a human. I don't support animal testing on animals like chimpanzees however.

[CharlieHorse]

How much could we do without harming the animal? Not an argument, true curiosity.

Most drug testing is not harmful. Like finding new painkillers or determining possible side effects.

[sqishy]

This is a grey area. It depends, but if it harms the animal and/or causes suffering, then it's a big question on why to do it.

[Its Pretty]

I hate animal testing. At least do it on a stupid animal like a pig or something.

um cannot tell if sarcasm or not

Pigs are 4th most intelligent species on earth (somewhere around there) I don't know why you are questioning a pigs intelligence either, you probably have never met a pig. They're great chess players. :S


As for the harm that animal testing is bound to cause, if less pain is prevented then the pain that is done to the animal, isn't it justified? Keep in mind that the vast majority of non human test subjects are bred to be tested on.


Testing on primates is only done after testing on rodents has passed. Usually primates are put through much lower risk then cheap rats or mice. Primates are expensive, after all.

[Typhlosion]

Most drug testing is not harmful. Like finding new painkillers or determining possible side effects.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't painkillers require pain to be killed and side effects also possibly harm the rat? I still don't see it. :(

[AlexOnToast]

Unnecessary animals testing for products such as make-up is a terrible thing, but animals testing for research is actually pretty darn useful.

Good points. I would love to say that animal testing is a horrific practice that does nothing for humanity, but I would be most likely dead without it. Cosmetic testing is an abomination tho.

[Gamma Male]

Absolutely against it. It's evil, plain and simple.

[CharlieHorse]

I'm sorry, but wouldn't painkillers require pain to be killed and side effects also possibly harm the rat? I still don't see it. :(

whatever I honestly don't know.

[britishboy]

I am a massive supporter of animal testing, the scientists are too tightly regulated it's amazing they find anything out at all.

[Its Pretty]

I am a massive supporter of animal testing, the scientists are too tightly regulated it's amazing they find anything out at all.

That's true, I could not agree more.

[britishboy]

That's true, I could not agree more.

I think people are too busy focusing on unintelligent, insignificant life (the animals) and should instead be thinking about the people who could be cured and saved. For example research into the axolotl.

[ValentinClarke]

Answer number 2!

[Gamma Male]

I think people are too busy focusing on unintelligent, insignificant life (the animals) and should instead be thinking about the people who could be cured and saved. For example research into the axolotl.


And what exactly does intelligence have to do with a capacity for pain and suffering? Also, on what grounds do you label animal life "insignificant"?

[britishboy]

And what exactly does intelligence have to do with a capacity for pain and suffering? Also, on what grounds do you label animal life "insignificant"?

What would you rather, an animal die for a cure or a person die to save an animal?

It's people like you that are making the industry far to regulated and restricted.

[Gamma Male]

You didn't actually respond to my questions, and I'm not responding to yours until you do.

[britishboy]

You didn't actually respond to my questions, and I'm not responding to yours until you do.

Okay, the significance of an animal matters because for example a rare animal (white tiger for example ) shouldn't be used to test soap, instead only a rare animal should be used if no other animal is suitable or particle. By intelligence I mean anything that isn't human.

[Gamma Male]

Okay, the significance of an animal matters because for example a rare animal (white tiger for example ) shouldn't be used to test soap, instead only a rare animal should be used if no other animal is suitable or particle. By intelligence I mean anything that isn't human.

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're going to engage in a debate you might want to work on your grammer. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I'll try to respond.

You stated that it is okay to torture and kill non-human animals for testing purposes because they are "unintelligent" and "insignificant". And you're now saying that what you meant was "non-human" and "not endangered".

But what do either of those things have to do with the ethics of experimentation on sentient beings?

Also, the question you asked me is irrelevant because. the number of animal lives lost during testing > the number of lives saved by it. So, ultimately, more harm is caused by an animal testing than is stopped. Wether or not that harm happens to humans or to other animals is irrelevant.

[britishboy]

I'm not trying to be mean, but if you're going to engage in a debate you might want to work on your grammer. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. But I'll try to respond.

