Log in

View Full Version : Animal Testing?


Reality
July 4th, 2009, 01:45 PM
Do you think animal testing is right or wrong?

Well, establishing the pros/cons on it, first and foremost

Pros to Animal Testing:

- medical research that can save peoples lives or help them lead better lives - The supporters of animal testing argue that if animal testing is eliminated, that many of the medications and procedures that we currently use today wouldn't exist and the development of future treatments would be extremely limited.

- Animal testing not only benefits humans but also helps other animals, for example the heartworm medication that was devised from research on animals has assisted many dogs.
- other testing techniques are not advanced enough
- minimise injury and maximise benefits
- the advantages outweight the costs.
- Moreover, many argue that the lives of animals may be worthy of some respect, but the value we give on their lives does not count as much as the value we give to human life.

- As far as animal testing is concerned we are confronted with the moral dilemma of a choice between the welfare of humans or the welfare of animals.

- The Research Defense Society – RDS, a British organization instituted to defend animal testing, maintain that most of the complaints made against animal testing are not found to be correct and that animal testing generates valuable information about how new drugs react inside a living body.

Cons to Animal Testing:

Morality:
The supporters of animal rights say that animals have the right to live their own life peacefully; and we are not allowed to meddle with them just because we can.

Necessity/Validity: Deaths through research are considered unnecessary and are morally not different from murder. Animal dissection is regarded as misleading.

Usefulness:
Arguments against animal testing may generate at least two different arguments. Some believe that the goals of this type of testing are not significant. The blinding of rabbits to have a new kind of mascara is yet to be justified.

Others argue that the reaction of an animal to a drug is quite different than that of a human being. Animals are involved in testing the products such as cleaning products that assist humans less than medicines or surgery.

The fact that the results attained from experiments on animal testing do not accurately portray their influence on humans is considered to be a one of the serious argument against the animal testing. Humans are quite different from other animals, so the consequences of animal testing may not applicable to humans. They argue that they way one species reacts to a given drug or chemical in a particular way does not necessarily entail other species will react in the same way.

Critics continue to argue that animal kept in unnatural conditions, or animals in pain or distress, are not giving rise to accurate or consistent results anyway. Stringent regulations have not eliminated researchers from abusing animals even though such instances are rare.

http://www.soulcast.com/post/show/83190/Animal-Testing---the-pros-and-cons

_____________________________________________________

Personally, I'm mostly against animal testing. I think it really is cruel and manipulative to the animal, and is basically treating it as if it's some desposable tool rather than a life being of its own, when you test a new chemical or substance on an animal, it could effect it in so many different ways from stunting its' growth to killing it in an agonizing way.

I know that there are some good results thanks to the testing on animals, but there isn't all the time, and not enough - in my opinion - to justify it. Animals, even if they are mammals have different DNA and body systems/structures to us anyway, so even then, you can't be sure that the results are 100% reliable or relevant to humans, anyway.

I am purely against Cosmetic Testing on Animals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testing_cosmetics_on_animals). At least with scientific testing on animals to find things like cures are somewhat justified, but cosmetic testing on animals is completely disgusting. I don't agree that an animal should risk death or so much discomfort simply for some cosmetic manufacturers new form of spot cream or toothpaste or whatever.

Anyway, what's your views?

Donkey
July 4th, 2009, 04:02 PM
I think animal testing is a good thing.

The benefits greatly outweigh the cons. A few animals could lead to millions of peoples lives being saved with animal testing.

Although it's not great, no, we don't like the idea of animals dying... but there's no alternative. It does save people's lives. In many cases, it will do more good than killing an animal for meat which is natural because it will save people instead of just feeding them.

Skeln
July 4th, 2009, 04:03 PM
I am against animal testing mainly for the reason that some of it is cruel and it's pointless from the start. You wants to see a mouse with a human ear on it's back or a guinie pig with lipstick?!

I do realize that it does have some pros to it but still animals are not humans and what could mean life for them could mean death for us and I'm an animal freak and all. Like I said though I do aknowledge the fact that it can save lives but sometimes we go too far with it to where it becomes cruelty. If the animals don't feel a thing, they have a decent home and will be humanely euthanized if needed then I'm nearly fine with it.

INFERNO
July 4th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I'm for animal testing for certain things. For medicine for both humans and other animals, I support it. It can lead to saving humans and other animals at a price of some other animals. I tend to think it is worth it. Even if you wanted to use human test subjects instead of animal subjects, then some humans probably would end up dying anyways.

