PDA

View Full Version : Animal Testing - For or Against?


Pages : [1] 2

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 18:38
In my opinion it is the sickest way of torture to animals. Animals are meant to spend their lives free, not in a cage, daily being given cocktails of drugs.
I know some will argue that it is useful to prevent disease and so on, but in my opinion the human race should stop trying to conquer death, at animals expense. :(

Your opinions..? :o

Ampersand
02-12-10, 19:06
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3265/britishmanimplying.jpg

Nerd For Life
02-12-10, 19:07
This won't go down well.

Ampersand
02-12-10, 19:07
This won't go down well.

*This will go down well for twenty pages that go nowhere.

Nerd For Life
02-12-10, 19:09
*This will go down well for twenty pages that go nowhere.

Ah yes, you're quite right. People will just argue that's it wrong and it won't go anywhere further. Now I'm out.

Johnnay
02-12-10, 19:11
Mice, Rats and Guinea Pigs yes... the rest..No:)

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 19:12
For.

They're not just used to try and "conquer death". They're also used to try and cure diseases that aren't fatal but cause great discomfort to sufferers. Things like arthritis.

Tony9595
02-12-10, 19:14
Sometimes, yes. I agree with MT.

Phlip
02-12-10, 19:14
Mice, Rats and Guinea Pigs yes... the rest..No:)
What makes them less special than other animals?
For.

Do you agree with me on this, though?:

It's only ok for medial/scientific, but not for cosmetic.

Catapharact
02-12-10, 19:15
For animal testing.

Most stereotypes usually point to the fact that animal testing is done for the purpose of commercialized cosmetic products; But the truth of the matter is that clinical trials for most life saving vaccines (for diseases like Polio, Hep B, etc.) and procedures to reverse crippling conditions like MS, etc. needed live test subjects to gauge their effectiveness... And I am sorry but I am, willing to see a lab rat go through the needed pain if it means that we can save human lives.

Legend of Lara
02-12-10, 19:15
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/3265/britishmanimplying.jpg

This won't go down well.

*This will go down well for twenty pages that go nowhere.

I agree with them and will avoid participating.

TombRaiderLover
02-12-10, 19:16
I'd rather they experimented on rapists and murderers as opposed to innocent animals.

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 19:19
Do you agree with me on this, though?:

It's only ok for medial/scientific, but not for cosmetic.I'm on the fence.

larafan25
02-12-10, 19:21
For and Against.

What can you do, your right and your wrong.

tonyme
02-12-10, 19:21
We worked on frogs in Physiology lab last week. Cruel? Yes. Scientific? Yes. It's how knowledge progressed and it's how it will keep progressing.

Phlip
02-12-10, 19:21
I'd rather they experimented on rapists and murderers as opposed to innocent animals.
I agree, actually.
I'm on the fence.

An animal suffering for cosmetic needs is completely unnecessary. Firstly, there are other ways of testing like the above, and secondly, we already HAVE the stuff now.

Johnnay
02-12-10, 19:23
For.

They're not just used to try and "conquer death". They're also used to try and cure diseases that aren't fatal but cause great discomfort to sufferers. Things like arthritis.

yes. correct, there was a thread recently that scientists used mice to reverse the age cycle or something like that, so that proves your point

What makes them less special than other animals?



they are always used more than other animals for testing purposes

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 19:46
Mice, Rats and Guinea Pigs yes... the rest..No:)

why the small creatures whose genes and bodily tissues are less like ours?

I'm very very against. I'm even wearing an purple band saying 'End animal testing'

Its pointless -- and even if the animal survives, they are killed. It was banned to test on blacks, gays, and prisoners -- so why do we test on animals? They feel pain and what 'we' are doing to them is disgusting.

I've seen footage of a mass amount of mice being gassed for botox research, then any survivors killed with a ball point pen.

We have enough information now to stop this cruelty and make all products cruelty free, But why arent we? Because its cheaper. Its wrong..

Alpharaider47
02-12-10, 19:50
I'm against it for cosmetics and such, but important medical vaccines, etc, not as much. It sucks, but since we won't test on humans, what's the alternative? You can't just start giving something out if you don't know what it does, and I think we can all agree that what happens on paper doesn't always happen in the real world. So I see it as a necessary evil. The price we pay for living in this day and age.

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 19:51
Its pointless -- and even if the animal survives, they are killed. It was banned to test on blacks, gays, and prisoners -- so why do we test on animals? They feel pain and what 'we' are doing to them is disgusting.It's definitely got a point, it's just whether or not you think the end justifies the means.

By the way, blacks and gays etc are humans where as animals aren't, there's your difference.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 19:53
It's definitely got a point, it's just whether or not you think the end justifies the means.

By the way, blacks and gays etc are humans where as animals aren't, there's your difference.

Medical wise it might, depending on the situation/test/company/amount of animals.


And here we go with the humans are better than animals...

They're equal in my eyes.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 19:55
Medical wise it might, depending on the situation/test/company/amount of animals.


And here we go with the humans are better than animals...

They're equal in my eyes.

Technically, we are better. We just tend not to use our intelligence and stuff for good things.

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 19:56
And here we go with the humans are better than animals...

They're equal in my eyes.Most people generally think humans are more valuable than animals, and that's why humans aren't tested on against their will but animals are.

Sgt BOMBULOUS
02-12-10, 20:00
What makes them less special than other animals?


Do you agree with me on this, though?:

It's only ok for medial/scientific, but not for cosmetic.

Oh come on, doesn't she look Faaaaaabulous?

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/ob/monkeys/monkey_makeup.jpg

Cochrane
02-12-10, 20:02
For, but only if there is no good alternative. Sadly, in many (probably most) cases, there is no good alternative yet. But I think having cures for dangerous diseases — or, for that matter, cures for harmless diseases with the cure not being a danger in itself — is more important than the life of a few animals.

tranniversary119
02-12-10, 20:05
I'm definitely against it -- for obvious reasons.

CiaKonwerski
02-12-10, 20:05
I must say that I am on the fence about this subject as well. If the experiments are done in a way that does not harm the animal etc. then I say go for it, especially if it is for a medical reason. Cosmetic etc. I am not too prone on, I just do not really see the point. I am actually surprised that testing on animals does not go against any standards etc. I know that psychologists cannot test on animals anymore because it goes against APA standards, for some reason I see the testing of animals in general going extinct because of, well....yeah.

lord gaga
02-12-10, 20:06
I don't really like it but if the choice was animals or humans i would be SO for it.

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 20:07
I'm in favor of animal testing for medical things (vaccines, treatments, etc.) which will ultimately be used to save lives. I'm not in favor of animal testing for cosmetic products or procedures. For example, just because people are stupid enough to willingly inject the most deadly toxin on the planet into their faces just to look younger, that's not a compelling reason to me to kill animals testing it. On the other hand, if it's a cure for a deadly disease, then I think animal testing is necessary because the people didn't choose to get sick and they need the cure in order to survive.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:07
I'm definitely against it -- for obvious reasons.
I'm surprised more people aren't :(

I must say that I am on the fence about this subject as well. If the experiments are done in a way that does not harm the animal etc. then I say go for it, especially if it is for a medical reason. Cosmetic etc. I am not too prone on, I just do not really see the point. I am actually surprised that testing on animals does not go against any standards etc. I know that psychologists cannot test on animals anymore because it goes against APA standards, for some reason I see the testing of animals in general going extinct because of, well....yeah.

All experiments harm the animal, because if the animal does not die during it, it is killed afterwards.

Alpharaider47
02-12-10, 20:08
^^ Are the animals killed humanely in that case?

CiaKonwerski
02-12-10, 20:09
I'm surprised more people aren't :(



All experiments harm the animal, because if the animal does not die during it, it is killed afterwards.

Do you have any proof that ALL animals are killed after testing? I am sure that there are those experimenters who kill their subjects, but just because some do it does not mean that all do. And personally I think some experiments that are done on animals in the long run sometimes help the animal. We really do not know unless we were there with them, With my opinion it really just depends on what the experiment is.

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 20:10
I'm surprised more people aren't :(I think it's because a lot of people realize there are benefits to it, such as helping to cure horrible diseases.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:10
^^ Are the animals killed humanely in that case?

Depends. I wouldn't call breaking a mouse's back with a ball point pen humane. In most cases -- no. Necks are slit, broken. Euthanising is more expensive and may counteract any gas/medicine still in them so I doubt that's used as much.

@ciaKonwerski -- nope, and it depends what the test is. Its a huge, huge subject to discuss.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:13
Very much against.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:R8u8f9qJV3Z3SM:http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6268/siestas.jpg&t=1

Rai
02-12-10, 20:16
I am against it. I'm unsure about medical testing as it is important to test new medicines, but with today's advances in science, you'd think there were alternatives by now. Certainly alternatives should be used whenever necessary.

Fallen.Angel
02-12-10, 20:17
I am strongly against it.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:18
I am against it. I'm unsure about medical testing as it is important to test new medicines, but with today's advances in science, you'd think there were alternatives by now. Certainly alternatives should be used whenever necessary.

:tmb: I agree with all of that. And if it must happen:
- less animals need to be used
- suffering should be minimal or non-existant
- there should be a valid reason for testing

Alpharaider47
02-12-10, 20:18
Depends. I wouldn't call breaking a mouse's back with a ball point pen humane. In most cases -- no. Necks are slit, broken. Euthanising is more expensive and may counteract any gas/medicine still in them so I doubt that's used as much.


Alright so there's still a bit of uncertainty there then? I'd be interested in seeing some sort of information on that. Now... the purpose of those animals is to be used for experiments anyways though right? So in a way... they were never meant for anything else... That doesn't make it anymore right though.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:18
I am against it. I'm unsure about medical testing as it is important to test new medicines, but with today's advances in science, you'd think there were alternatives by now. Certainly alternatives should be used whenever necessary.

Like what? Robots?

Minty Mouth
02-12-10, 20:18
I would be interested in knowing some of the medical advances that have been brought about due to the process of testing on animals.

I know it's probably done in a more general sense, rather than to combat certain diseases, but I can't make an educated decision for or against without knowing this stuff :/

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:20
why the small creatures whose genes and bodily tissues are less like ours?

I'm very very against. I'm even wearing an purple band saying 'End animal testing'

Its pointless -- and even if the animal survives, they are killed. It was banned to test on blacks, gays, and prisoners -- so why do we test on animals? They feel pain and what 'we' are doing to them is disgusting.

I've seen footage of a mass amount of mice being gassed for botox research, then any survivors killed with a ball point pen.

We have enough information now to stop this cruelty and make all products cruelty free, But why arent we? Because its cheaper. Its wrong..

<3 :)

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:20
Alright so there's still a bit of uncertainty there then? I'd be interested in seeing some sort of information on that. Now... the purpose of those animals is to be used for experiments anyways though right? So in a way... they were never meant for anything else... That doesn't make it anymore right though.

