Animal Testing - Right or Wrong?

[Scarlet]

Why not test it on humans

Do you not realize how much controversy that would start? Not to mention humans have families and friends. How about I test something on you? Inject a chemical in your mom or dad. You would choose a human live over a rats life?

What you said was funny, but its the people like you that are destroying the ozone layer, driving tigers to the edge of extinction, and people that I can't just stand.

Actually the Ozone layer has been fixed my dear. That issue has been resolved for a while.

Also humans have been trying to save the lives of animals near extinction. We've been breeding these animals for a while.

But animal testing has helped to eradicate really crippling and deadly diseases. Hell, without animal testing, I'd bet that some of you wouldn't even be alive, thus you wouldn't be able to sit there at your computer and argue against it. Irony?

Basically yeah. I much rather save the lives of children that suffering with cancer than save a animal from being tested, an animal that is not near extinction by the way.

 

[Lirael]

I'm against animal testing, to be honest. It's messed up and immoral in my books.

As Rhea said, they're taken away from their environment. Just because they can't speak out, they're mistreated until they die.

Okay, I can accept it CAN save lives, but animals have different reactions to humans. C'mon, if chocolate had been tested on dogs there would be no such thing! Animal testing isn't safe for us, any more than it's pleasant for the animals involved.

Would you like to see your pet suffer, caged and mistreated, for the sake of finding a cure that, in the end, is found to only work on animals?

Not to mention humans have families and friends.

So do animals... We can't honestly say we KNOW they don't care about their families and friends. Many animals do. My friend's cat Pipi got really depressed when Sammy, her cat friend, was stolen. She's never been the same since.

"A cat? Depressed?" you might say. Yes. Cats can get depressed. They wander around aimlessley, calling out for their friend, eating less and spending more time away from home.

I can see some of the logic behind animal testing, but I don't see why humans think it's fine to treat animals in such a way. Okay, so testing saves the lives of many, but do the animals need to suffer so? Do they have to live in small cages? Do they have to be handled roughly?

 

[Scarlet]

As Rhea said, they're taken away from their environment. Just because they can't speak out, they're mistreated until they die.

As mentioned before, they're not being taken away from their homes. They are breed in labs.

Okay, I can accept it CAN save lives, but animals have different reactions to humans. C'mon, if chocolate had been tested on dogs there would be no such thing! Animal testing isn't safe for us, any more than it's pleasant for the animals involved.

True but this is why we test it on pigs. Pigs are similar to humans. Also humans have been tested on before.

So do animals... We can't honestly say we KNOW they don't care about their families and friends. Many animals do. My friend's cat Pipi got really depressed when Sammy, her cat friend, was stolen. She's never been the same since.

"A cat? Depressed?" you might say. Yes. Cats can get depressed. They wander around aimlessley, calling out for their friend, eating less and spending more time away from home.

Umm yeah, I know that. Umm I know people who have pets and yes pets have feelings. I'm saying, compare to a rat? No, why the hell should we care if rats get tested on? They're rats, there are millions of them. They breed and live on their own. As for testing on pigs...they're actually smarter than dogs but if it's a pig's life over a child, then of course I would want the child to live. I don't care as long as the medicine they are testing on can save human lives.

I am against testing make up on animals though. This is why you can buy products that say: "Has not been tested on animals."

 

[Erythritol]

Okay, I can accept it CAN save lives, but animals have different reactions to humans. C'mon, if chocolate had been tested on dogs there would be no such thing! Animal testing isn't safe for us, any more than it's pleasant for the animals involved.

Uh...cancer is cancer; AIDS is AIDS; nerve damage is nerve damage. You get the point. If a rat with cancer is cured by a certain test drug, chances are pretty good that it will work in humans too. This has been proved several times in the medical field. Example: penicillin.

Science is NOT based on guess work. You need observations and proof to support your hypothesis. Everyone is talking about "another way." Short of testing on humans, there is NO other way. Scientists are not magicians who can magically know whether a cure will work or not based on its chemical composition. One can never ASSUME in science. Take a look at the basic pillar of science: the scientific method. You come up with your hypothesis, then you must prove or disprove the hypothesis with OBSERVATIONS (I'm condensing it). If science were based on assumptions and guess work, we'd be sitting around in the dark with no technology and no medical advancements. Half of us would be dead from one disease or another.

It's like telling Thomas Edison: "Okay, invent the lightbulb...but don't use any tools to help determine whether it will work or not. Just make some guesses on paper and hope for the best."

I'd just like to add: I agree that animal testing is probably overused. I also think the animals should be treated with more respect. If scientists are going to use animals for testing, they should treat these animals with the utmost respect, as they are essentially sacrifices in the search for medical breakthroughs.

