Animal Testing (Ethical debate)

[Oxigen_Waste]

Do people honestly think scientists test on animals just for some sadist fantasies? Really? It NEEDS to be done to save lives, otherwise it wouldn't be done.

 

People need to get a grip on reality. Really.

 

The problem is, it's not the only way to test things... it's just the easier one.

And again, one live = one live. If one dies in order for one to live... I don't see the point.

[Mikey]

I'm going for a shower, and I'll be using soap which was probably used on animals during the research phase. Maybe I'll come back and debate you some more, but there isn't much of a debate to be had here. lol

[Slaggis]

I'm going for a shower, and I'll be using soap which was probably used on animals during the research phase. Maybe I'll come back and debate you some more, but there isn't much of a debate to be had here. lol

 

You realise most supermarkets own brand products i.e shampoos, soaps etc were not tested on animals? (as stated on them). They find other ways of testing things.

[The Bard]

You're so full of shit, it's quite staggering. Scientists wouldn't test on animals if it wasn't needed, or are you suggesting you know better than scientists, OR, are you suggesting they get some sort of sadist kick out of it? If needs to be done. FACT.

 

No animal testing = almost zero medical research = little children dieing. Obviously appealing to your heart for just normal sick people isn't enough, but nor is trying to get you to care for sick little children. I find it disturbing.

 

Oh, I'm sorry that I don't subscribe to whatever puppydog eyed fantasy is playing out in your head,

 

Just because Animal testing continues, doesn't mean it's necessary you idiot, we can test on humans too. Example: Testing of the first polio vaccine. People volunteered, and the vaccine didn't work; they got polio from it. The difference is, the simple fact that they consented to the trial, shows not only that they had grit, but it also liberates everyone from any moral doubts. See what I'm getting at?

 

Your statement "Humans > Animals" shows exactly how retarded you are, especially as this time, you're defining individuals by species rather than religion. I'm pretty sure I'd save the life of any organism on the planet over a Hitler. You see what I'm getting at here? Let me point it out to you: You are a dense motherfucker.

[The fish]

 

Oh, I'm sorry that I don't subscribe to whatever puppydog eyed fantasy is playing out in your head,

 

Just because Animal testing continues, doesn't mean it's necessary you idiot, we can test on humans too. Example: Testing of the first polio vaccine. People volunteered, and the vaccine didn't work; they got polio from it. The difference is, the simple fact that they consented to the trial, shows not only that they had grit, but it also liberates everyone from any moral doubts. See what I'm getting at?

 

Your statement "Humans > Animals" shows exactly how retarded you are, especially as this time, you're defining individuals by species rather than religion. I'm pretty sure I'd save the life of any organism on the planet over a Hitler. You see what I'm getting at here? Let me point it out to you: You are a dense motherfucker.

 

The flaw with your argument is that there are too many drugs for humans to test them all on volunteers - a year or so back, there was the case of six guys who got horrifically ill by testing drugs.

 

One main difference is that, in the event of the drug causing the animal distress, they are killed almost instantly, which is, given the two options, is the better one. However, with human testers, no one wants to kill one of them if the drugs have a nasty negative effect.

 

The first person to call it murder gets a slap - it's euthanasia.

[Mikey]

 

Oh, I'm sorry that I don't subscribe to whatever puppydog eyed fantasy is playing out in your head,

 

Just because Animal testing continues, doesn't mean it's necessary you idiot, we can test on humans too. Example: Testing of the first polio vaccine. People volunteered, and the vaccine didn't work; they got polio from it. The difference is, the simple fact that they consented to the trial, shows not only that they had grit, but it also liberates everyone from any moral doubts. See what I'm getting at?

 

Your statement "Humans > Animals" shows exactly how retarded you are, especially as this time, you're defining individuals by species rather than religion. I'm pretty sure I'd save the life of any organism on the planet over a Hitler. You see what I'm getting at here? Let me point it out to you: You are a dense motherfucker.

 

 

LOL, you thick ****. It continues because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, not unless you want to test on humans. Unless you are volunteering, then shut the f up. I've already posted a link to a video which pretty much explains why it's needed, you carry on ignoring it.

 

Humans > animals.

 

Don't let me see you in hospital receiving treatment of any kind for any illnesses which were developed by testing on animals, because I'll kick you out. LOL

 

F'in hell, you animal rights people are retarded.

 

Once again.

 

Humans > animals.

 

Hitler, wtf does he have to do with anything, now you're just trying to find exceptions to the rule in a pathetic attempt to divert attention away from the original subject. Sit down, you're crap.

 

Once more.