Well I haven't visited any testing centres -- all I know has been garnered from internet resources and college so yes, there is uncertainty. As I said, its a very large subject with different variations of cruelty.

@FloTheMachine -- Thanks for the love hun ^_^ xxxxx

Alpharaider47
02-12-10, 20:21
Well I haven't visited any testing centres -- all I know has been garnered from internet resources and college so yes, there is uncertainty. As I said, its a very large subject with different variations of cruelty.


Hmm... well I'd be interested in looking into it more sometime :p

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:21
Well I've seen some pretty bad pictures of monkeys etc in cages too small for themselves.

Also, why does it matter about smaller animals. Animals shouldn't be abused in such a way. Period.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:26
Hmm... well I'd be interested in looking into it more sometime :p

You should :tmb:

Well I've seen some pretty bad pictures of monkeys etc in cages too small for themselves.

Also, why does it matter about smaller animals. Animals shouldn't be abused in such a way. Period.

:tmb: very true.
I hate it when they separate babies from their mums -- its so heartbreaking. :( Rabbits, restrained for the rest of their existance. Cramped conditions are a welfare issue with battery hens -- and their numbers have decline rapidly -- so why should it be allowed in test conditions?
Its so sick :(

I wish I could remember the named and shamed medical organisation -- I'm desperately wracking my brains to try and show you lot.


Oooo found something interesting for those who support medical testing:
* Of the drugs marketed between 1976 and 1985, 52% were found to be more dangerous to humans than previously indicated by animal studies.
* In 1989 a study was done to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride. During a period of two years, daily doses of fluoride were given to about 520 rats and 520 mice. Not a single mouse was adversely affected by the fluoride, but the rats experienced health problems like cancer of the mouth and bone. This study shows how test data cannot be accurately extrapolated from one species to another.
* Drugs like thalidomide, Zomax and DES were all tested on animals and judged safe but had devastating consequences for the humans who used them. More than half of the prescription drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 1976 and 1985 were withdrawn from the market or relabeled because of the serious side effects they had on humans. They had all been tested on animals.

Do you know why that is? Most animals don't function like us. They are resistant to some of our allergies, and are allergic to things we arent. Their bodily and genetic tissues are not the same. Monkeys and pigs are our closest match in the animal kingdom. None of the tests tested on animals are accurate -- so why on earth are they done?
So of course this can be counteracted by saying animal testing has founded many cures and vaccines. Animal testing is a jackpot.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:28
Nice to meet someone who actually feels as strongly as I do :)

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:29
What bothers me with animal testing... is that animals die when they are killed.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:29
What bothers me with animal testing... is that animals die when they are killed.

So do humans. :p

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:30
:vlol:

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:35
Nice to meet someone who actually feels as strongly as I do :)

right back atcha ^_^ :hug:

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:38
Do you know why that is? Most animals don't function like us. They are resistant to some of our allergies, and are allergic to things we arent. Their bodily and genetic tissues are not the same. Monkeys and pigs are our closest match in the animal kingdom. None of the tests tested on animals are accurate -- so why on earth are they done?
So of course this can be counteracted by saying animal testing has founded many cures and vaccines. Animal testing is a jackpot.

Monkeys and pigs can't be kept as easily as some of the other animals they use.
OK, so they're a jackpot. Like the Lottery. Should that be stopped?
Even if it's not accurate, it IS still better than nothing, and that's something you can't refute.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:39
I really don't get why some people value animals over people... :(

(I'll get ripped into for this) But I believe any life is equal, in my opinion humans shouldn't be using animals just for their own purposes. Surely they can test on other people who volunteer for testing.. ?

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:40
Monkeys and pigs can't be kept as easily as some of the other animals they use.
OK, so they're a jackpot. Like the Lottery. Should that be stopped?
Even if it's not accurate, it IS still better than nothing, and that's something you can't refute.

Of course they can :p They're just more expensive to keep and care for. And why not test human cells? That's not cruel, doesn't harm people and would be far more accurate.

Rai
02-12-10, 20:41
:tmb: I agree with all of that. And if it must happen:
- less animals need to be used
- suffering should be minimal or non-existant
- there should be a valid reason for testing

Totally agree with you on this :tmb:

Like what? Robots?

I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure I've read of alternatives.

Hayley has already pointed out that animals don't function in the same way as we do, so what effects them may not be the same to us. So how reliable is animal testing anyway? It's pot luck if you ask me.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:41
(I'll get ripped into for this) But I believe any life is equal, in my opinion humans shouldn't be using animals just for their own purposes. Surely they can test on other people who volunteer for testing.. ?

I believe they already do, but there isn't that many people willing to risk their life with a drug and get some money for it. :p


Of course they can :p They're just more expensive to keep and care for. And why not test human cells? That's not cruel, doesn't harm people and would be far more accurate.

Exactly. If they would be more expensive, why not put that money towards giving the rats and mice and the other animals a better life during testing? :p

xb4b1x
02-12-10, 20:41
I'm in favor of animal testing for medical things (vaccines, treatments, etc.) which will ultimately be used to save lives. I'm not in favor of animal testing for cosmetic products or procedures. For example, just because people are stupid enough to willingly inject the most deadly toxin on the planet into their faces just to look younger, that's not a compelling reason to me to kill animals testing it. On the other hand, if it's a cure for a deadly disease, then I think animal testing is necessary because the people didn't choose to get sick and they need the cure in order to survive.

+1

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:42
Totally agree with you on this :tmb:



I don't know, I'm not a scientist, but I'm sure I've read of alternatives.

Hayley has already pointed out that animals don't function in the same way as we do, so what effects them may not be the same to us. So how reliable is animal testing anyway? It's pot luck if you ask me.

you go gurl :ohn:

There is an alternative -- testing on human cells, which I just suggested to Dan. Thinks its called vivo? vitro? testing :p Can't remember the exact term.

Tonyrobinson
02-12-10, 20:43
This is going to be my only comment but hey I'm all for make up if it makes animals look Pretty I mean look at the job it done on this pig.

http://www.warriors.co.uk/images/news/web_610_jo_brand.jpg

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:43
you go gurl :ohn:

There is an alternative -- testing on human cells, which I just suggested to Dan. Thinks its called vivo? vitro? testing :p Can't remember the exact term.

In Vitro?

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:44
@Ward Dragon But as Haley pointed out, what happens if people find a cure to cancer on mice, but kills humans cells. We really don't know what medicines will do to us if we test them on animals, so a pointless procedure IMO. :(

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:44
Hayley has already pointed out that animals don't function in the same way as we do, so what effects them may not be the same to us. So how reliable is animal testing anyway? It's pot luck if you ask me.

This is how they do it.

Develop product X. Test it on animals. When it seems that the animals are not suffering from any (too many) side effects, they pay test humans. Animals are closer to us than anything else...

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:45
@Ward Dragon But as Haley pointed out, what happens if people find a cure to cancer on mice, but kills humans cells. We really don't know what medicines will do to us if we test them on animals, so a pointless procedure IMO. :(

It's not pointless. Quite a fair few lives have been saved by animal testing. Far from pointless.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:46
In Vitro?

dunno, whatever testing human cells in petri dishes is called :p

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:46
@Ward Dragon But as Haley pointed out, what happens if people find a cure to cancer on mice, but kills humans cells. We really don't know what medicines will do to us if we test them on animals, so a pointless procedure IMO. :(

Chances for that are significantly lower, if it's been tested on various animals beforehand.
Therefore; Not pointless.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:47
dunno, whatever testing human cells in petri dishes is called :p

In Vitro, I'd be guessing. It's what they use for PGD.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:47
But the point remains. :) Animals don't work the same as humans.

robm_2007
02-12-10, 20:48
Depends what they are testing. If it's things that don't kill the animals or physical harm them (thats if its vaccines; im not for cosmetic testings on animals, thats just stupid), then i think some things can be okay. Perhaps we wouldnt have as many medicines that cure both humans or animals, if it wasnt for animal testings, but i dont know anything on this subject.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:48
But the point remains. :) Animals don't work the same as humans.

Maybe not. But the procedure is still far from pointless.

Catapharact
02-12-10, 20:50
@Ward Dragon But as Haley pointed out, what happens if people find a cure to cancer on mice, but kills humans cells. We really don't know what medicines will do to us if we test them on animals, so a pointless procedure IMO. :(

Hayley obviously doesn't knows the fact that Humans and Mice both have the same four letter encoded DNA. Infact there is only a 2.5% difference between the genetic makeup of a human and a mouse. Its the same with Pigs (and why sometimes Pig heart valves were used in transplant purposes.)

If she did her reading, she might actually know this stuff beforehand.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:50
Thats debatable.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:51
Depends what they are testing. If it's things that don't kill the animals or physical harm them, then i think some things can be okay.

Sooo... You think we should only test animals, if we know it has no side effects and is completely safe for them?

AmericanAssassin
02-12-10, 20:51
I don't love the idea of animal testing, but at the same time I'm going to have to say I'm for it. I mean, they use it to try to better the lives of human beings; to cure sickness and things like that. Honestly, I can't see how anybody could be against it, but that's just me. People can talk about "alternatives" all they want, but who knows if it would be as effective. Animal testing has already taught scientists so much and made so many lives easier. I don't see any reason to change that.

Catapharact
02-12-10, 20:52
Thats debatable.

Its fact:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2352-just-25-of-dna-turns-mice-into-men.html

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans. The new estimate is based on the comparison of mouse chromosome 16 with human DNA. Previous estimates had suggested mouse-human differences as high as 15 per cent.

robm_2007
02-12-10, 20:52
Sooo... You think we should only test animals, if we know it has no side effects and is completely safe for them?

i edited my post; although imm not sure if its corrected state is any sufficent of an answer for you.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 20:53
Hayley obviously doesn't knows the fact that Humans and Mice both have the same four letter encoded DNA. Infact there is only a 2.5% difference between the genetic makeup of a human and a mouse. Its the same with Pigs (and why sometimes Pig heart valves were used in transplant purposes.)

If she did her reading, she might actually know this stuff beforehand.

Well, technically, that doesn't matter. If a drug is relatively safe for a mouse, it could still be fatal to a human.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:53
Hayley obviously doesn't knows the fact that Humans and Mice both have the same four letter encoded DNA. Infact there is only a 2.5% difference between the genetic makeup of a human and a mouse. Its the same with Pigs (and why sometimes Pig heart valves were used in transplant purposes.)

If she did her reading, she might actually know this stuff beforehand.

Are you for real ? :pi:
I've just finished the animal testing side of my course, so I'm relaying what I've learnt.

@Lara's Home -- exactly! Like for instance, cyanide kills mice --a bit of cress or apple pips is lethal. Harmless to us.