You stated that it is okay to torture and kill non-human animals for testing purposes because they are "unintelligent" and "insignificant". And you're now saying that what you meant was "non-human" and "not endangered".

But what do either of those things have to do with the ethics of experimentation on sentient beings?

Also, the question you asked me is irrelevant because. the number of animal lives lost during testing > the number of lives saved by it. So, ultimately, more harm is caused by an animal testing than is stopped. Wether or not that harm happens to humans or to other animals is irrelevant.

Think of it like this, what would you rather? Ten, one hundred, one thousand animals die but produce a cure that could save us or would you rather the world have a few more rats and be at risk from a disease we could have cured?

Forget the endangered thing, it's irrelevant but I'll explain. Animal research should only be regulated if the animals are rare and/or they have other important uses.

[Gamma Male]

Think of it like this, what would you rather? Ten, one hundred, one thousand animals die but produce a cure that could save us or would you rather the world have a few more rats and be at risk from a disease we could have cured?

Forget the endangered thing, it's irrelevant but I'll explain. Animal research should only be regulated if the animals are rare and/or they have other important uses.

Not all animal testing is for life saving medical purposes. Most of it is for cosmetic, psychological, and military research. And to answer your question, I don't care if an animal is human or not. All sentient lifeforms deserve to be treated with the same ethical consideration. So, if 10,000 mice died to save a lesser number of humans, I wouldn't support it. Especially if the deaths were slow and painful, like they usually are.

[britishboy]

Not all animal testing is for life saving medical purposes. Most of it is for cosmetic, psychological, and military research. And to answer your question, I don't care if an animal is human or not. All sentient lifeforms deserve to be treated with the same ethical consideration. So, if 10,000 mice died to save a lesser number of humans, I wouldn't support it. Especially if the deaths were slow and painful, like they usually are.

"cosmetic, psychological, and military research" I support them all.

No number of mice is of equal or greater importance than a human. Think of it mice or you.

[Gamma Male]

"cosmetic, psychological, and military research" I support them all.

No number of mice is of equal or greater importance than a human. Think of it mice or you.
Why? Why are we more important than other animals?

[britishboy]

Why? Why are we more important than other animals?

One question, you or a mouse?

[Gamma Male]

Our lives are equal, but more people would be hurt by my absence. So me. (Unless it's a mother mouse. Then, her.

[JamesSC]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure why we test on animals when we have prisons full of Pedo's and Murderers.

[Gamma Male]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure why we test on animals when we have prisons full of Pedo's and Murderers.

EXACTLY! That would be WAY more reliable.

[JamesSC]

Yeah, you have poor innocent animals getting tested on for human products however you also have HUMAN criminals who wreck peoples lives.

[Harry Smith]

"cosmetic, psychological, and military research" I support them all.

No number of mice is of equal or greater importance than a human. Think of it mice or you.

Once again you've just dumbed down the argument to the intellect of a 5 year old, the idea that if we don't test on mice then we're all going to die is not only stupid but also completely unsupported by science

[conniption]

To be completely honest, I'm not sure why we test on animals when we have prisons full of Pedo's and Murderers.

We test on animals because they're plentiful and it's much more ethical to test on animals than on humans. You're taking away someone's basic human rights under the excuse that because they broke the law, they don't deserve to live. Yes, animals feel pain, but humans feel pain AND are sentient, so they'd be very aware of what's happening.

[JamesSC]

Rob a few sweets? Litter on the floor? Don't test on them criminals. I'm talking about actual pedo's who like getting it on with people our age and murderers... Saying it's ok being there are plenty is wrong, 7 billion people in the world too... And I'm pretty sure some animals are sentient.

[britishboy]

We test on animals because they're plentiful and it's much more ethical to test on animals than on humans. You're taking away someone's basic human rights under the excuse that because they broke the law, they don't deserve to live. Yes, animals feel pain, but humans feel pain AND are sentient, so they'd be very aware of what's happening.
100% agree.
EXACTLY! That would be WAY more reliable.
So it's unfair to torture a mouse but ok to torture a person?!
Our lives are equal, but more people would be hurt by my absence. So me. (Unless it's a mother mouse. Then, her.
Firstly our lives are not equal and secondly that is why the animals are dying for us, it's better for them to die than us simply. What I mean by that is a cure could be developed that will save hundreds of lives, for example cancer research.

