Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[alt_f13]

Anyone?

 

Many of those products probably have little need for animal testing. Cocoa butter, for example, is little more than petroleum jelly and natural scent... After that scent is added, it is a completely new product from basic petroleum jelly, don't ya know.

 

When a product advertises something like that, it is little more than a gimmic, proveable only through technicalities.

 

[edit]

 

From admirals website:

"Under the traditional fixed cut-off date criteria, companies limited themselves to using ingredients that had been developed before the 1976 Directive, which required animal testing for all new ingredients. "

 

Exactly what I was talking about.

 

[edit again]

 

"Companies will still be allowed to develop new, innovative products using the thousands of established ingredients known to be safe through years of use. "

 

My other point.

[Lance]

 

A rabbit doesn't have to suffer being chemically blinded. This is the point. Animal testing for medical science is one thing' date=' but to satisfy human vanity, that's another thing entirely. Killing something just so you can have 'squeaky-clean hair', don't you think that's a bit much?

 

 

Like the testing shampoo kind of thing?[/quote']

 

I was just being extreme. Yes the blind rabbit is unnecessary, but the point is the same. If an animal has to die to save a human then so be it. When it comes to human lives I don’t think animals do have a value on there life. It is never just one human life. Research that will save one human will also apply to others and of course save more than one.

 

I'm no arguing over cosmetic animal tests I’m arguing over scientific tests. I think it would be pretty easy to pay people to test shampoo but would you be willing to pay the extra money?

 

And you guys probably think I’m an evil animal hater but I'm not. I don’t think I have ever hurt more than a fly, but if killing my dog would save my brother then I would do it in an instant.

[sepultallica]

Aside from that' date=' I'm sure as hell thankful to all the rats that sacrificed their lives to save more than one of my family members from cancer.[/quote']

 

 

 

i think that's the poster example for this arguement.

[aommaster]

To me, it is like doing testing on a person with disabilities or a baby

 

Well, I don't think that is right either. Just because they don't have anything to say doesn't mean that they don't have feelings!

 

I also don't agree with the fact that animals are being tested on. You should see some of the pictures that come out. It is absolutely disgraceful. I don't think that humans would like to be tested on like that!

 

I think that humans should be tested on of they are either paid for it, or voluteered for it!

[Glider]

I was just being extreme. Yes the blind rabbit is unnecessary, but the point is the same. If an animal has to die to save a human then so be it. When it comes to human lives I don’t think animals do have a value on there life. It is never just one human life. Research that will save one human will also apply to others and of course save more than one.

 

From a completely impersonal perspective, as there are >6bn humans on this planet, I wonder about the great urge to save/prolong life, especially when quality of life is a far greater problem than quantity for so many (largely due to there being so many). I'd go for quality over quantity, but that's just me.

 

I'm no arguing over cosmetic animal tests I’m arguing over scientific tests. I think it would be pretty easy to pay people to test shampoo but would you be willing to pay the extra money?

 

Why would I need to? There are literally hundreds of different shampoos out there right now. How many different types of hair cleaner do we need? How clean can your hair be? As for medical testing, I can see the point. But I also feel that the division between necessary and unnecessary testing is extremely fine and needs to be trod with extreme care, and a lot more thought than is being shown here.

 

 

And you guys probably think I’m an evil animal hater but I'm not. I don’t think I have ever hurt more than a fly, but if killing my dog would save my brother then I would do it in an instant.

 

Hmm...s'pose you did that only to find out the day after that it wasn't really necessary as there was a viable, though more expensive alternative? Bummer, huh? Kill your dog or pay a bit more. Would you be prepared to pay the extra money?

[aommaster]

i seem to be tilted more to saving the animal's side. So, I would pay a bit more! IF it means saving my dog AND someone else!

[YT2095]

What I will say is this....those of you out there who say "there's all sorts of other models we can use other than animals" please tell us what they are??? .

I did, in post #9 )

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And I replied, there aren't enough of them.

[EvolvEarth]

I personally think it’s sick that people would put animals at the same level as humans. Even if they can suffer' date=' they are ANIMALS. How could you possibly choose an animals life over a humans. I wouldn't mind slaughtering a thousand animals to save one human life.

 

Sometimes it seems like people think humans should be running through fields naked being chased by lions. Kill or be killed.

 

If a rabbit has to suffer puffy eyes so I don’t have to then so be it.

 

Animal testing has saved millions of lives and I think the people who would try to change that are sicker than the people doing the testing.

