Serious Thread #2: Animal Testing

[Blackfox]

Are you for or against it, or are you all a bit unsure on your stance?

 

Before a doctor can prescribe a drug, that drug will have been tested on animals before hand to check the safety and efficacy - making sure that it was be safe for further tests on humans. But then again, they could be subjected to horrible cruelty in the process - maybe losing their life, or creating a dibilitating illness for the little creature. And before laws were passed in the UK - certain cosmetics were tested on animals too. Making sure they didn't harm the human, and that they too, worked.

 

Anyway, what's your opinion? Is it ethically right? Is it a necessary evil, or completely senseless and wrong? Go Go!

[Dan_Dare]

and the totally sane, thread ending argument goes to!

 

Necessary evil!

 

I like monkeys too, but we are talking about ending horrific illnesses, AIDS, all sorts of stuff. It is worth it.

[Monopolyman]

I'm more in favour of using prisoners instead of animals myself (well, the ones sentenced for life, anyways). It seems a lot more acceptable, and would more likely be more accurate.

 

 

...but I suppose if we run out of them, then I'm all for animal testing.

[spirited away]

Necessary evil. Survival of the fittest. Sad i know, but it's the only way.

[mike-zim]

It has to happen. those animals are bred for testing, it is thier purpose. So i am for it.

[Supergrunch]

Provided they are being tested for drugs, rather than stuff like make up, then I'm with it all the way.

[DanielTimothy]

Some Animal Rights Activists Are Glorified Terrorists. Them Taking Things To Far Lost Me My Sympathy For The Animals.

[|Laguna|]

Provided they are being tested for drugs, rather than stuff like make up, then I'm with it all the way.

 

I feel this is the right answer.

 

But some people who are against animal testing are actually freakin' nuts. There was a case a while ago in which some family's farm was breeding gini (no idea how to spell that wod) pigs which were used for testing for medical purposes. Anyway, some group was really against this so they come to the family's house at midnight wearing balaclavas and shout at them from outside all night and chuck bricks in through their windows - a house in which small children were living.

 

However, the family carried on with breeding the animals so the group dug up one of the owner's dead mother bones and held them hostage until the family would agree to stop breeding the animals - stuff like that is so wrong, and these people are even sicker than the ones they claim are the bad guys.

[Whizkid]

I'm for it because it helps cure illnesses.

[Fierce_LiNk]

I feel this is the right answer.

 

But some people who are against animal testing are actually freakin' nuts. There was a case a while ago in which some family's farm was breeding gini (no idea how to spell that wod) pigs which were used for testing for medical purposes. Anyway, some group was really against this so they come to the family's house at midnight wearing balaclavas and shout at them from outside all night and chuck bricks in through their windows - a house in which small children were living.

 

However, the family carried on with breeding the animals so the group dug up one of the owner's dead mother bones and held them hostage until the family would agree to stop breeding the animals - stuff like that is so wrong, and these people are even sicker than the ones they claim are the bad guys.

 

I remember hearing that. Extreme, to say the least.

 

Hmm, it is unfair to treat animals in this way. But then again, is there any other way to test these drugs? We've seen last year how humans volunteers can be left with long term damage, don't know if anyone remembers that.

[Supergrunch]

In my opinion, the major error in judgement that animal rights activists make is that people's live are less important than the lives of animals. Thus they think it's alright to kill people if it will save the lives of animals somewhere down the line.

[DanielTimothy]

We eat animals that don't get to have much of a life, why not use them for other methods of benifiting us?

[Supergrunch]

We eat animals that don't get to have much of a life, why not use them for other methods of benifiting us?

Err... it's not a good idea to eat animals that have been tested on. Would you want to eat an animal pumped full of barely tested drugs?

[Fierce_LiNk]

Err... it's not a good idea to eat animals that have been tested on. Would you want to eat an animal pumped full of barely tested drugs?

 

I think he meant "we eat animals, so they're treated pretty badly anyway."

[DanielTimothy]

Err... it's not a good idea to eat animals that have been tested on. Would you want to eat an animal pumped full of barely tested drugs?

 

No I ment animals that get killed for meat don't have a great time either compared to the animals that are tested on, people get angry about animals being tested on even though it sometimes is used to find cures etc, but not being bred and slaughtered for meat to satisfy us.

 

Edit: Yeah, you got what I flinking ment.

[Supergrunch]

I think he meant "we eat animals, so they're treated pretty badly anyway."

Oh ok... I suppose that's a fair point.

[conzer16]

I think for new drugs etc, animal testing is a necessity.

 

We need to know how drugs can effect a living thing and putting a new drug into a human body before we know what it can do is irresponsible.

[|Laguna|]

In my opinion, the major error in judgement that animal rights activists make is that people's live are less important than the lives of animals. Thus they think it's alright to kill people if it will save the lives of animals somewhere down the line.

 

Urgh yes, I read another story some time ago about woman who had her flat catch on fire and instead of rushing out with her baby, she saved her cat instead and I think the baby then died due to the smoke - some people are just...

[Nintendo Fan]

Why not test drugs on criminals that have life time sentence.

[DanielTimothy]

Why not test drugs on criminals that have life time sentence.

 

Because that questions the worth of a humans life in comparrison to an animals even further.

[Charlie]

I think he meant "we eat animals, so they're treated pretty badly anyway."

 

My response to any vegetarian is: "If God didn't want us to eat animals, why did he make them taste so good?"

[Dan_Dare]

I'm more in favour of using prisoners instead of animals myself (well, the ones sentenced for life, anyways). It seems a lot more acceptable, and would more likely be more accurate.

 

 

...but I suppose if we run out of them, then I'm all for animal testing.

 

amusingly, I warned James about batshit loony responses to this thread as he composed it. Even by the usual standards, 2nd post is pretty good time.

[Nintendo Fan]

Because that questions the worth of a humans life in comparrison to an animals even further.

 

In some countries death penalty still exist, so instead of having criminals killed that way they could be tested on. (thats wat i think)

[DanielTimothy]

In some countries death penalty still exist, so instead of having criminals killed that way they could be tested on. (thats wat i think)

 

Yes, because the countrys that still have the death penalty give two shits about animal rights.

[harribo]

In some countries death penalty still exist, so instead of having criminals killed that way they could be tested on. (thats wat i think)

 

But we're not some countries. We don't have the death penalty plus some of these drugs being tested on them could end up being more like torture.

 

I agree with animal testing BTW