[JamesSC]

Everyone is saying all this about how 1 animal life is less important, but couldn't that just be applied to a human too? Who are we to just torture and kill animals?

[Harry Smith]

Everyone is saying all this about how 1 animal life is less important, but couldn't that just be applied to a human too? Who are we to just torture and kill animals?

Exactly-it starts of by saying this animal is just a rat let's kill it, this criminal is just a criminal lets kill it and it then keeps continuing

[Its Pretty]

An animals capacity for pain is much less, how do I know, you say? Well animal's brains are so much smaller, so there's less of it to feel pain. Quite simple. Brain size = intelligence. Intelligence = emotions, feelings and the 5 senses.

Yes, animals such as rats do feel pain, but their emotional response to it is usually not much greater then pain = bad. Do rats have a soul? Is there such a thing as karma? Is the rat population negatively effected by it? The answer to all three of those is NO. Is the human population positively effected by animal testing? yes they are.

[Gamma Male]

An animals capacity for pain is much less, how do I know, you say? Well animal's brains are so much smaller, so there's less of it to feel pain. Quite simple.

This is just completely incorrect. I honestly don't even know how to respond to this.

[conniption]

Rob a few sweets? Litter on the floor? Don't test on them criminals. I'm talking about actual pedo's who like getting it on with people our age and murderers... Saying it's ok being there are plenty is wrong, 7 billion people in the world too... And I'm pretty sure some animals are sentient.

It doesn't matter what you think should be done with criminals because they still have their unalienable rights. Animals aren't sentient; they're not capable of complex thinking like humans are. Animals are simpler and more moral to test on than on humans. Take genetic testing, for example, rats reproduce rapidly, so researchers are able to gather data faster and more efficiently on their offspring than on a human. If testing on criminals was legal you'd have to take a female criminal, impregnate her, wait 9 months, and then test her child. ALL this would be completely legal because the child is in her body and her body belongs to the government, but I suppose that's okay because there's 7 billion more people-- a child and some woman don't matter in the big picture.

[Its Pretty]

Everyone is saying all this about how 1 animal life is less important, but couldn't that just be applied to a human too? Who are we to just torture and kill animals?

We are creatures that need to survive. The same way plants absorb sunlight, animals eat plants, and we consume all three, we need to experiment on other living beings to survive also. Who's against experimenting on plants? Experimenting on sunlight?

[Its Pretty]

This is just completely incorrect. I honestly don't even know how to respond to this.

How is it completely incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat#Intelligence

As you can see, the human brain is much larger then a rat's brain.

Yes, I linked Wikipedia, mainly cause this is a subject of common knowledge. Unless somehow the human brain were to be so much smaller then the skull (which, from an evolutionary standpoint, would make absolutely no sense) there is no possible way we could compare rat and human intelligence on the same level.

[Gamma Male]

100% agree.

So it's unfair to torture a mouse but ok to torture a person?!

Firstly our lives are not equal and secondly that is why the animals are dying for us, it's better for them to die than us simply. What I mean by that is a cure could be developed that will save hundreds of lives, for example cancer research.

But you still haven't answered my first question. WHY?!?
Why are animals less important than us? Why shouldn't they be given any ethical consideration? Why should they be treated as lesser beings?
They feel, just like us. They feel fear, pain, joy, anger, and misery every bit as vividly as human beings. Do they not deserve the same basic rights as humans being? The right to live a happy, pain-free existence?

I'm trying very hard to understand your mindset.

[Harry Smith]

How is it completely incorrect?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat#Intelligence

As you can see, the human brain is much larger then a rat's brain.

Yes, I linked Wikipedia, mainly cause this is a subject of common knowledge. Unless somehow the human brain were to be so much smaller then the skull (which, from an evolutionary standpoint, would make absolutely no sense) there is no possible way we could compare rat and human intelligence on the same level.