 

[Rockman X]

Why not test it on humans (I'm one of those damn tree hugging hippies everybody hates) You know animals have feelings to, and their lives are just as important as ours, we are all equal under the Sun, no matter the circumstances, we just happened to be more evolved. If you want to test something, get someone willing to do it, other than getting a poor animal with no say on the topic, and harming it. Even if it is just shampooing, your scaring the poor animal to death. They're probably thinking 'What the hell are these ugly creatures doing?" and they are right, we humans are disgusting, vile creatures only wanting what we want, we don't care how many lives are lost (animal lives) as long as what we want. I don't really care if it is for medical reasons, no matter the outcome, the animal will be deeply affected by it. No matter the organism, we should cherish the life no matter what! (I may go on like this another couple of posts later)

For one...animals don't think in people talk. They don't think coherent thoughts like that at all. The way you talk, you make the impact on animals sound like it's equal to that of a teenage girl being raped.

We "only want what we want"? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Besides, animals are the same way. Ever feed your cat, then go into the kitchen to make yourself some food and the cat follows you and starts meowing loudly? That's cuz it wants more food even though it's already been fed. Same can be said for any other animal, they're as greedy as us and in the wild they'll kill each other over food. Most humans are civilized enough to not kill each other over something as trifle as that (but then again, humans kill each other over religion which is just as stupid).

I, my friend, say yes! we should find someone willing to go under the testing

And just WHO is going to be willing to do that? Hippies? Well that's fine by me, but it's still not legal. Animals should be tested (humanely, torturing them is just wrong) first. You also seem to forget there ARE test groups out there who test products, take experimental drugs, etc. Animal testing is fine, so long as it's done humanely and without cruelty.

What makes you say that humans are better than animals? Is it that we are more evolved?

You could say that, yes. As cold as it sounds, you have to stop and remeber that we are the superior species of animal. We have the highest level of intelligence, we have full language, we have consciences (some do, anyway), we have societies, we have advanced tools (birds and monkeys just use sticks and rocks), we can clothe ourselves and make our own food, we make houses to shield us from the weather, etc. Animals are nice, yes. They're living creatures, yes. They can feel pain, yes. However, animals are still lower lifeforms and it is completely idiotic to value their lives more than own and elevate them to a status they simply do not reach.

 

[Cyannie]

that's bad!
they should just make something where they can test it...
animals didn't do anything bad!
they just do what they know that is right for them!

maybe someday the lives of the rats are extinct :snickers: XD

 

[Rockman X]

that's bad!

Care to expound on that? Like why you think it's bad?

they should just make something where they can test it...

Uh....um...what? EVERYTHING is made where they can test it

animals didn't do anything bad!

Lots of animals carry diseases, especially rats, plus they can be pretty aggressive animals when trapped in a human environment. They aren't particularly helpful animals in any setting, anyway, ask farmers or tenants in the projects. Better to use them for testing products or cancer treatments then letting them infest barns, apartments and sewers.

they just do what they know that is right for them!

Uh....that would be called instinct, there is no "right" or "wrong" for animals, they don't adhere to human morals. Besides, they don't have the level of mental consciousness needed to differentiate between "right" and "wrong" in the first place.

maybe someday the lives of the rats are extinct :snickers: XD

Not a chance in the world. Rats are extremely prolific and they're BRED specifically for the purpose of testing. And why are you making jokes and snickering about rats going extinct when you're complaining about animal testing? You're being a little hypocritical.

 

[Cyannie]

ok!
anyway they should only test in on rats not on other animals then

 

[Rockman X]

ok!
anyway they should only test in on rats not on other animals then

No. You can't be inconsistent like that, things don't work that way. Either you're for animal testing or against it, you can't be wishy washy. If you want you can offer a solution that would appease both sides, but only selecting one animal to test on will make the pro-testing side go "why the hell not the other animals" and you had better have a damn good answer for it, and the anti-testing side will simply answer "rats are just as important as other animals!" and they wont shut up about it.

 

[Darkstar]

It is spelled d-e-b-a-t-o-r. I think you mean master debator.

Testing products on rabbits is way different than than human testing. If you want to test on an animal then you would have to choose either a pig or a chimpanzee. The pig's internal organs resemble humans' organs better than any other animal. However, the chimpanzee's DNA is the closest to humans in terms of structure and coding.

We were only using an example, we weren't that serious, and, I'm sure everybody got what I meant. D-E-B-A-T-O-R

 

[SapphireStar]

Im 100% against animal testing. I cant stand animal cruelty either, I love animals. But to test on humans Im agaisnt also as Sephirothalpha has pointed out a good example. As for a soultion, I cant think of one. Putting untested products straight on the shelf is deadly. So, I dont know :/

 

[Sephirothalpha]

I have a solution, scientists have the ability to make organs and such from scratch and to clone certain things but most goverments have banned it. Maybe you could clone an animal that is brain dead and test the products on that.