Catapharact
02-12-10, 20:54
Well, technically, that doesn't matter. If a drug is relatively safe for a mouse, it could still be fatal to a human.

Actually, technically, its most likely SAFE for humans if the drugs show little to no side effect in mice because of their relative similar genetic makeup. But to further make sure that the drug isn't a problem for humans, the drugs are then tested on human subjects during clinical trials.


Are you for real ? :pi:
I've just finished the animal testing side of my course, so I'm relaying what I've learnt.



Then I have to say that you should ask for your money back ;). You are getting ripped off from your collage.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:55
Are you for real ? :pi:
I've just finished the animal testing side of my course, so I'm relaying what I've learnt.

@Lara's Home -- exactly! Like for instance, cyanide kills mice --a bit of cress or apple pips is lethal. Harmless to us.

Cyanide isn't harmless to us. It kills us too. :p

Mad Tony
02-12-10, 20:55
@Lara's Home -- exactly! Like for instance, cyanide kills mice --a bit of cress or apple pips is lethal. Harmless to us.Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't cyanide kill humans too?

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:56
Cyanide isn't harmless to us. It kills us too. :p

I meant to say in small doses -- like a punnet of cress :p

Catapharact
02-12-10, 20:56
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't cyanide kill humans too?

No you are not wrong :vlol:. Ah don't you just love animal bonkers?

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 20:57
I meant to say in small doses -- like a punnet of cress :p

No, you said cyanide, which is a toxic substance. Which kills us as well as mice. And I don't know of any measurements with spelling close to cyanide. :p

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 20:57
Are you for real ? :pi:
I've just finished the animal testing side of my course, so I'm relaying what I've learnt.

@Lara's Home -- exactly! Like for instance, cyanide kills mice --a bit of cress or apple pips is lethal. Harmless to us.

Cyanide kills people too. We're a lot bigger than mice, so it takes more than an apple seed to kill us.

When scientists do testing on mice, I'm sure they take the weight difference into consideration and give the mice an equivalent dosage for their size.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 20:57
No you are not wrong :vlol:. Ah don't you just love animal bonkers?

There's no need to be so rude.

@Jenni -- that's true... still, the point I was trying to make it humans are different to animals, which are why medical trails are pot luck.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 20:59
My thoughts...

Listen this was just a question or whether people agreed, I don't really want people to go into scientific explanations about it. I wanted it as a sort of moral question...

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:00
The ends justify the means. Sacrifices have been made in the past for science and without those sacrifices we wouldn't be half as knowlegable as we are now.

What people do not understand is that most of the animals aren't actually self aware. They don't have any understanding of their own being other than survival instinct. We as humans do, so do apes, elephants and dolphins. I am against using self aware animals but though it may be cold I am for non self aware animals being tested as I believe the risk is worth the reward.

Please don't think less of me :)

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 21:00
@Jenni -- that's true... still, the point I was trying to make it humans are different to animals, which are why medical trails are pot luck.

But animals are close enough to humans that a lot of problems can be caught and solved before moving on to human testing. If they didn't do animal testing first, then a lot more people would die during the human testing phase.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:00
My thoughts...

Listen this was just a question or whether people agreed, I don't really want people to go into scientific explanations about it. I wanted it as a sort of moral question...

This always happens :hug: Sometimes scientific explanations help back up an argument.

@Jenni -- well all that is saying is that they make the human trails slightly less dangerous -- they're still not accurate. *shrugs* At the end of the day, animal testing has enabled us to discovered miraculous cures, but then again its proved fatal in some situations. What I think most peope agree on is that if it MUST happen, if human cell experiments cant happen, expense wise, then less animals should be used, suffering should be minimal or non-existant and the cause should be a genuine one.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:01
I know. :) But still :vlol:

^3

Self aware animals..? Are you implying there are animals that don't know of their own existence..?

Lara's home
02-12-10, 21:01
Actually, technically, its most likely SAFE for humans if the drugs show little to no side effect in mice because of their relative similar genetic makeup. But to further make sure that the drug isn't a problem for humans, the drugs are then tested on human subjects during clinical trials.

Which is my point. As I've stated earlier, it's a lot safer to test it on animals with a similar genetical coding as us, but it needs to be perfected with human subjects in the end.
So technically, if a drug is safe on a mouse, it could prove to be fatal to a human. That 2,5 % difference between Mice and Human DNA is still a 2,5 differnce.

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:02
There's no need to be so rude.

@Jenni -- that's true... still, the point I was trying to make it humans are different to animals, which are why medical trails are pot luck.

Would you rather have potentially dangerous drugs tested on humans? Or stopped entirely? Either way, you'll end up with more human deaths, all to get a better idea of what happens. That isn't really right...

Squibbly
02-12-10, 21:03
Against testing for cosmetic reasons, but for medical purposes I am not. I adore animals, truly, but I'm more concerned with my own species' suffering.

I find it a bit disturbing that many in here are more distressed with this than the torture too many of our own kind face every day.

I think animal testing for important reasons is a necessary evil. The issue is that as a species, it is mandatory that we do these kinds of tests to continue our existence.

If we had a problem with killing animals for the betterment of our species from the get-go, we'd all be naked, hungry and sick.


http://i819.photobucket.com/albums/zz117/Squibbly/Random%20junk/2e1559c9.gif

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:03
But the more we tackle diseases etc, the more problems from over population etc. :/

Catapharact
02-12-10, 21:05
Which is my point. As I've stated earlier, it's a lot safer to test it on animals with a similar genetical coding as us, but it needs to be perfected with human subjects in the end.
So technically, if a drug is safe on a mouse, it could prove to be fatal to a human. That 2,5 % difference between Mice and Human DNA is still a 2,5 differnce.

You are contradicting yourself (or you are not phrasing your argument right.)

If its proven during the animal phase testing on mice, then there is LESS chance of fatality in human subjects. Yes there is a 2.5 percent deviation in genetic makeup; Which is why the drugs are then placed out for clinical trials in HUMAN volunteers. But before that can be done, we have to make sure that there is little risk involved for HUMAN volunteers.

That is why they have to test it on mice first.

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:05
I know. :) But still :vlol:

^3

Self aware animals..? Are you implying there are animals that don't know of their own existence..?

I'm not implying it, it is a fact. Most animals do not recognise there own reflection, image, voice or family. They are unaware of their individuality.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:06
Like..?

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 21:06
But the more we tackle diseases etc, the more problems from over population etc. :/

Actually, the more "developed" countries have relatively low birthrates and their populations for the most part would be declining if it wasn't for immigration. Once the standard of living is raised across the entire world, the birthrate will naturally decline.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 21:06
But the more we tackle diseases etc, the more problems from over population etc. :/

Not a problem in Europe.. It's opposite here, really.
And overpopulation is a problem that fixes itself. Whtether it is diseases or lack of food.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:07
I'm not implying it, it is a fact. Most animals do not recognise there own reflection, image, voice or family. They are unaware of there individuality.

Of course they do!

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:08
Animals most strongest sense is of their family/pack

robm_2007
02-12-10, 21:09
I'm not implying it, it is a fact. Most animals do not recognise there own reflection, image, voice or family. They are unaware of their individuality.

is that like when a dog sees it's reflection, and thinks theres a second dog?

Lara's home
02-12-10, 21:09
You are contradicting yourself (or you are not phrasing your argument right.)

If its proven during the animal phase testing on mice, then there is LESS chance of fatality in human subjects. Yes there is a 2.5 percent deviation in genetic makeup; Which is why the drugs are then placed out for clinical trials in HUMAN volunteers. But before that can be done, we have to make sure that there is little risk involved for HUMAN volunteers.

That is why they have to test it on mice first.
What I am saying is that a human could still die, even if it's perfected on a mouse. Yes, it's A LOT safer to test it on the animals first, but it's still a small (significantly decreased) chance that the Human DNA is not capable of processing the drug properly.
I do not believe I am contradicting myself, though my phrasing could and probably can be better.

Underworld2008
02-12-10, 21:10
Animal testing is wrong wrong WRONG in my eyes.

I NEVER use any products used on Animals, and I never will.

robm_2007
02-12-10, 21:11
Animal testing is wrong wrong WRONG in my eyes.

I NEVER use any products used on Animals, and I never will.

not even medicinal ones?

Catapharact
02-12-10, 21:11
What I am saying is that a human could still die, even if it's perfected on a mouse. Yes, it's A LOT safer to test it on the animals first, but it's still a small (significantly decreased) chance that the Human DNA is not capable of processing the drug properly.

I don't know about you... But if I were going to volunteer for a clinical trial of a drug, I would wanna make sure that there is little chance involved that the drug in question will kill me.

Unless offcourse you happen to be the type of person who likes to sky dive without a parachute on since there is a slight chance that you will hit the ground and still live ;).

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:12
Animal testing is wrong wrong WRONG in my eyes.

I NEVER use any products used on Animals, and I never will.

:hug: xxxx

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:12
Like..?

Take your pick.

Zebras, Lions, Meerkats, Dogs, Cats, Birds.

All show little signs of self awareness. If you have a pet at home try putting a distincting bandana or piece of fabricover them and placing them in front of a mirror. They will treat the reflection as a separate entity.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:13
Animal testing is wrong wrong WRONG in my eyes.

I NEVER use any products used on Animals, and I never will.

:tmb:


And there are other cures to certain ailments. ;)

Take your pick.

Zebras, Lions, Meerkats, Dogs, Cats, Birds.

All show little signs of self awareness. If you have a pet at home try putting a distincting bandana or piece of fabricover them and placing them in front of a mirror. They will treat the reflection as a separate entity.

All those animals show signs of family awareness etc.

Squibbly
02-12-10, 21:14
I think most don't realise how many important things are out there because of animal testing. People who say they've NEVER used a product that has been tested on animals more than likely have. Antibiotics for example.

xb4b1x
02-12-10, 21:15
:tmb:


And there are other cures to certain ailments. ;)



All those animals show signs of family awareness etc.

What like? Herbal tea? Lol

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:16
I'm all for natural cures. I don't go to the doctor unless there's something seriously wrong with me. :)

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:17
I think many don't realise how many important things are out there because of animal testing. People who say they've NEVER used a product that has been tested on animals more than likely have. Antibiotics for example.

To say you never had used a product tested on animals would be foolish -- because as you said, many are tested on them. I take many pills each day -- which I resent, but if I didnt take them I'd die. One of them even has pig fat in and I'm vegetarian, and it makes me feel like a massive hypocrite.

I do the best I can though.

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:17
:tmb:


And there are other cures to certain ailments. ;)



All those animals show signs of family awareness etc.

Whoops my I'm on my iPod so the typing is iffy.

I meant images/voice/reflection of themselves or their family.