For human cosmetics, I'm not a big supporter for it. Medicine is used to help us and other animals to get rid of an illness but cosmetics are for the most part unneeded. Things like toothpaste and such I do support testing on because it is used for humans and other animals often but something like lipstick I don't support testing for that as much. If the product is to be tested for how hazardous it can be to the eyes, then I sometimes support it.

But with all research, there is an issue of whether or not a reaction that happens to an animal will happen to a human. It's a risk that scientists try to eliminate but it is still present.

Bougainvillea
July 4th, 2009, 09:06 PM
If it's something beneficial, then sorta. But for something we don't need like cosmetics, then no.

Whisper
July 5th, 2009, 01:04 AM
No its wrong and unethical
there are no excuses
and we will be judged for it by future generations as we have harshly judged those before us
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/tissu/video/x3crer_animal-testing-101_animals


We can clone human tissue
basic tissue *skin, heart, ocular, etc...
thats all that is required for testing
and it will give more accurate results because its being used on human cells


It was wrong when we did it to blacks, jew's, gypsies, POW's, etc...
and it's wrong when it's done to animals
PERIOD



"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-Professor Charles R. Magel

Reality
July 5th, 2009, 08:34 AM
I think animal testing is a good thing.

The benefits greatly outweigh the cons. A few animals could lead to millions of peoples lives being saved with animal testing.

Although it's not great, no, we don't like the idea of animals dying... but there's no alternative. It does save people's lives. In many cases, it will do more good than killing an animal for meat which is natural because it will save people instead of just feeding them.
There are many alternatives. There's clinical trials, which many people would take part in if they're offered good money, and it's usually more accurate because animals aren't even biologically identical to us.

And I know it risks their life, but you're not meant to test such chemicals until there's a high possibility they're safe.

I acknowledge there's good results from some animal testing, but not always, and there are so many other alternatives that could be used.

For example, INFERNO, you agree with toothpastes being tested on animals, but you can test that on a reconstructed set of teeth and gums.

No its wrong and unethical
there are no excuses
and we will be judged for it by future generations as we have harshly judged those before us
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/tissu/video/x3crer_animal-testing-101_animals


We can clone human tissue
basic tissue *skin, heart, ocular, etc...
thats all that is required for testing
and it will give more accurate results because its being used on human cells
Exactly.

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction."
-Professor Charles R. Magel
lol. Good quote. That's so true.

ThatDude93
July 5th, 2009, 04:05 PM
I am against it

Skeln
July 6th, 2009, 07:54 PM
Please post why you are against it. This is a debate, not an opinion stater.

As for that video, I couldn't watch all of it. Like I said if they treated the animals humanely then I would be all for it, but also I think they should use more of cloned tissue as well.

LiGHT
July 6th, 2009, 08:08 PM
I think it is terribly wrong. Just because animals don't have souls we think we can do this?
But I have to say that lots of diseases now have cures for them because of animal testing but I still think its wrong.

ThUnDeR
July 6th, 2009, 08:10 PM
test it on deer they are overpopulated lol XD

JackOfClubs
July 7th, 2009, 07:35 AM
I agree with it but it shouldn't be done to any animals that are endangered or anything. It should be done to animals like rats, or something like that.

sebbie
July 7th, 2009, 08:04 AM
I am for animal testing as long as it is for medical reasons and not cosmetic, human life is always far more important than any animal in my opinion, so if a 1000000000 animals die to save 1 human I think it is worth it.

INFERNO
July 8th, 2009, 02:46 AM
I am for animal testing as long as it is for medical reasons and not cosmetic, human life is always far more important than any animal in my opinion, so if a 1000000000 animals die to save 1 human I think it is worth it.

If you think 1000000000 animals worthy dying to save 1 human is worth it, then what if we extended that idea for all humans? The world population is 6786217993. In the US, it's 306556862. In China, it's 1338570968. In Canada, it's 33493648. All of this is shown HERE (http://www.xist.org/earth/population1.aspx). If we use your idea, then 10 medical tests would wipe out the animals almost completely for the US alone. Well, that's really benefited the humans, now hasn't it?

I assume though, that 1000000000 was an exaggeration. Let's tone it down, let's say 10000 animals per human. That's still quite high but we'd manage to wipe out the populations quite fast.

However, no study would require 1000000000 animals or even close to it. If you're doing a study and by some miracle, the ethics board allowed 1000000 animals to go down the shitter for your study, at that point, if your drug/medicine still isn't working, then you might as well pack it in and give it a rest.

But I have to ask, why is 1 human worth that many lives? The human is going to die eventually as are the animals. Putting that many lives in the shitter to extend the human's life seems rather pointless to me. I can understand using maybe 100 animals because we could replenish the population more easily.