 

Humans > animals

[The fish]

LOL, you thick ****. It continues because THERE IS NO OTHER WAY, not unless you want to test on humans. Unless you are volunteering, then shut the f up.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but only with tests for medical drugs in humane conditions.

[The Bard]

I'm happy with the limitations. The guys who got horrifically ill, yeah, that sucks for them, but at the end of the day, I couldn't give a shit, they volunteered, so it's alright. In fact, they should be admired.

 

Hell, this is getting into Euthanasia territory, but I think the subjects might be aware that excessive drug trials could result in a mild case of death.

 

Unless you are volunteering, then shut the f up.

 

Don't let me see you in hospital receiving treatment of any kind for any illnesses which were developed by testing on animals, because I'll kick you out. LOL

 

I'm not volunteering, because I genuinely don't care. I accept that I might get very ill, I have been before, and like then, I won't refuse drugs either, but as I've stated before, if the drug is not there, I'm not the sort to get all weepy at the idea of my own mortality.

 

Maybe, like applying to be a donor when you die, you should be able to apply to be a guinea pig when you turn into a vegetable. I don't know, fear of death leads people to do irrational and inconsiderate things...*points to Sonnet 11 by John Donne* Pretentious allusions ftw.

[Mikey]

I'm going to apologize. Not for my opinions, but for the way I put them across. I get very passionate at times, and can't control myself. I still think Humans > animals though.

[Oxigen_Waste]

The first person to call it murder gets a slap - it's euthanasia.

 

Not if I I'm there, it isn't.

 

I'm going to apologize. Not for my opinions, but for the way I put them across. I get very passionate at times, and can't control myself. I still think Humans > animals though.

 

That's right... you "think". Because you're human. Universally, all beings are equal.

All beings!!! That means that Cockroach = person.

[Kurtle Squad]

There is no big "ethical debate." We've had this argument before, and my reaction is the same as always:

 

If it's our problem, we should sort it out on our own. Find someone who is willing to be tested on. What is it that gives us jurisdiction over the lives of sentient creatures? I'm not proposing some Auschwitz like ordeal, but the majority of human diseases are there as a result of our own idiocy and lack of foresight, so instead of using war to keep human populations in check, why don't we go right ahead and use drug testing, if it works, great, if it don't, shit happens. I'm only joking. But yeah, Animal testing = epic fail.

QFT!!!

 

It seemed to work when the Nazi's used Jews for tests....How about we use Muslims now?

[Deathborn]

I agree with Oxigen_Waste. A life is a life. I don't care of people I don't know dying and, if someone I know die of illness, I'll be sad but it's life. Death is part of life and humans tend to forget it. Curing every single disease is not necessary (and completely impossible) and even more if we consider the overpopulation which is a real plague for Earth (and for humans too).

 

Humans aren't superior to other animals, they have just evolved by following a different path.

Following the reasoning of Mikey, if an alien species in a more advanced state of evolution come to Earth, they would have the rights to do whatever they want with us.

 

Anyway, I'm not fundamentaly against testing for scientific purpose if it's done with full respect of the animal, which is mostly the case. And f*ck cosmetics and other useless and disrespectful testing.

[The fish]

QFT!!!

 

It seemed to work when the Nazi's used Jews for tests....How about we use Muslims now?

 

Because it's essentially torture if it's not voluntary?

[Kurtle Squad]

Because it's essentially torture if it's not voluntary?

So??....They had their bloody chance.

[Oxigen_Waste]

So??....They had their bloody chance.

 

OMFG ROTFLMAO.

[The fish]

So??....They had their bloody chance.

 

What the fuck?

 

You're a colossal moron, you know?

 

In fact, how about we do it on morons? I think that's a great idea! Kurtle is first in line!

[Kurtle Squad]

What the fuck?

 

You're a colossal moron, you know?

 

In fact, how about we do it on morons? I think that's a great idea! Kurtle is first in line!

There was supposed to be "apparent" before Muslims by the way.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

[somme]

Animals only have the rights we give them.

 

If I get to live 50 years longer and some animals have to die in the process that's fine with me.

[Kurtle Squad]

Animals only have the rights we give them.

 

If I get to live 50 years longer and some animals have to die in the process that's fine with me.

Wish you could have the rights I give you...Zero.

[Supergrunch]

According to other "scientists", humans aren't designed to eat meat.

Heh, point me in their direction.

I agree with bard, I mean why not test some of this stuff on us? I mean i'm sure there are people out there who would volunteer.