Sorry again for the confusion ;)

Lara's home
02-12-10, 21:17
I don't know about you... But if I were going to volunteer for a clinical trial of a drug, I would wanna make sure that there is little chance involved that the drug in question will kill me.

Unless offcourse you happen to be the type of person who likes to sky dive without a parachute on since there is a slight chance that you will hit the ground and still live ;).
I am not against animal testing (regarding medical testing). All that I am saying is that no matter how similar our DNA can be to other species, it's still a tiny bit of difference between us. This difference could alter the whole way the drug acts, or we react to it.

...Although skydiving without a pracahute isn't sooo bad. At least it wont be painful if I end up getting pwnt.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:19
To say you never had used a product tested on animals would be foolish -- because as you said, many are tested on them. I take many pills each day -- which I resent, but if I didnt take them I'd die. One of them even has pig fat in and I'm vegetarian, and it makes me feel like a massive hypocrite.

I do the best I can though.

Likewise :hug: My doctor is trying to give me alternative medcation however 'cause he knows how against I am of animal testing.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:21
Likewise :hug: My doctor is trying to give me alternative medcation however 'cause he knows how against I am of animal testing.

:hug: It sucks :( xxx

Squibbly
02-12-10, 21:22
Well, if you guys require these pills for your survival, then surely you must appreciate medical testing on animals in some form? I mean, otherwise you'd be dead.

My original post here has my views but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Necessary evil, anyway.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:25
:hug: It sucks :( xxx

I know. The likely option is not to take them, I'm not that much of an activist.

Well, if you guys require these pills for your survival, then surely you must appreciate medical testing on animals in some form? I mean, otherwise you'd be dead.

My original post here has my views but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Necessary evil, anyway.

I don't apreciate it, I take them because I have to. I feel like a massive hypocrite when I do.
I'm just curious (I'm anaemic) for iron pills do you imagine they're just engineered pills..? Without anything to do with animals..? :)

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:27
Well, if you guys require these pills for your survival, then surely you must appreciate medical testing on animals in some form? I mean, otherwise you'd be dead.

My original post here has my views but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Necessary evil, anyway.

Exactly isn't that circular logic?

To hate the very thing that keeps us alive and well. Without animal testing the lifespan of the average human would be about 50 years tops. As soon as we got the flu we'd all be wiped out.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:28
Well, if you guys require these pills for your survival, then surely you must appreciate medical testing on animals in some form? I mean, otherwise you'd be dead.

My original post here has my views but I think it got lost in the shuffle.

Necessary evil, anyway.

No not really :( Because we could test on human cells. I see your point though.

I know. The likely option is not to take them, I'm not that much of an activist.

I couldn't not take them :( I mean, theyre keeping me alive so I can rescue animals.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:28
Maybe the human race should be wiped out..? When you think of it, the human race is the biggest skourge to walk the earth.

I couldn't not take them :( I mean, theyre keeping me alive so I can rescue animals.

:hug:

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:31
I'm just curious (I'm anaemic) for iron pills do you imagine they're just engineered pills..? Without anything to do with animals..? :)

Anyone..? :)

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:32
woa you're anaemic too? *takes this to vm's*

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:32
Maybe the human race should be wiped out..? When you think of it, the human race is the biggest skourge to walk the earth.



So you'd have everyone you know and love wiped out just because we are a scourge?

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:33
Do you really expect me to answer that properly..? Of course I don't want anything to happen to my loved ones, but the better thing for the Earth would be if the human race is wiped out. We're going about it the right way as well.

woa you're anaemic too? *takes this to vm's*

:eek: You joking..? And vms..? :)

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:35
Maybe the human race should be wiped out..? When you think of it, the human race is the biggest skourge to walk the earth.



:hug:

I fail to see how we are the biggest scourge to walk the earth.

We are the most advanced of any species in both intellect and civilisation. Our DNA is 99% identicle to chimpanzees so I can only assume we and they made it this far because we evolved with the times not because we were the scourge of the earth. :confused:

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 21:38
:eek: You joking..? And vms..? :)

Visotor messages ^_^ Check ya profile gurl :ohn:

I fail to see how we are the biggest scourge to walk the earth.

We are the most advanced of any species in both intellect and civilisation. Our DNA is 99% identicle to chimpanzees so I can only assume we and they made it this far because we evolved with the times not because we were the scourge of the earth. :confused:

We've polluted the planet, caused some animal species to become extinct, etc. Its survival of the fittest in its most successful form, yet it makes us tyrants.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:40
We're not advanced. We're destroying our planet, and we don't know how to stop it indefinitely...

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:41
We're not advanced. We're destroying our planet, and we don't know how to stop it indefinitely...

We ARE advanced. Look at what we've built. What we've done. I fail to see animals replicating the same feats.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:43
I fail to see animals polluting the world the way we are either...

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:46
I fail to see animals polluting the world the way we are either...

Ah well...
Technically, they do pollute a fair bit as well. Cows and dogs being major ones, I believe.

moodydog
02-12-10, 21:46
I agree with animal testing for the benefits of medicine and health and only that. Though, only if it is presumed 'safe' to test on the animals. Like Hayley said, test them on human cells first.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:47
Ah well...
Technically, they do pollute a fair bit as well. Cows and dogs being major ones, I believe.

By passing wind. :rolleyes:

And I doubt that will destory the O-Zone layer that much.

larson n natla
02-12-10, 21:48
I'm astonished by how out of touch we have become with reality. Survival of the fittest doesn't make us tyrants the sole purpose of any animals is to survive and for this we will do anything. When you think or the poor monkey being tested do you stop to think that the monkey would have beaten to death an other monkey not familiar to it's group. Hayley I appreciate your want to help animals and I can see your point about pollution and damage done by humans, but this is all part of progress. I don't know about you but I enjoy waking up in the morning knowing I didn't have to sleep in a huddle for warmth and go hunting with my family for breakfast.

Anyway I'm really offtopic and really tired. Sorry for any inconvinience goodnight. :)

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:48
By passing wind. :rolleyes:

And I doubt that will destory the O-Zone layer that much.

All those cows farting methane adds up.

Also...

Methane is a relatively potent greenhouse gas. Compared with carbon dioxide, it has a high global warming potential of 72 (calculated over a period of 20 years) or 25 (for a time period of 100 years).[2] It has a net lifetime of about 10 years,[3] and is primarily removed by reaction with hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere, producing carbon dioxide and water.
Methane also affects the degradation of the ozone layer

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:49
All those cars, planes, fossil fuels, ice caps etc add up as well...

lara c. fan
02-12-10, 21:50
All those cars, planes, fossil fuels, ice caps etc add up as well...

Ice caps... Most ice is underwater, and takes up more room than water. So sea levels wouldn't change all that much.
And, well, global warming is natural. We just add to the process a tiny bit.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 21:51
By passing wind. :rolleyes:

And I doubt that will destory the O-Zone layer that much.

Co2 protects / Strengthens the Ozon layer.
Ice caps... Most ice is underwater, and takes up more room than water. So sea levels wouldn't change all that much.


Do you know how fatal the rising of waterlevens can be?
Most ice is in fact on top of the water/surace/land.

FloTheMachine
02-12-10, 21:53
Ice caps... Most ice is underwater, and takes up more room than water. So sea levels wouldn't change all that much.
And, well, global warming is natural. We just add to the process a tiny bit.

Of course it will, why is there global flooding now..?

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 21:56
Do you know how fatal the rising of waterlevens can be?
Most ice is in fact on top of the water.

For Antarctica, yeah, the ice is sitting on top of land. But for the north pole the ice is floating in the water. Ice is less dense than water so when it floats, it displaces an amount of water equal to its mass. The part of the iceberg beneath the surface of the water is the same volume as the entire iceberg would be if it melted. The water level shouldn't change at all from the melting of this ice. The only difference in water level would come from melted ice that isn't already in the water, for example the ice sitting on top of Antarctica. I actually can't remember hearing about that too much (most news articles tend to focus on the north pole) so I'm curious now if the Antarctic ice is melting too.

Sir Croft
02-12-10, 22:00
For animal testing.

Most stereotypes usually point to the fact that animal testing is done for the purpose of commercialized cosmetic products; But the truth of the matter is that clinical trials for most life saving vaccines (for diseases like Polio, Hep B, etc.) and procedures to reverse crippling conditions like MS, etc. needed live test subjects to gauge their effectiveness... And I am sorry but I am, willing to see a lab rat go through the needed pain if it means that we can save human lives.

This.

Lara's home
02-12-10, 22:03
For Antarctica, yeah, the ice is sitting on top of land. But for the north pole the ice is floating in the water. Ice is less dense than water so when it floats, it displaces an amount of water equal to its mass. The part of the iceberg beneath the surface of the water is the same volume as the entire iceberg would be if it melted. The water level shouldn't change at all from the melting of this ice. The only difference in water level would come from melted ice that isn't already in the water, for example the ice sitting on top of Antarctica. I actually can't remember hearing about that too much (most news articles tend to focus on the north pole) so I'm curious now if the Antarctic ice is melting too.

What happens when ice melts? We get less ice, of course. What colour is the ocean? What colour is ice?
A large percentage (can't remember what) of light/energy is being reflected by the ice (white colour and all, you know), and the less ice we have, the less energy will be reflected. That energy will instead be stored in the water, causing it to heat up and contribute further to more ice melting, and the ocean will get even hotter (evil circle).
This is why the coast is hotter than the desert at night, because water stores the energy much longer than sand. The energy will be released into the air as heat. Heat affects the snow/ice on land, and it eventually pours into the ocean, in form of water.

The water level rises -> more water is covering the planet -> More energy is stored -> More Ice melts -> And so on.

Love2Raid
02-12-10, 22:17
Iīm for animal testing if there are no reliable alternatives. The most interesting alternative is probably some sort of īlab chipī that is being created with nanotechnology. Not sure how it all works, but I read about it some time ago.

By the way, animals are not just needed to test medications and other things on, they are also used in scientific research. Pigs are often used in cardiovascular research (not pretty, trust me), mice in genetics research etc. Iīm actually surprised that nobody who is against testing on animals thought of those poor mice in the thread about that telomerase study? The researches made one group of mice age ridiculously fast (and die) and caused cancer in the other group. :confused:

Ward Dragon
02-12-10, 22:18
What happens when ice melts? We get less ice, of course. What colour is the ocean? What colour is ice?
A large percentage (can't remember what) of light/energy is being reflected by the ice (white colour and all, you know), and the less ice we have, the less energy will be reflected. That energy will instead be stored in the water, causing it to heat up and contribute further to more ice melting, and the ocean will get even hotter (evil circle).
This is why the coast is hotter than the desert at night, because water stores the energy much longer than sand. The energy will be released into the air as heat. Heat affects the snow/ice on land, and it eventually pours into the ocean, in form of water.

The water level rises -> more water is covering the planet -> More energy is stored -> More Ice melts -> And so on.