I'd happily testify that a number of people I know make rat's look intelligent

[Its Pretty]

But you still haven't answered my first question. WHY?!?
Why are animals less important than us? Why shouldn't they be given any ethical consideration? Why should they be treated as lesser beings?
They feel, just like us. They feel fear, pain, joy, anger, and misery every bit as vividly as human beings. Do they not deserve the same basic rights as humans being? The right to live a happy, pain-free existence?

I'm trying very hard to understand your mindset.

Animals are much less important then us and I could give you 5 reasons why.
-they are of less biomass.
-they are inferior
-they are non-sentient
-they have no moral code.
-we, as competitive living beings, must naturally consume other beings to survive.

Do they not deserve the same basic rights as a human being? Well, most absolutely not! I ask you this, are you one of us, or are you one of them? If rats were to rise up one day and make a country and develop nuclear capabilities, then we could start talking about rights.

[Gamma Male]

1: We do NOT need to test on animals to survive. You're all acting as if stopping animal testing would automatically destroy our chances of finding a cure for cancer. That is completely ridiculous.Animal testing is not our only means of research.
2: Until you can prove souls exist I'm not responding to the "animals don't have souls" argument.
3 The capacity for pain has nothing to do with intelligence!!! How many times do I have to say this?
STUPID PEOPLE FEEL PAIN JUST AS WELL AS GENIUSES!

Animals are much less important then us and I could give you 5 reasons why.
-they are of less biomass.
-they are inferior
-they are non-sentient
-they have no moral code.
-we, as competitive living beings, must naturally consume other beings to survive.

Do they not deserve the same basic rights as a human being? Well, most absolutely not! I ask you this, are you one of us, or are you one of them? If rats were to rise up one day and make a country and develop nuclear capabilities, then we could start talking about rights.

-Irrelevant
-Why?
-Not true.
-Not true for all animals. And for the ones that don't have a "moral code", it isn't their fault. They're stupid. They don't know any better. WE DO. We should be the responsible ones.
-Not true.
Not alwa

[Its Pretty]

1: We do NOT need to test on animals to survive. You're all acting as if stopping animal testing would automatically destroy our chances of finding a cure for cancer. That is completely ridiculous.Animal testing is not our only means of research.
2: Until you can prove souls exist I'm not responding to the "animals don't have souls" argument.
3 The capacity for pain has nothing to do with intelligence!!! How many times do I have to say this?
STUPID PEOPLE FEEL PAIN JUST AS WELL AS GENIUSES!

1, Of course we don't need to. just as a plant doesn't need every single CO2 molecule it gathers, and a grasshopper need not eat every single blade of grass (do grasshoppers even eat grass). We don't need to do many things. Do we do them? Yes, because we too desire happiness.

2. Souls don't exist either, but if rat's had souls, and we didn't, using them as cheap disposable pieces of flesh would be immoral.

3. As I previously explained, brain size (and indirectly, intelligence) Have very, very much to do with the way an animal experiences pain. It is well known that different people respond to stimuli with different intensity. This is why I don't agree with using injury as a form of punishment. Some individuals will be under or over punished.

Wabbajack, So we don't need to consume living things to survive? All combustible energy on earth (including the stuff that runs us alive) Comes from photosynthesis in plants. Pretty much any fire on the earth burns as a product of plants.

If animals are so stupid, why care for them as we care for ourselves? Morality is brought by emotion, and so, animals that would not distinguish children from lunch would not experience much emotional pain with being tortured to any extent.

Are animals inferior? Why yes, of course! Not only are they (the majority of them) so much less successful in terms of survival, we can wipe them out with the flick of our fingers! If we wanted every rat in the world dead, it would only take us a couple decades to wipe them out! (compared to millions of years of evolutionary progress). While some animals rats especially, are indeed successful species, each individual rat is so much less important then all of humanity. So much so, that comparing the cons of animal testing to the benefits of it is really, quite an insult. Seeing other humans worry more about unimportant creatures then their own kind strikes my heart in the wrong way.

[Typhlosion]

3. As I previously explained, brain size (and indirectly, intelligence) Have very, very much to do with the way an animal experiences pain. It is well known that different people respond to stimuli with different intensity. This is why I don't agree with using injury as a form of punishment. Some individuals will be under or over punished.