They do test drugs on humans, after testing them on animals. A huge number of new drugs have potential to be incredibly dangerous - are you suggesting we just give them out to people? Even if you believe it's as bad giving them to animals (I'll come on to this), anyone advocating we give new drugs straight to humans wouldn't get into (or stay in) power for long. I believe 1 in 500 000 potential drugs make it to the market... and only a small fraction of these would be tested on animals, and an even smaller fraction on humans. Animal testing is only carried out where absolutely necessary.

I'm going to take a middle ground and say :for medical research, in humane conditions, it's not just fine, but I actively encourage it.

For cosmetics, and when they are treated inhumanely unnecessarily, or if they are given something "just to see what happens" (not a medical drug for testing), the sooner we see the back of it, the the better.

This is pretty much my view, but I take issue with the "just to see what happens" point. Isn't that a way of describing scientific research? How do you expect drugs to be developed without an understanding of, say, biochemistry?

Exactly. What is the difference? People always say, well animals are less intelligent than us and thats why it's ok etc. Well, like the bard says, a young chimp is about as intelligent as a young child, I mean we evolved from them for christs sake. So therefore, whats the difference between testing on a chimp and testing on a small child or someone mentally disabled? Just because one looks different shouldn't make a difference.

The massive difference between a chimp and a human child is potential. A chimp is a chimp, and will stay a chimp, but a human child will grow into an adult. As for mentally disabled people, they're a sensitive issue, not necessarily because they're similar to us, but because they are directly related to us.

Epic nutshellage. Agreed.

Also agreed.

Youd do realise there are other ways to make vaccines/medicines?

There really aren't.

I think that until the law changes and we're allowed to inject smallpox into criminals, animal testing is the only alternative.

 

Even if you agree with the ethics here (which I don't), we don't want to introduce smallpox back into the population...

And that's unethicall because... Come seriously, why?

 

I'll say it again:

 

One death = one death.

People = animals.

1 Animal death = 1 human death.

I don't care if a cockroach dies, I don't care if a person dies. Unless said cockroach or person is close to me. :P

 

But that's just me.

So... when is an animal not an animal? Does a nit count as an animal? Does Plasmodium? (the agent causing malaria, a protoctist) Indeed, how does a plant differ from a cockroach? Are you telling me that you shouldn't use paper?

Seriously though, there's nothing that makes us better than animals. We just have greater sympathy for our own species.

Yep.

No, they do it because, like you, they have some odd will to immortality, regardless of the means.

Not immortality, just curing diseases. I know you claim not to give a fuck if you're going to die and there's no cure, but what if, say, it was your child dying?

 

Anyway, it's a complex issue, and I think it is currently dealt with reasonably well by the scientific community. Animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary, and the more intelligent the animal appears to be, the stricter the regulations. However, many dilemmas still remain. Let's say animal testing is allowed for life threatening diseases, but not for cosmetic testing. Is animal testing then allowed for a hayfever cure?

 

Nevertheless, the idea is a little distrubing for some people, but the same is true of slaughter houses. In fact, animals bred for food are treated far worse than those bred to undergo testing.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Animals only have the rights we give them.

 

Why?????

[Tellyn]

 

Even if you agree with the ethics here (which I don't), we don't want to introduce smallpox back into the population...

 

So... when is an animal not an animal? Does a nit count as an animal? Does Plasmodium? (the agent causing malaria, a protoctist) Indeed, how does a plant differ from a cockroach? Are you telling me that you shouldn't use paper?

 

Yep.

 

Not immortality, just curing diseases. I know you claim not to give a fuck if you're going to die and there's no cure, but what if, say, it was your child dying?

 

Anyway, it's a complex issue, and I think it is currently dealt with reasonably well by the scientific community. Animals are only tested on when absolutely necessary, and the more intelligent the animal appears to be, the stricter the regulations. However, many dilemmas still remain. Let's say animal testing is allowed for life threatening diseases, but not for cosmetic testing. Is animal testing then allowed for a hayfever cure?

 

Nevertheless, the idea is a little distrubing for some people, but the same is true of slaughter houses. In fact, animals bred for food are treated far worse than those bred to undergo testing.

 

You know I was joking about the smallpox?

[Supergrunch]

You know I was joking about the smallpox?

...that would make sense. Sorry, tired and all, my internet sarcasm radar is down.

[Oxigen_Waste]

So... when is an animal not an animal? Does a nit count as an animal? Does Plasmodium? (the agent causing malaria, a protoctist) Indeed, how does a plant differ from a cockroach? Are you telling me that you shouldn't use paper?

 

The fact we're equal doesn't mean I treat them right.

[Supergrunch]

The fact we're equal doesn't mean I treat them right.

Then why do you care about whether animals are tested on?