Ah, I thought you were getting at rising water levels swamping coastal cities. Didn't realize you were referring to the reflectivity of the planet's surface. That's a good point :)

I was busy looking up Antarctica and I found an article on NASA's website (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html). Basically it sounds like the vast majority of Antarctic ice is on a single large land mass on East Antarctica and it's relatively stable. However West Antarctica is more like a series of small islands covered in ice and there's a lot of movement going on there with glaciers disintegrating and whatnot. NASA says there's enough ice in that area to raise water levels a few meters if it all melted into the ocean.

I'm still inclined to wait and see where this goes. The Mesozoic Era was warm enough that the planet didn't have ice caps at all and that was an era with an extremely large diversity of life. Even looking at the planet as it is now, there is so much more life at the equator compared to the poles. Warmth is good for life. I think global warming is a natural process which will increase the diversity of life overall.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 22:19
Iīm for animal testing if there are no reliable alternatives. The most interesting alternative is probably some sort of īlab chipī that is being created with nanotechnology. Not sure how it all works, but I read about it some time ago.

By the way, animals are not just needed to test medications and other things on, they are also used in scientific research. Pigs are often used in cardiovascular research (not pretty, trust me), mice in genetics research etc. Iīm actually surprised that nobody who is against testing on animals thought of those poor mice in the thread about that telomerase study? The researches made one group of mice age ridiculously fast (and die) and caused cancer in the other group. :confused:

I did :( Animals are used in military testing too -- weapons and such.

Love2Raid
02-12-10, 22:21
I did :( Animals are used in military testing too -- weapons and such.
You posted in that thread several times but you didnīt mention it once. I was actually waiting for it to come, but you disappointed me!

sandygrimm
02-12-10, 22:22
I'm in a mix here. yes and no.
Yes to rats, pigs, salamanders, bugs, insects, monkeys. those are suitable.

We can't test all on humans straight , where would we be if not for animal testing.
it's sad but true. We gotta accept some things to make our lives better and hope to improve it.

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 22:23
You posted in that thread several times but you didnīt mention it once. I was actually waiting for it to come, but you disappointed me!

Sorry :( My opinions get jumped on a lot, so I'm hesitant to reply these days. I could go back to the thread and rectify it if you want ?

Lara's home
02-12-10, 22:27
I'm still inclined to wait and see where this goes. The Mesozoic Era was warm enough that the planet didn't have ice caps at all and that was an era with an extremely large diversity of life. Even looking at the planet as it is now, there is so much more life at the equator compared to the poles. Warmth is good for life. I think global warming is a natural process which will increase the diversity of life overall.
Yup, it's a natural process (well, we are at least very sure that it is). We are, however, very likely speeding up the process quite a bit, and a lot of spieces will suffer for it, but hey, natural selection.
Global warming will kill a lot of animals around the equator, I think. For example, I own an aquarium. In it, I have fish (well, duh:p). Some of them can handle 5 + - degrees celcius. Discus, However, can not. They are very particular about their temperatur and would suffer greatly if the tempature would increase by anything.

Besides, one theory is that the streams (the gulf-stream, for example) is powered by salt poles. The gulf-stream is what keeps much of europe warm. If ice melts, an increased amount of fresh water will be in the ocean, and diffusion (particles/molecules spreading as much as possible) can cause the salt poles to disappear or because too weak. Should that happen, Europe would likely enter a new ice age. That would kill off almost a whole continent.

However, as both you and I said, it's a natural process. It has, and will happen again, whether we contribute to it or not.

Love2Raid
02-12-10, 22:29
Sorry :( My opinions get jumped on a lot, so I'm hesitant to reply these days. I could go back to the thread and rectify it if you want ?
Girl! Of course not! :p

I donīt really mind, itīs just that you lose credibility as a person when you are not consistently standing up for the cause that you obviously so firmly believe in. Donīt worry about what others think of your opinions! :D

Sorry for the O/T. :o

Uzi master
02-12-10, 22:29
against, test it on willing subjects not helpless animals. Before anyone labels me hippie, how am I supposed to trust what happens to a rabbit would happen in a human?

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 22:36
Girl! Of course not! :p

I donīt really mind, itīs just that you lose credibility as a person when you are not consistently standing up for the cause that you obviously so firmly believe in. Donīt worry about what others think of your opinions! :D

Sorry for the O/T. :o

I was thinking about the mice though, I swear to God I was:hug: And I wont worry about being verbally attacked for posting my opinions anymore -- I thought no one cared :o I'mma up my game :ohn: xxxxxxxxx

Catapharact
02-12-10, 22:36
Iīm for animal testing if there are no reliable alternatives. The most interesting alternative is probably some sort of īlab chipī that is being created with nanotechnology. Not sure how it all works, but I read about it some time ago.

What you are referring to is called a "bio-chip." And if you have indeed read about it, then you would know that its not designed to be an alternative to testing; It only gauges the accuracy of diagnosis and readings ON tests on animals and humans alike.

By the way, animals are not just needed to test medications and other things on, they are also used in scientific research. Pigs are often used in cardiovascular research (not pretty, trust me), mice in genetics research etc. Iīm actually surprised that nobody who is against testing on animals thought of those poor mice in the thread about that telomerase study? The researches made one group of mice age ridiculously fast (and die) and caused cancer in the other group. :confused:

You do realize you are only re-enforcing the "for" argument for animal testing... right ;)? I would rather have this all done on an animal first rather then a volunteer.

StefanJ94
02-12-10, 22:37
Against for both cosmetics and medicine :)

xXhayleyroxXx
02-12-10, 22:39
Against for both cosmetics and medicine :)

:hug: xxx

SkyPuppy
02-12-10, 22:42
HIGHYLY against it. it's disgusting...

Love2Raid
02-12-10, 22:44
What you are referring to is called a "bio-chip." And if you have indeed read about it, then you would know that its not designed to be an alternative to testing; It only gauges the accuracy of diagnosis and readings ON tests on animals and humans alike.



You do realize you are only re-enforcing the "for" argument for animal testing... right ;)? I would rather have this all done on an animal first rather then a volunteer.
When I read it, it seemed like it could be an alternative in certain cases. I donīt know, it could be that Wikipedia says otherwise.

Yes I do, that was the whole point. :)

Aphrodite22
02-12-10, 23:16
I think it's because a lot of people realize there are benefits to it, such as helping to cure horrible diseases.

IMO all prescripted drugs, medicines etc scientifics have created have side effects and just introduce chemicals into ur body that end up leaving u more sick than before...

Alpharaider47
02-12-10, 23:18
IMO all prescripted drugs, medicines etc scientifics have created have side effects and just introduce chemicals into ur body that end up leaving u more sick than before...

Well it depends really, as I understand it, some vaccines stimulate your body to develop a natural immunity to things. That wouldn't leave you sicker than before if all worked like it was supposed to.

StefanJ94
02-12-10, 23:19
:hug: xxx
:hug: for you too hun xxxx :)

HIGHYLY against it. it's disgusting...
and inhumane :hug: :)

Archetype
02-12-10, 23:24
For medical purposes sure, but for cosmetics... no way.

Love2Raid
02-12-10, 23:33
IMO all prescripted drugs, medicines etc scientifics have created have side effects and just introduce chemicals into ur body that end up leaving u more sick than before...
:eek:

Iīm afraid you are terribly misinformed!

Ikas90
03-12-10, 01:56
Nah, they should test on humans, so that if something goes wrong, at least it will be a human that dies, not an animal. :)

LOL :)

QiX
03-12-10, 02:17
There are three reasons why scientists should be using lawyers for experiments now, instead of guinea pigs.

1. It seems that there are now more lawyers in the world than there are guinea pigs.

2. Guinea pigs are too easy to form an emotional bond with.

3. There are some things that guinea pigs simply will not do.

Alpharaider47
03-12-10, 02:37
There are three reasons why scientists should be using lawyers for experiments now, instead of guinea pigs.

1. It seems that there are now more lawyers in the world than there are guinea pigs.

2. Guinea pigs are too easy to form an emotional bond with.

3. There are some things that guinea pigs simply will not do.

Ok I could go for that :p

Paddy
03-12-10, 02:39
Highly against it, inhumane as many have said.
I'd rather they experimented on rapists and murderers as opposed to innocent animals.

Agreed.

Tommy123
03-12-10, 02:54
it depends

Andyroo
03-12-10, 03:00
I'd rather they experimented on rapists and murderers as opposed to innocent animals.

Yep. They can pay back their debt to society.

They'd get better results too. (as they're 'human')

CPETE
03-12-10, 03:19
I do research in a biochemistry lab, and some of the people do testing on mice. If you aren't educated in science, it's easy to think animal testing is wrong. However, if you are educated in science then you know that a very large portion of our scientific knowledge comes from animal models like the mouse. Without animal testing we would be nowhere near where we are in medical science today. It's a necessary evil. Scientists also don't treat the mice badly. There are standards that must be applied to make things humane for them, and everyone has to be certified to work with lab animals. It's even called "sacrificing" instead of "killing" when the mice are killed. It's because they are being sacrificed for the good of mankind.

Paddy
03-12-10, 03:25
Sorry :( My opinions get jumped on a lot, so I'm hesitant to reply these days. I could go back to the thread and rectify it if you want ?

People who constantly jump on your opinions can just go suck it. I hate when people constantly do that just because they dont agree.

xXhayleyroxXx
03-12-10, 12:31
I do research in a biochemistry lab, and some of the people do testing on mice. If you aren't educated in science, it's easy to think animal testing is wrong. However, if you are educated in science then you know that a very large portion of our scientific knowledge comes from animal models like the mouse. Without animal testing we would be nowhere near where we are in medical science today. It's a necessary evil. Scientists also don't treat the mice badly. There are standards that must be applied to make things humane for them, and everyone has to be certified to work with lab animals. It's even called "sacrificing" instead of "killing" when the mice are killed. It's because they are being sacrificed for the good of mankind.

So you can honestly say each of the 5 freedoms was met with the mice?
What about freedom from suffering & pain? I can see that being a no no.

People who constantly jump on your opinions can just go suck it. I hate when people constantly do that just because they dont agree.


Thanks hun :hug: xxxxxxxx

Joely-Moley
03-12-10, 12:59
I'm really against cosmetic companies using animal testing. However if they think they can cure some horrible disease by testing on animals then I don't really have an issue with it.

igonge
03-12-10, 13:01
being given cocktails of drugs.

I'm sure I could find some humans for which this would be a pleasure.

TRfan23
03-12-10, 13:35
For.