I'm sorry, what defines an animal's intelligence is not brain size. A sperm whale brain has around 8 dm³ in volume, while a human has around 1.2 dm³. It's heavier as well, weighing 7.8 kg versus the human's 1.5 kg. Don't tell me sperm whales are smarter than humans.

[Its Pretty]

I'm sorry, what defines an animal's intelligence is not brain size. A sperm whale brain has around 8 dm³ in volume, while a human has around 1.2 dm³. It's heavier as well, weighing 7.8 kg versus the human's 1.5 kg. Don't tell me sperm whales are smarter than humans.

It's proportion of brain size to body size, right? But the brain size is always the most limiting barrier. While all humans have roughly the same brain size, intelligence is variable, and there will always be an upper limit to what the human mind encased in a brain can accomplish.

[Gamma Male]

REALLY? YOU'RE insulted? It strikes YOUR heart the wrong way?
I am trying very hard not to get another infraction right now.
But coming in here and basically just saying "MIGHT IS RIGHT! We could wipe out mice in a few decades if we wanted to! We are more important!"
That. That isn't debating, it's speciesism.
Can somebody please help me with this? Anyone? Please?

We don't need to test on or eat animals to live comfortably. Testing on and eatig animals causes BILLIONS of unnecessary deaths and a devastating amount of suffering. Testing on animals is evil. End of story.

[Its Pretty]

REALLY? YOU'RE insulted? It strikes YOUR heart the wrong way?
I am trying very hard not to get another infraction right now.
But coming in here and basically just saying "MIGHT IS RIGHT! We could wipe out mice in a few decades if we wanted to! We are more important!"
That. That isn't debating, it's speciesism.
Can somebody please help me with this? Anyone? Please?

Well importance is all based on your standpoint, isn't it? To me, a few dozen lab rats is a worthy sacrifice so that a company can keep doing what they're doing. Sometimes, more human lives will be saved through the testing then rat lives taken.

What do you define as importance?

[Typhlosion]

It's proportion of brain size to body size, right? But the brain size is always the most limiting barrier. While all humans have roughly the same brain size, intelligence is variable, and there will always be an upper limit to what the human mind encased in a brain can accomplish. It gives us a better notion. Surface area and neuron density are also good factors.

REALLY? YOU'RE insulted? It strikes YOUR heart the wrong way?
I am trying very hard not to get another infraction right now.
But coming in here and basically just saying "MIGHT IS RIGHT! We could wipe out mice in a few decades if we wanted to! We are more important!"
That. That isn't debating, it's speciesism.
Can somebody please help me with this? Anyone? Please?

We don't need to test on or eat animals to live comfortably. Testing on and eatig animals causes BILLIONS of unnecessary deaths and a devastating amount of suffering. Testing on animals is evil. End of story.

Sacrificing the opportunity for development for the sake of our furry friends is evil to our race as a whole. Plus, virtually all of lab animals are bred specifically for research use. No species is going extinct for that reason.

Pus, I wanted to add, WHY NOBODY MENTIONS DROSOPHILA? THEY'RE VICTIMS TO MANY FAULTY AND DEADLY MUTATIONS. Aren't they animals as well?

[Its Pretty]

Indeed, much of animal testing is used to protect other species. (benefiting us indirectly, of course.)

[Gamma Male]

Well importance is all based on your standpoint, isn't it? To me, a few dozen lab rats is a worthy sacrifice so that a company can keep doing what they're doing. Sometimes, more human lives will be saved through the testing then rat lives taken.

What do you define as importance?

I don't care about importance. Importance is is irrelevant. What matters is, can they suffer? And the answer is yes.

[Typhlosion]

I don't care about importance. Importance is is irrelevant. What matters is, can they suffer? And the answer is yes. So... you're telling us that species doesn't matter as long they can suffer. You'd rather have me kill a Human rather than two baby octopi?

[Its Pretty]

I don't care about importance. Importance is is irrelevant. What matters is, can they suffer? And the answer is yes.