This is bout to raise a few more arguments.

 

[SapphireStar]

Yeah, that'll start something off.

Im not sure if Im for a clone animal being tested on. I mean, its still a living thing be it a clone or actual creature.

 

[Darkstar]

Do you not realize how much controversy that would start? Not to mention humans have families and friends. How about I test something on you? Inject a chemical in your mom or dad. You would choose a human live over a rats life?

Actually the Ozone layer has been fixed my dear. That issue has been resolved for a while.

Also humans have been trying to save the lives of animals near extinction. We've been breeding these animals for a while.

Basically yeah. I much rather save the lives of children that suffering with cancer than save a animal from being tested, an animal that is not near extinction by the way.

Yes we are all equal in this world, no matter who the 'best' is, sorry for being discriminative, it's like not helping those who are mentally, or physically disabled, we are all brethren, we all evolved from the one life-form (I'm an evolutionist Christian), sorry, my mistake with the ozone layer, just trying to make a point.
How would you like it if some alien race came to Earth, took about 50 humans and started pumping chemicals in them, it is the same thing!

I'm against animal testing, to be honest. It's messed up and immoral in my books.

As Rhea said, they're taken away from their environment. Just because they can't speak out, they're mistreated until they die.

Okay, I can accept it CAN save lives, but animals have different reactions to humans. C'mon, if chocolate had been tested on dogs there would be no such thing! Animal testing isn't safe for us, any more than it's pleasant for the animals involved.

Would you like to see your pet suffer, caged and mistreated, for the sake of finding a cure that, in the end, is found to only work on animals?
So do animals... We can't honestly say we KNOW they don't care about their families and friends. Many animals do. My friend's cat Pipi got really depressed when Sammy, her cat friend, was stolen. She's never been the same since.

"A cat? Depressed?" you might say. Yes. Cats can get depressed. They wander around aimlessley, calling out for their friend, eating less and spending more time away from home.

I can see some of the logic behind animal testing, but I don't see why humans think it's fine to treat animals in such a way. Okay, so testing saves the lives of many, but do the animals need to suffer so? Do they have to live in small cages? Do they have to be handled roughly?

I thank you very much for fighting with me against the mob

As mentioned before, they're not being taken away from their homes. They are breed in labs.

True but this is why we test it on pigs. Pigs are similar to humans. Also humans have been tested on before.
Umm yeah, I know that. Umm I know people who have pets and yes pets have feelings. I'm saying, compare to a rat? No, why the hell should we care if rats get tested on? They're rats, there are millions of them. They breed and live on their own. As for testing on pigs...they're actually smarter than dogs but if it's a pig's life over a child, then of course I would want the child to live. I don't care as long as the medicine they are testing on can save human lives.

I am against testing make up on animals though. This is why you can buy products that say: "Has not been tested on animals."

Like I said before, aliens steal 50 humans, and breed them, keep them in cages, and pump chemicals into them. would you like it?!

Uh...cancer is cancer; AIDS is AIDS; nerve damage is nerve damage. You get the point. If a rat with cancer is cured by a certain test drug, chances are pretty good that it will work in humans too. This has been proved several times in the medical field. Example: penicillin.

Science is NOT based on guess work. You need observations and proof to support your hypothesis. Everyone is talking about "another way." Short of testing on humans, there is NO other way. Scientists are not magicians who can magically know whether a cure will work or not based on its chemical composition. One can never ASSUME in science. Take a look at the basic pillar of science: the scientific method. You come up with your hypothesis, then you must prove or disprove the hypothesis with OBSERVATIONS (I'm condensing it). If science were based on assumptions and guess work, we'd be sitting around in the dark with no technology and no medical advancements. Half of us would be dead from one disease or another.

It's like telling Thomas Edison: "Okay, invent the lightbulb...but don't use any tools to help determine whether it will work or not. Just make some guesses on paper and hope for the best."

I'd just like to add: I agree that animal testing is probably overused. I also think the animals should be treated with more respect. If scientists are going to use animals for testing, they should treat these animals with the utmost respect, as they are essentially sacrifices in the search for medical breakthroughs.

okay, I kinda agree with you, yes, you make a strong point, (I'm also a scientist, I look at life scientifically) but, animal testing should stop unless the animal is not harmed, hurt, or any way damaged, and once the testing is done, release it in the wild.

For one...animals don't think in people talk. They don't think coherent thoughts like that at all. The way you talk, you make the impact on animals sound like it's equal to that of a teenage girl being raped.