Period.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 02:09
I do research in a biochemistry lab, and some of the people do testing on mice. If you aren't educated in science, it's easy to think animal testing is wrong. However, if you are educated in science then you know that a very large portion of our scientific knowledge comes from animal models like the mouse. Without animal testing we would be nowhere near where we are in medical science today. It's a necessary evil. Scientists also don't treat the mice badly. There are standards that must be applied to make things humane for them, and everyone has to be certified to work with lab animals. It's even called "sacrificing" instead of "killing" when the mice are killed. It's because they are being sacrificed for the good of mankind.I agree wholeheartedly for animal testing. Without such analysis we wouldn't have discovered remedies and cures for many life threatening ailments and diseases.

So you can honestly say each of the 5 freedoms was met with the mice?
What about freedom from suffering & pain? I can see that being a no no.
Are you saying that you'd rather left millions of people in pain and suffering due to no research done on the diseases just because we need to deny animal testing? :confused: I see that you'd care about the animal's suffering, but what about the people's suffering?

In an ideal world, no one would suffer. Not the humans nor the animals. But this is the reality world, where resources are limited and time is constraint and short. Something has to go.

Let's put it like this. Let's say your close family (e.g. your mother) has fallen sick of a rare disease. No doctor knows the cure and they wanted to do researches and analysis but they were prohibited by the law. As such, your close family suffered for a long time and passed away. Do you want such a thing to happen?


Again, I'm all for animal testing.



For medical purposes sure, but for cosmetics... no way.Okay, this I agree. You wanna test for make-up, do it on human volunteers. Cosmetics are not as crucial as the cure for many sickness.

Paddy
04-12-10, 04:29
I can understand why people are for animal testing tbh.
I dont agree with it all but I can understand the reasons.

TRLegendLuver
04-12-10, 05:46
This is a stupid thread. Being for it is just ridiculous and I'm tired of ridiculous threads. :pi:

Ikas90
04-12-10, 06:02
I want to know what's so difficult about testing on people like rapists and murderers.

Are rapists and murderers somehow of higher value than animals?

Bullethail
04-12-10, 06:08
Yes, provided it's done responsibly, humanely, and for a justifiable reason.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 06:12
I want to know what's so difficult about testing on people like rapists and murderers.

Are rapists and murderers somehow of higher value than animals?Ah, that's an interesting idea.

Rather than sending them to their death sentence, they could return a good service to human kind in a way. Although I bet some people would raise the issue about how it will not be humane to do test on them too.

cezy rockeru
04-12-10, 07:56
I'm 100% against.Poor animals shouldn't be used for testing products:mad:
...only if they would be used for medical stuff that help the people:)

NRO.
04-12-10, 08:04
I would say against, but after reading about Unit 731, I'm totally for animal testing.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 09:26
I would say against, but after reading about Unit 731, I'm totally for animal testing.The images were awful. How did you stumble on such a topic like that?

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 10:02
I would say against, but after reading about Unit 731, I'm totally for animal testing.

I would have said that would have made you see terrible it is... animals feel pain too.

@Shark-Blade -- I said before I'd rather they tested on human cells in a petri dish, which would be far more accurate and no pain or suffering would have to happen.I don't understand why they're not. And do you mean if my mother got such a disease (god forbid), animals would need to be tested in her name?

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 10:16
Only test on human cells in a petri dish? If only it was that simple.
The thing is, it's not.

I'm no doctor, maybe CPETE can explain better since he works in in a biochemistry lab, but here's the thing:


Lets say that a lab is developing a new drug to treat diabetes. The first step is hypothetical - they must justify why this drug may be effective in treating diabetes. Unfortunately, living systems are very hard to predict, especially when our understanding of them is incomplete. A drug that looks great on paper might be lethal when used on a live subject.

The second step is usually cell culture. The drug is tested in cells grown in a petri dish. It's a fairly accurate test of how a drug will work, but it's not perfect. Cells in a petri dish behave differently than they do in the body. That's why after successful testing in culture, new drugs must be tested in animals. There have been plenty of drugs that worked spectacularly in cell culture, but turned out to have serious side effects when used in animals. Finally, after successful animal tests, a drug will move on to limited trials in human volunteers.

Since the gap between use in cell cultures and use in living beings is so huge, we have to test in animals. The first reason is obvious - a drug that works in culture may end up being toxic to humans, which is an unacceptable risk.

The second reason is less obvious. A drug that works in culture may be perfectly safe to use in a human, but it might not actually work. While it doesn't present a direct risk to the subject, it may end up being fatal if the subject took the experimental treatment over a proven one. Say there's a new cancer treatment in development that works great in a petri dish, but when used in a human, it's safe but completely ineffective - and the subject dies from cancer because he took an ineffective experimental treatment when proven chemotherapy could have saved his life.

There are ethical issues regarding pain and treatment of animals, which is why researchers must work hand in hand with ethics boards and committees in order to make sure that their experiments don't cause unnecessary pain or distress. In the end, though, testing is 100% necessary - both to ensure safety of a new therapy and to ensure that there is at least a reasonable chance of success. Without animal testing, medicine would still be stuck in the late 1800's - we'd have little to none of the medicine (both everyday and life-saving) that we take for granted today.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 10:22
You argue that testing on human cells is not perfect -- and yet, neither is animal testing. You said cells out of our body behave differently in our body, but then again, animals are built differently.

If believing that animal testing of all kinds is wrong means I wouldn't be allowed medical treatment, and I wasn't allowed the pills I take. So be it, I'd rather die than support it. That's how strongly I feel.

A.JJ.G
04-12-10, 10:23
In my opinion it is the sickest way of torture to animals. Animals are meant to spend their lives free, not in a cage, daily being given cocktails of drugs.

This. I think animal testing is really sick. It's probably because I've grown up around a lot of animals - I couldn't imagine the kittens in my granny's shed (they actually stay there of their own choice, and usually come back when they grow up to have their own kittens) being test subjects in some sort of medical or cosmetic trial :( Just the image is enough to make me feel sick.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 10:28
You argue that testing on human cells is not perfect -- and yet, neither is animal testing. You said cells out of our body behave differently in our body, but then again, animals are built differently. Re-read my post. Animal testing is important as to ensure safety of a new therapy and to ensure that there is at least a reasonable chance of success before proceeding to test it on human volunteer subjects.

If believing that animal testing of all kinds is wrong means I wouldn't be allowed medical treatment, and I wasn't allowed the pills I take. So be it, I'd rather die than support it. That's how strongly I feel.Good for you. In the mean time, animal testing will continue to go on for the advancement of human kind's medication and other remedies. :)

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 10:41
*shrugs* whatever really, believe what you want.

Some facts for you:

*Over half of all new medications the FDA approved in a decade were recalled or relabeled because of side effects not observed in animal experiments.
* Roughly 6 percent of animals used for animal testing are for medical reasons.
*Roughly only 9 percent of the medicines tested on animals make it to market.

They should only do it if the animal does not suffer. The cages need to be bigger. Less animals need to be used. They young should not be separated for them. They should be given anesthetic before stupid components are added to their brains/body. They shouldn't be killed after every experiment. And most importantly -- the experiment should be a valid, important one.

tampi
04-12-10, 11:07
I'm very pessimistic now. My opinion is very balanced to the downside. But we kill and we eat and we do all sorts of things to animals.
Who cares?

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5347/006tn01copia.gif (http://img139.imageshack.us/i/006tn01copia.gif/)

lara c. fan
04-12-10, 11:09
They young should not be separated for them.

Have you ever had a dog, Hayley? A cat? Hell, the first of your rats. I'm guessing they were taking from their mothers, separating the young from the mother.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 11:14
*shrugs* whatever really, believe what you want. LOL That's a very poor comeback, hayley dearie. ;):wve:

No matter. Let's move on to the topic at hand:

Some facts for you:

*Over half of all new medications the FDA approved in a decade were recalled or relabeled because of side effects not observed in animal experiments.Some researchers did not test on human volunteers, they only test on animals, whereas as what I had posted, the ideal procedure is to test on cells, then on animals and then later on humans.

So no surprise there. They missed out on the human testing which was their error of judgment. ;) Regardless, they still need to do animal testing.


* Roughly 6 percent of animals used for animal testing are for medical reasons.
*Roughly only 9 percent of the medicines tested on animals make it to market.They may be facts, but it's pointless as I don't see the point of it.

They should only do it if the animal does not suffer. The cages need to be bigger. Less animals need to be used. They young should not be separated for them. They should be given anesthetic before stupid components are added to their brains/body. They shouldn't be killed after every experiment. And most importantly -- the experiment should be a valid, important one.Ah, you finally accepted that animal testing was alright? From your posts, it seems like you're all hell bent that it was all wrong.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 11:56
Have you ever had a dog, Hayley? A cat? Hell, the first of your rats. I'm guessing they were taking from their mothers, separating the young from the mother.

I've had mice and rats which have had babies, and they were allowed to keep them until the males were sexually mature -- and then the males only were seperated.


Ah, you finally accepted that animal testing was alright? From your posts, it seems like you're all hell bent that it was all wrong.

No of course I haven't, but it would be more acceptable if those standards were met, which they are not being.
And why didn't I give a good comeback before? Because I seriously can't be bothered with such a petty argument :wve:

tampi
04-12-10, 12:00
Experiments with animals is the most ethical choice within a fully global unethical behavior.

Paddy
04-12-10, 12:10
There's no need to be so rude.

@Jenni -- that's true... still, the point I was trying to make it humans are different to animals, which are why medical trails are pot luck.

Have to agree the rudeness is pretty pathetic.
People have their opinions, I dont agree with all of it but its a debate none the less.}
As Id said before I can see it from both sides of it, Im against the fact animals get killed but the human benefits are what I can understand why these tests occur.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 12:18
Have to agree the rudeness is pretty pathetic.
People have their opinions, I dont agree with all of it but its a debate none the less.}
As Id said before I can see it from both sides of it, Im against the fact animals get killed but the human benefits are what I can understand why these tests occur.

:hug:
Yeah, I understand some people will have very strong opinions on it, and I'll gladly listen to them but I can't be expected to agree. I can certaintly understand what the benefits are -- I mean, animal testing is used not just for the benefit of humans, but animals too. Many dogs are tested on in cruel manners for other dogs to safely eat their dinner.
Its sacrifice for the benefit of others but I don't agree with it. If the conditions were more humane and ethical -- I maybe would. But I can't see that happening. I understand the pills I take each day were tested on animals, and one even contains pig fat -- and so I think about the poor animals each time I take them.
Its horrible in my opinion :(

Paddy
04-12-10, 12:20
I think the problems not the animal testing but some of the ways they go about it.

tampi
04-12-10, 12:29
We are animals too, after all.
We are the animals in the highest part of the evolutionary ladder.
Animals don't lose time when they can take advantage of us.
I mean, that dog always sat next to his master while eating, watching him with a sad face is behaving according to its own interest.

And what about parasites? insects? and blablabla They are also animals. Who says they don't suffer?
Why so many scales?