 

Of course I'm not talking about the useless testing, but you guys are making generalizations that animal testing is bad.[/quote']

I think it's sick to cause suffering towards one creature to ease the suffering of another. I don't see your logic because it isn't consistant. What exactly is special about the human species when compared to, let's say, chimpanzees, rabbits, or even mice? The evidence does show that most, if not all, animals suffer in one way or another. Maybe the degree of suffering is different, but it doesn't take mounds of empirical data to realize that animals have pain receptors and that animals can undergo emotional distress. After all, mice can go through learned helplessness as the studies show us.

 

It's a big leap of faith to claim that only humans can feel pain and/or suffer. Other animals would have to feel pain and suffer as well to survive in a world like this. Evolution is responsible, and to claim that humans are almost in a separate world when compared to being different to other animals, well, that's simply not logical and contrary to much scientific evidence.

 

I do not agree with animal testing, eating animals for food when it isn't necessary, using anything that came from an animal in which the animal had to suffer, et cetera. I want consistency in my morals, but if I favor one species over another, such as my own over another one, then how moral am I? Obviously, I wouldn't be very moral at all. If I know that animals have the same capabilities as I do in feeling pain and suffering, then how could I let this go on?

 

We just have a difference in opinion, sure, but to call people like me sick because I'm not a hypocrite in my morals is just going too far.

[EvolvEarth]

I think Animal testing is dreadfull! and WELL WRONG! when it comes to testing things for humans!

 

WHY should they have to suffer? half the tests done aren`t acurate anyway as their physiology is different!

This is very true. There are many problems with animal testing. Animal testing gives us insight into many medical and psychological issues' date=' but it has also caused a lot of suffering and death of humans as well not to mention the animals being experimented on. You only get a general idea of how something works when testing animals.

 

we have a load of a$$holes on death row that have been proven guilty and yet they get to die with no data gained, it`s a total complete and utter waste of potential, I say we use these rapists and child molesters and murderers/terrorists etc... and exploit their physiology, ok, maybe they`re a little less humane than animals with the behaviour that got them there, but the results should be alot more compatible, and who cares if they die??? they`re gunna get fried anyway!?

I really hope this is a joke, because that is absolutely barbaric. Most people on death row don't get fried, they usually get injected in a painless way. In the Constitution, there is an amendment which states that there shall be no cruel and unusual punishment. That IS cruel and unusual to ANY animal that exists! I would not support something so inherently evil as that as well.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I agree. (on post 35)

[Lance]

I think it's sick to cause suffering towards one creature to ease the suffering of another.

Right, So If your brother had cancer and you knew that killing a rat would save him you would choose to save the rat instead of your brother?

 

What exactly is special about the human species when compared to, let's say, chimpanzees, rabbits, or even mice?

You have got to be joking... I would say just about anything.

 

 

I do not agree with... eating animals for food when it isn't necessary...

 

I don't see your logic because it isn't consistent...

 

I think it's sick to cause suffering towards one creature to ease the suffering of another.

 

...Eating an animal so you don’t starve would ease your own suffering and cause suffering towards the animal.

[daisy]

I'm still waiting for someone to come up wiith a better model system than a living mammal for drug responses. And those of you who suggest death row inmates....all well and good but then you'd have the civil liberties brigade on your back....not to mention the rather large proportion of death row inmates who claim to be innocent (innocent until proven guilty....isn't that the dogma of the free world). So if the justice system is correct you'de be expecting a bunch of innocent-until-proven guilty people to test your drugs for you. Neat. Then you don't have to bother finding other alternatives eh?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And the fact that they need a lot more test subjects then there are inmates.

[daisy]

And YT, when you say you did mention alternatives in post 9....you can't really mean that can you?...that folk on death row should have their torment added to by being guinea pigs? I'm as right wing as the next person but that's stretching it a bit. I would exterminate a paedophile/murderer or thoroughly evil person as willingly as you but I would not want to extend the punishment of death by forcing them to take part in experiments....that would make us as bad as them. Don't you see that? Shades of Hitler here.

[Crash]

Why not try it on people on death row or "the scum of teh earth" that waste taxes sitting in jail, they could be usefull..........

I bet someone will cut me for this one

[Glider]

I think you need to read the previous posts.

[Crash]

well in that case they are legend and i got their back

[BrainMan]

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing, and I want to point out what I noticed.

 

I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content.

 

Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

[BeckyK]

Thank you for sharing that. It definately makes me feel better. I just heard horror stories about nail polish being put in animals eyes to see if it would harm human eyes, etc...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

People like to talk about horrifying things a lot more than good things, so that's why you hardly hear about the good side of animal experimenting.