So, Importance is irrelevant, huh. So if we were to kill every single living thing on this planet WITHOUT causing any pain, nothing would be wrong about that? There wont be any suffering, no pain at all! My, The planet (which is totally sentient and totally disapproves of humans blowing up uranium on her) would greatly appreciate that, don't you agree?

[Gamma Male]

To mag: Yes.
And to IP: 1, The earth is not sentient. And 2, killing somebody against his or her will is evil.


In most cases. Not always.

[Its Pretty]

To mag: Yes.
And to IP: 1, The earth is not sentient. And 2, killing somebody against his or her will is evil.

Oh, Okay, and if that creature has no will?

Also, Keep in mind you said 'importance is not important' which is nonsense. Something that you said.

[Gamma Male]

Almost all animals have the will to live.

And I said importance isn't relevant.

[Its Pretty]

Almost all animals have the will to live.

And I said importance isn't relevant.

well, all oxygen atoms have the will to bond to hydrogen atoms, is there anything wrong with stopping that?

Importance is irrelevant = importance doesn't matter = doesn't make any sense at all.

[Gamma Male]

No, they don't. They're bound by the laws of physics.

And what I meant was, how "important" someone is(aka how much value you place on their life) has nothing to do with whether or not we should torture and kill them. Bill Gates is more "important" than most homeless people. That doesn't mean it's okay for Bill Gates to make them suffer.

[Typhlosion]

well, all oxygen atoms have the will to bond to hydrogen atoms, is there anything wrong with stopping that?

Importance is irrelevant = importance doesn't matter = doesn't make any sense at all. He's saying that any importance attributed to any specific species is irrelevant since animals should be treated as equals. Also, I think that you reduced the problem a wee too much w/ the atoms :P

... Ninja'd?

[Its Pretty]

No, they don't. They're bound by the laws of physics.

And what I meant was, how "important" someone is(aka how much value you place on their life) has nothing to do with whether or not we should torture and kill them. Bill Gates is more "important" than most homeless people. That doesn't mean it's okay for Bill Gates to make them suffer.

Well rats and humans are by nature also bound by the laws of physics. It's not okay for bill gates to make homeless people suffer without a cause, but if the cause is strong enough, it's definitely okay. In the case of animal testing, the pros greatly outweigh the cons.

[Gamma Male]

Really? Because last I checked over 100 million animals die in testing each year. Most of which, after being brutally tortured.* And of those that die, less than half are for medical purposes. Ask yourself, do you seriously belive animal testing saves that many human lives annually? And if so,can you prove it?


*google the draize test and the ld50 test.

[Typhlosion]

Really? Because last I checked over 100 million animals die in testing each year. Most of which, after being brutally tortured.* And of those that die, less than half are for medical purposes. Ask yourself, do you seriously belive animal testing saves that many human lives annually? And if so,can you prove it?
From Understanding Animal Research, "450,000 people in the UK suffering from Type I diabetes rely on Insulin – which was developed through experiments in rabbits and dogs." Now, I'm very interested where you caught "less than half [of tested animals] are for medical purposes."

[Gamma Male]

Still doesn't come close to 100 million a year. And by "medical" I meant having to do with some life-threatening medical issue. Most deaths come from tests in science, cosmetics, psychology, and military research.


The two most common tests(ld50 and draize) have nothing to do with medical research.

[Its Pretty]

Really? Because last I checked over 100 million animals die in testing each year. Most of which, after being brutally tortured.* And of those that die, less than half are for medical purposes. Ask yourself, do you seriously belive animal testing saves that many human lives annually? And if so,can you prove it?


*google the draize test and the ld50 test.

Why do you insist on putting animal life on an equal footing with human life?

Are those all animals?
Just vertebrates? (100 million are tested on)
Do invertebrates count?
What about plants?
How about bacteria, millions of which you breed and destroy every day?
What about viruses? They're living, and every time we treat someone with HIV, we are slowing their reproduction.

Still, I cannot disagree that some lab animals are subject to unnecessary treatment. I agree that it is tragic. I would undoubtedly say that a permit and special training be required to handle lab animals. Sometimes though, the pain cannot be avoided, and while that may be seen as an atrocity, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the greater good. Those toxicity tests that invariably kill animals (with lots of pain) are indeed terrible, but lets not forget that the data gathered from them is incredibly useful, and will save lives.