A few days ago I saw a story on Chinese wasps lay their eggs inside body of a worm. When the wasps began to grow and be born, it was something creepy. :eek:The worm was still alive with those wasp eggs inside emerging from its back.

I want to try to explain that animals have no awareness of us. Except in a few cases found such announcement "It never would" Animals don't hesitate to eat when hungry. Sure, they can not do experiments for their lives, but we are capable to do it and we have ability to do it and we do it.

I think the problems not the animal testing but some of the ways they go about it.

That's a good point.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 12:36
We are animals too, after all.
We are the animals in the highest part of the evolutionary ladder.
Animals don't lose time when they can take advantage of us.
I mean, that dog always sat next to his master while eating, watching him with a sad face is behaving according to its own interest.

And what about parasites? insects? and blablabla They are also animals. Who says they don't suffer?
Why so many scales?



I want to try to explain that animals have no awareness of us. Except in a few cases found such announcement "It never would" Animals don't hesitate to eat when hungry. Sure, they can not do experiments for their lives, but we are capable to do it and we have ability to do it and we do it.
That's a good point.

Parasites and insects do suffer, and of course animals have awareness of us! They have done since domestication.

CerebralAssassin
04-12-10, 12:41
it's a necessary evil

tampi
04-12-10, 12:42
Parasites and insects do suffer, and of course animals have awareness of us! They have done since domestication.

They have always done.
Do you think that if a tribe of Neanderthals was in a cave and appeared a hungry bear suddenly, the bear would have eaten without problems some people?

Sure.


Just go to a landfill and watch the gulls and all kinds of birds feed there. In a landfill or a corn field or if you leave a cake in the window of your home.

They haven't and never have had any kind of problems of conscience. Only us.

This world is sadly a jungle

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 12:49
wait wait.. are we talking about eating habits now? They're clearly concious of what the are doing, predators that is, as they are hsp's or hsa's (lol). All higher animals have that high sensitivity.
Predators can not go to a supermarket, as we can. They have to survive in the only way they can.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 12:54
No of course I haven't, but it would be more acceptable if those standards were met, which they are not being.
And why didn't I give a good comeback before? Because I seriously can't be bothered with such a petty argument :wve:Now you're talking in circles. One moment it's totally wrong for animal testing, the next it's okay for testing but still wrong for testing. Which side of the coin are you?

It's like you're against wearing fur, but it's ok to wear it for certain occasion. If you're against something with all your heart, do it fully and not half way through that gives off impression of a fake persona.

And no it's not a petty argument, it's just you simply didn't bring a justifiable case.

tampi
04-12-10, 12:55
wait wait.. are we talking about eating habits now? They're clearly concious of what the are doing, predators that is, as they are hsp's or hsa's (lol). All higher animals have that high sensitivity.
Predators can not go to a supermarket, as we can. They have to survive in the only way they can.

And we?
We don't need to survive?


If our nutritional needs are met, the next logical step is to cure our diseases. Protect our shortcomings.


As I tried to say before, we are animals too.

If animals (dogs, for example) could do experiments in laboratories and had the ability to heal illness of its race, do you think they would hesitate to do so?

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 12:55
Now you're talking in circles. One moment it's totally wrong for animal testing, the next it's okay for testing but still wrong for testing. Which side of the coin are you?

It's like you're against wearing fur, but it's ok to wear it for certain occasion. If you're against something with all your heart, do it fully and not half way through that gives off impression of a fake persona.

And no it's not a petty argument, it's just you simply didn't bring a justifiable case.

I don't understand why you think I'm on both sides of the coin? I can see both sides of the argument, but I have my own opinion. I'm very very against all forms of animal testing.

tampi
04-12-10, 13:04
I also understand your point of view xXhayleyroxXx. I even share. Seriously.

Just trying to make you see the point, that we are part of all this giant wheel. Of course, we inevitably talk about this issue firsthand.
I wonder what conversations have rats in laboratories.

Perhaps they say....- If I could do this to you, you were going to find out!
:D:o:hug:

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:07
I also understand your point of view xXhayleyroxXx. I even share. Seriously.

Just trying to make you see the point, that we are part of all this giant wheel. Of course, we inevitably talk about this issue firsthand.
I wonder what conversations have rats in laboratories.

Perhaps they say....- If I could do this to you, you were going to find out!
:D:o:hug:

Oh, I know we're all part of one big giant wheel - I learnt that from Disney's 'Circle of Life' :ton:
:hug:

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 13:15
I don't understand why you think I'm on both sides of the coin?Because of these post:
I'm very very against all forms of animal testing.

They should only do it if the animal does not suffer. The cages need to be bigger. Less animals need to be used. They young should not be separated for them. They should be given anesthetic before stupid components are added to their brains/body. They shouldn't be killed after every experiment. And most importantly -- the experiment should be a valid, important one.

That's the whole point of this thread. Are you For or Against animal testing?

1. If you're For animal testing - then you agree that animals should be tested (either humanely or not, but naturally everyone wants it to be done humanely, including me).

2. If you're Against animal testing - then you disapprove all types of animal testing.


So when you said you're against animal testing, but then it's okay and they should be done humanely as possible, then it created a conflict of what you're trying to convey.

Make up your mind already.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:17
Yeah, I listed exactly what needs to happen in order for me to think animal testing is even slightly humane. None of that happens.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 13:20
Yeah, I listed exactly what needs to happen in order for me to think animal testing is even slightly humane. None of that happens.You're dawdling and not answering my question, hayley. :ohn:

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:21
You're dawdling and not answering my question, hayley. :ohn:

Because I think its pretty obvious what my answer is.

larson n natla
04-12-10, 13:26
You're dawdling and not answering my question, hayley. :ohn:

Lay off her a little Shark_Blade its pretty obvious Hayley is against it which isn't a problem?

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 13:27
Then I assume you're Against animal testing? Yet you proposed suggestions to improve the betterment of animal testing? I'm all for the better treatment of test animals but you're still Against it?

If you can't make up your mind then hey. :p

Lay off her a little Shark_Blade its pretty obvious Hayley is against it which isn't a problem?I'm trying to understand her reasoning. If you can't add to the topic then you're just spamming.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:33
Of course I'm against it! I add perspectives from both sides of the argument to show people I'm not dumb and I do actually understand where they're coming from.

You have to look at both sides of the argument to have a good point.

larafan25
04-12-10, 13:40
The first steps would bettering the treatment of animals who are tested on.

Clear?

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:40
The first steps would bettering the treatment of animals who are tested on.

Clear?

Yes that needs to be done.

Shark_Blade
04-12-10, 13:42
Okay, you're Against it.

I just needed some clarification and thanks for clearing it up. And of course I respect your opinion on it. :)

robwolf666
04-12-10, 13:52
In my opinion it is the sickest way of torture to animals. Animals are meant to spend their lives free, not in a cage, daily being given cocktails of drugs.
I know some will argue that it is useful to prevent disease and so on, but in my opinion the human race should stop trying to conquer death, at animals expense. :(

Your opinions..? :o
Generally I'd say I'm against it - unless it's absolutely necessary, like with medical research for example.

Cosmetics and things like that, absolutely not - those people should be strung up by their genitals and tortured to death.

If these people need test subjects, there are plenty of people on death row, make use of them.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 13:57
Generally I'd say I'm against it - unless it's absolutely necessary, like with medical research for example.

Cosmetics and things like that, absolutely not - those people should be strung up by their genitals and tortured to death.

If these people need test subjects, there are plenty of people on death row, make use of them.

That is the most excellent idea :vlol:

ozzman
04-12-10, 14:11
Mice, Rats and Guinea Pigs yes... the rest..No:)

yes, i hate seeing Kitties with deformities due to testing, but we don't want lickers running around either

Ikas90
04-12-10, 14:35
Animal testing is done for one underlying reason, and that reason is that we portray ourselves as the most important species living on earth; so, we are trying to maintain dominance and put ourselves first, without the consideration of other beings. It's speciesism.

If natural selection came to play its role, most of humanity will be destroyed.

Animals have intrinsic value, no matter what anyone says.

You can possibly compare speciesism to sexism and racism. Animals aren't given the same rights as humans, and this anthropocentric view has been used to justify animal testing and other things for economic benefits.

What we all need to realise, is that we humans are dependant on nature. Nature is not dependant on us. Our self-proclaimed superiority is what's responsible for our demise, and thus, why we need to resort to animal testing. We wouldn't need to if our immune systems were strong enough. We also wouldn't need to do animal testing if we didn't allow bacteria and diseases/viruses to evolve. Disease itself is a form of natural selection.

Catracoth
04-12-10, 14:36
^An excellent post, Saki, that I agree with entirely. :tmb:

Love2Raid
04-12-10, 15:08
I wonder if you would also agree with it if the life of someone who you loved dearly depended on medication (which was obviously tested on animals). Would you?

Dark Lugia 2
04-12-10, 15:16
I'm sure most people already know that we are dependant on nature. We do live on Earth! :p

Squibbly
04-12-10, 15:38
If these people need test subjects, there are plenty of people on death row, make use of them.

Many countries oppose capital punishment as it is. The few who still take part in it do not do it to be cruel to convicts. That's not how the justice system works. They're killed quickly and it's done with - we just don't want these people around anymore. Why do you think we don't have punishments like crucifixion or drawn and quartered killings anymore? Cruel and unusual punishment is not what is done and we don't want to become a society that takes part in that.

Reading over this thread, why is it okay to use people in testings but not animals? Haven't so many people in this thread stated that people and animals should be seen as equals? Hardly anyone is making sense.

Animals should never be wasted (for example, killing an elephant for its tusks - wrong and wasteful) but when they're being put to very good use to help cure diseases and save countless amounts of lives, I fail to see how this is so terrible. It's a necessary evil.

MattTR
04-12-10, 16:12
Depends really, if death is involved absolutely not, but if it's for a product and not going to cause harm upon the animal, then I guess it's not a problem. :o

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 16:32
Animal testing is done for one underlying reason, and that reason is that we portray ourselves as the most important species living on earth; so, we are trying to maintain dominance and put ourselves first, without the consideration of other beings. It's speciesism.

If natural selection came to play its role, most of humanity will be destroyed.

Animals have intrinsic value, no matter what anyone says.

You can possibly compare speciesism to sexism and racism. Animals aren't given the same rights as humans, and this anthropocentric view has been used to justify animal testing and other things for economic benefits.

What we all need to realise, is that we humans are dependant on nature. Nature is not dependant on us. Our self-proclaimed superiority is what's responsible for our demise, and thus, why we need to resort to animal testing. We wouldn't need to if our immune systems were strong enough. We also wouldn't need to do animal testing if we didn't allow bacteria and diseases/viruses to evolve. Disease itself is a form of natural selection.
I agree :D :hug:

Depends really, if death is involved absolutely not, but if it's for a product and not going to cause harm upon the animal, then I guess it's not a problem. :o

I'm pretty sure all of them have to be killed after use, because they've been used basically.