We "only want what we want"? That's a bit redundant, don't you think? Besides, animals are the same way. Ever feed your cat, then go into the kitchen to make yourself some food and the cat follows you and starts meowing loudly? That's cuz it wants more food even though it's already been fed. Same can be said for any other animal, they're as greedy as us and in the wild they'll kill each other over food. Most humans are civilized enough to not kill each other over something as trifle as that (but then again, humans kill each other over religion which is just as stupid).

And just WHO is going to be willing to do that? Hippies? Well that's fine by me, but it's still not legal. Animals should be tested (humanely, torturing them is just wrong) first. You also seem to forget there ARE test groups out there who test products, take experimental drugs, etc. Animal testing is fine, so long as it's done humanely and without cruelty.

You could say that, yes. As cold as it sounds, you have to stop and remeber that we are the superior species of animal. We have the highest level of intelligence, we have full language, we have consciences (some do, anyway), we have societies, we have advanced tools (birds and monkeys just use sticks and rocks), we can clothe ourselves and make our own food, we make houses to shield us from the weather, etc. Animals are nice, yes. They're living creatures, yes. They can feel pain, yes. However, animals are still lower lifeforms and it is completely idiotic to value their lives more than own and elevate them to a status they simply do not reach.

Umm, so do you think that gives us the right to kill animals? nothing gives us that right.

Care to expound on that? Like why you think it's bad?

Uh....um...what? EVERYTHING is made where they can test it

Lots of animals carry diseases, especially rats, plus they can be pretty aggressive animals when trapped in a human environment. They aren't particularly helpful animals in any setting, anyway, ask farmers or tenants in the projects. Better to use them for testing products or cancer treatments then letting them infest barns, apartments and sewers.



Uh....that would be called instinct, there is no "right" or "wrong" for animals, they don't adhere to human morals. Besides, they don't have the level of mental consciousness needed to differentiate between "right" and "wrong" in the first place.



Not a chance in the world. Rats are extremely prolific and they're BRED specifically for the purpose of testing. And why are you making jokes and snickering about rats going extinct when you're complaining about animal testing? You're being a little hypocritical.

Do you think rats go out, get the disease and give it to us to spite us? i don't think so, the rats don't have an organization called 'kill the humans'. The only reason they have disease is because of our interference, they get polluted trying to eat or garbage (another thing I'm strongly against)

No. You can't be inconsistent like that, things don't work that way. Either you're for animal testing or against it, you can't be wishy washy. If you want you can offer a solution that would appease both sides, but only selecting one animal to test on will make the pro-testing side go "why the hell not the other animals" and you had better have a damn good answer for it, and the anti-testing side will simply answer "rats are just as important as other animals!" and they wont shut up about it.

No we wont, but we won't shut up about it until all Animal testing is stopped!

 

[Sephirothalpha]

Yeah, that'll start something off.

Im not sure if Im for a clone animal being tested on. I mean, its still a living thing be it a clone or actual creature.

Trees and plants/vegetables are also living things, but most people on the planet dont think twice about chopping one down or having some vegetables on their plate for lunch.

 

[Darkstar]

I have a solution, scientists have the ability to make organs and such from scratch and to clone certain things but most goverments have banned it. Maybe you could clone an animal that is brain dead and test the products on that.

This is bout to raise a few more arguments.

Cloning makes a good a good point, but until we successfully clone a human, we will never know if clones have feelings, but until we do, I say a definite NO! not until it has been scientifically been proven that clones have no feelings, or emotions, and its not really classified as living.

 

[SapphireStar]

I thank you very much for fighting with me against the mob



Like I said before, aliens steal 50 humans, and breed them, keep them in cages, and pump chemicals into them. would you like it?!

What mob? People are voicing their opinions. Thats what this section is about. This "mob" are other members and there is no need to see them asa mob because they disagree with you.

And when did aliens start to take humans? That IMO is nonsense.

 

[Darkstar]

Trees and plants/vegetables are also living things, but most people on the planet dont think twice about chopping one down or having some vegetables on their plate for lunch.

As long as you don't kill the whole plant, but I am against tree chopping, unless it is 100% necessary, but if it has a bird's nest in their, I'll be there to stop it. Super Hippie away!

 

[Sephirothalpha]

That sheep that was cloned (Dolly I think), reacted to pain and was just like any other sheep, so I think Clones would have feelings unless scientists could somewhat clone one without a brain or genetically modify the clone in some way.

 

[SapphireStar]

Trees and plants/vegetables are also living things, but most people on the planet dont think twice about chopping one down or having some vegetables on their plate for lunch.

Good point there. But plants and trees can be regrown. Im agaisnt trees being cut down, but the way of the vegetable is to be eaten as far as I know.

People and animals really cant be regrown if you get what I mean.
Yeah we can breed of course lol.