Remember, though, that these lab rats and mice are bred specifically for research purposes. WE created them. It's better to live a shitty miserable existence then to not live one at all.

[Typhlosion]

Still doesn't come close to 100 million a year. And by "medical" I meant having to do with some life-threatening medical issue. Most deaths come from tests in science, cosmetics, psychology, and military research.


The two most common tests(ld50 and draize) have nothing to do with medical research.From the WHO, at least 30 million people have Type 1 diabetes. And that's just ONE that has been developed with animal testing. Polio, various transplants and life-support systems for infants have all been aided by the use of animal testing (source) (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1098).

I really want to know, out of honest interest, where are you basing your claims off. Parkinson's disease is not life-threatning, but I wouldn't dare rank that lowly. Guess what? Animal usage has helped such treatment. (UCLA).

[Gamma Male]

Plants and micro organisms don't matter. They don't feel.

And 100 million A YEAR, since, what, 1920? That's about 10 billion right? Has animal testing saved 10 billion lives since then? I doubt it. And when I said under half are for life-threatening medical research, that was an educated guess. Besides, how many of the lives lost do you think actually contributed to a cure for something?
Also, why not use homeless people? Why not use homeless people to test on? Or unwanted babies or children? As long as more lives are saved than lost right? Would you object to that?


Besides, you're acting as if if we don't use animal testing none of these all medical research would stop. There are plenty of other great ways to combat illnesses.


And aren't a lot of bad health conditions simply caused by unhealthy lifemstyles? Is it
really fair to torture and enslave other species of animal because of our

[Typhlosion]

Plants and micro organisms don't matter. They don't feel. Definitely understandable.
And 100 million A YEAR, since, what, 1920? That's about 10 billion right? Has animal testing saved 10 billion lives since then? Animal testing has been increasing rather than being steadily used. The 1970's peaked at 50million per year. I do get your point though.
And when I said under half are for life-threatening medical research, that was an educated guess. Besides, how many of the lives lost do you think actually contributed to a cure for something? To be very literal, not too many. Few 'cures' are produced, but rather treatments and improvements to those.
Also, why not use homeless people? Why not use homeless people to test on? Or unwanted babies or children? As long as more lives are saved than lost right? Would you object to that? YES I'D OBJECT TO SOCIAL DARWINISM! What makes a hobo different from a distant-yet-rich royal family member in Bhutan? Do you believe the homeless are void of any dignity because the have less acquisitive power?
Besides, you're acting as if if we don't use animal testing none of these all medical research would stop. There are plenty of other great ways to combat illnesses. Staying still in time by hampering research is no way a great way to progress. Plus, illness is not inherently combattable, as you cannot combat transsexualism. It's unpreventable and medicine can help those with it. You're going to say that it's not necessary for survival right?
And aren't a lot of bad health conditions simply caused by unhealthy lifemstyles? Is it really fair to torture and enslave other species of animal because of our Somebody gets morbidly obese and wants to change? Too bad. Cancer? Too bad. Stress? Too bad. You are willing to deny people that suffer just because they made bad decisions?

But here's the important part: Do you honestly believe that human lives should be sacrificed in sake of other animals? Do you believe that we should not even value our own species as animals are created equal but any other animal has the right to instinctively do so? If they have the excuse as they're dumber, does that not put us in a superior position? Do you believe in social eugenics? Or are you going beyond your point of view and rambling on for the sake of arguing?

[Gamma Male]

No, I don't believe in social eugenics. And if you don't either, I don't know why you support animal testing. Humans are smarter than animals. But our lives are not more valuable. It is unfair to enslave, torture, and kill sentient beings in the name of medical research, especially when most illnesses are preventable. More harm is being done than good. Whether that harm happens to humans or other animals is irrelevant. We both feel. Pain and fear are just as "bad" for most animals as they are for us. Animal testing is selfish, bigoted, and immoral. I don't know how to make myself any more clear.