Catracoth
04-12-10, 16:39
I wonder if you would also agree with it if the life of someone who you loved dearly depended on medication (which was obviously tested on animals). Would you?

If that question was directed toward me, then I would have to tell you to read Saki's post - if he was justifying animal testing for proper reasons and I was agreeing with it, then clearly I would agree with your inquiry.

herothing
04-12-10, 17:01
I'm against animal testing, i hate to see anything suffering whether it be human, animal, insect or whatever. I don't think it's right to use animals as objects in order to help us develop medicines. Some humans are willing to test these things for a pay, if they want to risk their lives doing this, let it be.

Love2Raid
04-12-10, 17:24
If that question was directed toward me, then I would have to tell you to read Saki's post - if he was justifying animal testing for proper reasons and I was agreeing with it, then clearly I would agree with your inquiry.
Uhmm, no. He is just saying we should have let nature take it's course, because disease is a form of natural selection. Right? Try saying that in a medicine-dependent person's face (not recommended).

Natural selection doesn't apply to us anymore. We have distanced ourself from nature and it's rules a long time ago. There is no turning back.

Edit:

I see now that he was only explaining why he thinks we are where we are now. Yes, this is true. But his 'disease is a form of natural selection' comment is hardly relevant, since we have been fighting this for ages. Much longer before 'modern science'.

Catapharact
04-12-10, 17:27
Actually, I have a better proposition for the extremists out there.

How about you just let natural selection run its course by giving up all the necessities and luxuries of life provided to you by the human civilization, go off and live in some far off isolated jungle out there, die of starvation, disease, or thirst, and help out "mother nature" by letting your body become compost for the flora and fauna ;).

You will be doing humanity a favor.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 17:30
Actually, I have a better proposition for the extremists out there.

How about you just let natural selection run its course by giving up all the necessities and luxuries of life provided to you by the human civilization, go off and live in some far off isolated jungle out there, die of starvation, disease, or thirst, and help out "mother nature" by letting your body become compost for the flora and fauna ;).

You will be doing humanity a favor.

That was a bit harsh.

Catapharact
04-12-10, 17:32
That was a bit harsh.

Well since you guys think that human lives are so cheap that they should be risked so vividly for experimental treatments rather then lab rats, then I say you should put your money where you mouth is and live up to your beliefs ;).

Its a win/win situation as I see it.

Mad Tony
04-12-10, 17:34
Actually, I have a better proposition for the extremists out there.

How about you just let natural selection run its course by giving up all the necessities and luxuries of life provided to you by the human civilization, go off and live in some far off isolated jungle out there, die of starvation, disease, or thirst, and help out "mother nature" by letting your body become compost for the flora and fauna ;).

You will be doing humanity a favor.I've already said this many a time but they wont, which is what annoys me most at all. If you're gonna preach such an extreme philosophy then follow it, if not, then don't preach it.

Catapharact
04-12-10, 17:38
I've already said this many a time but they wont, which is what annoys me most at all. If you're gonna preach such an extreme philosophy then follow it, if not, then don't preach it.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they did... And guess who will be blamed for their idiotic behavior? The corporations and the rich people offcourse... For not doing enough to save a bunch of loony bins from killing themselves to protect those who will probably feast on their corpses without a second thought.

xXhayleyroxXx
04-12-10, 17:43
Well since you guys think that human lives are so cheap that they should be risked so vividly for experimental treatments rather then lab rats, then I say you should put your money where you mouth is and live up to your beliefs ;).

Its a win/win situation as I see it.

Why? When I could go save and rescue a lot of cruelly treated animals in the RSPCA or as a vet nurse? I'm not foolish.



Actually I wouldn't be surprised if they did... And guess who will be blamed for their idiotic behavior? The corporations and the rich people offcourse... For not doing enough to save a bunch of loony bins from killing themselves to protect those who will probably feast on their corpses without a second thought.

Sooo.... what you're saying is I'm a loony who should go die?

tampi
04-12-10, 17:46
Animal testing is done for one underlying reason, and that reason is that we portray ourselves as the most important species living on earth; so, we are trying to maintain dominance and put ourselves first, without the consideration of other beings. It's speciesism.

If natural selection came to play its role, most of humanity will be destroyed.

Animals have intrinsic value, no matter what anyone says.

You can possibly compare speciesism to sexism and racism. Animals aren't given the same rights as humans, and this anthropocentric view has been used to justify animal testing and other things for economic benefits.

What we all need to realise, is that we humans are dependant on nature. Nature is not dependant on us. Our self-proclaimed superiority is what's responsible for our demise, and thus, why we need to resort to animal testing. We wouldn't need to if our immune systems were strong enough. We also wouldn't need to do animal testing if we didn't allow bacteria and diseases/viruses to evolve. Disease itself is a form of natural selection.

I don't think that statement is true.

I also disagree with the arguments saying: Medicine yes, cosmetic no.

What are sunscreens?

Catapharact
04-12-10, 17:48
Why? When I could go save and rescue a lot of cruelly treated animals in the RSPCA or as a vet nurse? I'm not foolish.

You yourself have admitted that you take medication for your condition ;). Do know that there is a member who posted in this thread who was suffering from a fatal heart related problem. Because of medical testing, and procedures, he was saved. How very "noble" of you to watch out for your own back yet deny others the chance to be treated... Tsk tsk...

Sooo.... what you're saying is I'm a loony who should go die?

Oh I do believe one is a loony for prioritizing animal lives over humans. As for dying... That decision is yours.

tampi
04-12-10, 17:58
I pity on xXhayleyroxXx defensive position in this conversation.

Her arguments have all the value of true if the world were not as it is.

I mean, if humans had not committed any heinous that we made throughout our existence, perhaps, then, she'd have all the power of truth.
Something like Avatar movie.

That is because I write this in my second post (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showpost.php?p=5036467&postcount=195) in this conversation

Catapharact
04-12-10, 18:01
true if the world were not as it is.

I mean, if humans had not committed any heinous that we made throughout our existence, perhaps, then, she'd have all the power of truth.
Something like Avatar movie.

Not to insult your intelligence in anyway Tampi... But are you seriously comparing the Navi people (who are all sentient beings) to animals? Actually if the Navi actually existed today, PETA gimps would be all over their butts for killing animals to sustain the Navi way of life.

TombOfRaiders
04-12-10, 18:01
Animal Testing, For or Against?

Against. Leave their race alone, they'll leave ours alone. They're exactly the same as Humans, not tools to played or used with. They have their own minds and lives like us. So yeah, Against. :I

lara c. fan
04-12-10, 18:03
Animal Testing, For or Against?

Against. Leave their race alone, they'll leave ours alone. They're exactly the same as Humans, not tools to played or used with. They have their own minds and lives like us. So yeah, Against. :I

What about animals that were attempting to kill early humans simply because we were there? :confused:

Tony9595
04-12-10, 18:07
Reading over this thread, why is it okay to use people in testings but not animals? Haven't so many people in this thread stated that people and animals should be seen as equals? Hardly anyone is making sense.

Animals should never be wasted (for example, killing an elephant for its tusks - wrong and wasteful) but when they're being put to very good use to help cure diseases and save countless amounts of lives, I fail to see how this is so terrible. It's a necessary evil.

Now that's a really good point. Killing or testing on an animal is the worst thing ever, however testing on humans or even...


Cosmetics and things like that, absolutely not - those people should be strung up by their genitals and tortured to death.

That is the most excellent idea :vlol:

is acceptable on their minds.

I'm totally against animal use for cosmetics, I really hate it. But I'd never wish something like that to anyone. If that's a correct reasoning I'll go out to the street and bin some cats.

TombOfRaiders
04-12-10, 18:09
What about animals that were attempting to kill early humans simply because we were there? :confused:

Hmm, good point. Never really thought about that. Everyone's mind is different so there's bound to be attempts to kill and stuff like that for certain. But, I believe that there's a balance in the Minds of Humans and Animals, kind of. There are Sharks out there who kill, we have people who also kill. We have Friendly, kind and nice people out there, while the Animal World have Dolphins and that which are also kind and nice. So, I believe there's a familiar balance between the Animal World and the Human World as such. and it all comes down to us all being equal, right?

Probably talking out of my ass here. :pi:

tampi
04-12-10, 18:10
Not to insult your intelligence in anyway Tampi... But are you seriously comparing the Navi people (who are all sentient beings) to animals? Actually if the Navi actually existed today, PETA gimps would be all over their butts for killing animals to sustain the Navi way of life.

I seriously believe in a universal connection.
I move my arm and the air moves.
That's not a secret.
When we die we create life.

The Great Chi
04-12-10, 18:10
I am mentally and morally divided on this one....

AGAINST ....I would hate to see animals getting hurt damaged or killed in this experimentation.. but we do know it happens.

FOR... If its a case of helping people from suffering terrible diseases, then I have to accept the situation, if there is no other way of testing.

CONCLUSION... I have to turn a blind eye to it as many others do, and give to animal charities and treat my own pets and other domestic animals I meet, with kindness.

Its a cruel world out there, and there is no solvable answer to this.

lara c. fan
04-12-10, 18:13
Hmm, good point. Never really thought about that. Everyone's mind is different so there's bound to be attempts to kill and stuff like that for certain. But, I believe that there's a balance in the Minds of Humans and Animals, kind of. There are Sharks out there who kill, we have people who also kill. We have Friendly, kind and nice people out there, while the Animal World have Dolphins and that which are also kind and nice. So, I believe there's a familiar balance between the Animal World and the Human World as such. and it all comes down to us all being equal, right?

Probably talking out of my ass here. :pi:

Dolphins can be... unkind if they wish too. They just mainly get press for the good acts. :p

tampi
04-12-10, 18:15
Hmm, good point. Never really thought about that. Everyone's mind is different so there's bound to be attempts to kill and stuff like that for certain. But, I believe that there's a balance in the Minds of Humans and Animals, kind of. There are Sharks out there who kill, we have people who also kill. We have Friendly, kind and nice people out there, while the Animal World have Dolphins and that which are also kind and nice. So, I believe there's a familiar balance between the Animal World and the Human World as such. and it all comes down to us all being equal, right?

Probably talking out of my ass here. :pi:


I think it's a valid opinion and quite successful.

EDIT:

Now I will causing myself problems--->


I have ever mentioned in the forum about my relationship with animals. With pets, more specifically.

One day I decided no more pets in my life. I may change mind again, later, in my life. I don't know.

But, living with a pet at home is to test it? In my opinion, a little.

The Great Chi
04-12-10, 18:21
How about human testing of cigarettes, instead of on animals ?

HUMAN TESTING..... its humaine :D

s6Kc5QQ6Pv8