Seriously though, you want your animal happy before he is tested on, since stress can cause such a reaction. If you didn't treat them right, that wouldn't be very representative of the human population, which typically treated OK.

[EvolvEarth]

Right, So If your brother had cancer and you knew that killing a rat would save him you would choose to save the rat instead of your brother?

While I would be tempted to, since I'm closer to my brother than I am to the rat, I still don't see it as moral. Do I have that rat's consent? No, I do not. If I do not, is it ethical to trade in the rat's life for another life?

 

I can't honestly say what I would do in that situation. Evolution has set us up where our emotional decisions usually rival over logical ones. Since I'm going on a logical decision right now, I can't possibly see what I would do if the situation came up and therefore cannot give you an accurate answer.

 

 

You have got to be joking... I would say just about anything.

You haven't provided me with an adequate response. What do you mean by the term "anything"? Is it our intelligence that makes us better? Isn't our intelligence the cause of global ecological damage and mass poverty? Is it our superior adaption capabilities? The same capabilities that caused us to introduce bio-invaders into other regions on the planet causing a decrease in biodiversity and an increase in ecological destruction? Is it the soul? A soul that has no empirical evidence supporting its existence? What exactly makes us any better?

 

I don't see your logic because it isn't consistent...

Sure it is consistent.

 

...Eating an animal so you don’t starve would ease your own suffering and cause suffering towards the animal.

I don't eat animals, so it doesn't matter. There are plenty of nutritious food substitutes for meat. The only human beings who would really need to eat meat would be hunter-gatherers. I have no objections towards hunter-gatherers eating meat because they have to like many other animals in the wild. If it is for survival, then it is necessary even if causing suffering towards other animals in the process due to logical reasons as my animals would die out simply because they wouldn't be allowed to eat meat. If we simply have other resourced to supplement, however, then it is no longer ethical to consume animals.

[Sayonara]

You haven't provided me with an adequate response. What do you mean by the term "anything"? Is it our intelligence that makes us better? Isn't our intelligence the cause of global ecological damage and mass poverty? Is it our superior adaption capabilities? The same capabilities that caused us to introduce bio-invaders into other regions on the planet causing a decrease in biodiversity and an increase in ecological destruction? Is it the soul? A soul that has no empirical evidence supporting its existence? What exactly makes us any better?

You didn't ask if humans were "better", you asked what makes us "so special". Since you didn't say in what way, I wouldn't expect a specific answer.

[EvolvEarth]

I worked with rats for a few semesters in a behavioral neuroscience lab doing drug testing' date=' and I want to point out what I noticed.

 

I am willing to bet that those animals suffered less than the luckiest of rats living in the wild. We worked very closely with the animal welfare people, and the total comfort of the animals was ensured every step of the way. They were put down peacefully with gas so we could get to thier brains afterwards (and you just can't do that with humans). They generally had access to food, drink, and sex at a level unprecedented for wild rats. [What else do rats want, anyway?'] We even managed to argue with each other a bit over which type of bedding was most comfortable for transport and such. There was some level of necessary suffering (like recieving injections), but I've seen humans put through far worse in experiments and walk away content.

 

Just my own personal experience... I wonder where all this "terrible suffering" supposedly is in animal testing.

But you're also depriving the rats of the wild and their freedom. Most animals are curious creatures and explorers, and these rats are merely raised in laboratory settings taking their natural environment away from them. You automatically assume that food, drink, sex, and comfortable bedding makes for an extremely elated rat, but does it really? They have no natural environment to explore. They no longer can search for food which is entertainment value for them. Maybe the rats can bond with each other, but do you kill all of the rats at once? If not, then you're killing a rat that bonded with another one. The problem is, though, is that you're shortening the lifespan of a rat and that rat doesn't even get to live in his or her natural environment. Also, you don't think a rat knows when he or she is going to die? Don't you think that's suffering enough when the rat is at his or her last few hours of life?

 

I think the biggest mistake of science is NOT anthropomorphizing animals. Why? Because if human beings and other animals were developed through the process of evolution, then why would humans be the only creatures capable of thought, emotion, reason, et cetera? Varying degrees makes sense, but being completely separate is merely a work of faith.

[EvolvEarth]

You didn't ask if humans were "better", you asked what makes us "so special". Since you didn't say in what way, I wouldn't expect a specific answer.

All right, but it still makes sense if the word "better" was replaced with "special." Certainly all animals are special in their own little way due to different abilities. Vampire bats are special because of echocommunication and the such. I guess I should've asked what made us the most special. Hmmm.