Animal Testing (Ethical debate)

[Slaggis]

A chimp, and a young human child, pretty much the same cognitive abilities, yet you would have no real qualm about killing the chimp, because it's not the same as you, it's different in some way, even though it thinks and feels, although perhaps not to the same degree as you, you don't know. That my friend, is the very sentiment at the heart of the kind of discrimination you all pretend to look down on so much.

 

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 Bard]

This is a debate though, we're not really going to get anywhere if everyone agrees. Animal testing is a controversial matter, there are benefits and there are disadvantages, no one is going to agree on anything so I'm showing you my points for why I think it's right to test on animals in the name of science.

 

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just asking you to accept that your opinion is not categorically exempted from being wrong or right.

 

What I am asking you to do, is justify what you say. Unlike Mikey for example; "We don't owe animals anything." Self righteous to the core. We wouldn't survive as the only species on this planet. Funnily enough, though, Animals would get on a whole lot better without us.

 

As the title states, this is supposed to be an "ethical debate." I'm not sure Mikey actually understands the concept of "ethics," and if he does, he just disregards it, or so the evidence seems to suggest.

[Kirkatronics]

I have two main opinions on this subject.

 

I believe its right to test on animals, if it directly benefits humans or animals quality of life. This includes things like vaccines, and other wonder drugs. Aslong as they are, or will be a necessity in the future.

 

On the other hand, I believe its very wrong to test things that we don’t need. And we defiantly don’t need to test makeup on animals, or check if this bleach will permanently blind us… that’s for us to be stupid enough to try out, its not fair.

 

Summary:

It’s ok if it will benefit quality of life.

It’s not ok if it isn’t needed, such as makeup.

[Mikey]

Little children are dying in hospitals around the world of illnesses. If you don't support animal testing, you don't want them to get better. Disturbing

[Kirkatronics]

Little children are dying in hospitals around the world of illnesses. If you don't support animal testing, you don't want them to get better. Disturbing

thats simply not true, its just some people dont vllue one life over another.

 

i personally believe medical testing is fine, and against cosmetic.

[Mikey]

 

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just asking you to accept that your opinion is not categorically exempted from being wrong or right.

 

What I am asking you to do, is justify what you say. Unlike Mikey for example; "We don't owe animals anything." Self righteous to the core. We wouldn't survive as the only species on this planet. Funnily enough, though, Animals would get on a whole lot better without us.

 

As the title states, this is supposed to be an "ethical debate." I'm not sure Mikey actually understands the concept of "ethics," and if he does, he just disregards it, or so the evidence seems to suggest.

 

You're not one to be talking about my ethics, when you put the life of an animal before a sick child, because that's what you are doing.

[ReZourceman]

i personally believe medical testing is fine, and against cosmetic.

 

Epic nutshellage. Agreed.

[Mikey]

Epic nutshellage. Agreed.

 

 

End of debate as far as I'm concerned.

[Zell]

Little children are dying in hospitals around the world of illnesses. If you don't support animal testing, you don't want them to get better. Disturbing

 

Oh please. You're saying that like animal testing is the only way to get vaccines.

[Mikey]

Oh please. You're saying that like animal testing is the only way to get vaccines.

 

 

Almost all of medical research comes from animal testing. This is a fact. If you don't support animal testing, you are against little children getting better.

[Slaggis]

You're not one to be talking about my ethics, when you put the life of an animal before a sick child, because that's what you are doing.

 

I honestly don't see the problem. If an animal has the same intelligence as that child, then what is the actual difference? Just because one is human it means we mut value it more?

 

So just because something is human, though it has the same intelligence as a, say chimp it's ok for that chimp to die to save the child?

 

I mean, that chimp might have a family, they show very strong social bonds in the wild and obviously form friendships of sorts. They can feel emotions aswell. So, where exactly should the line be drawn?

 

 

(If you reply with something about I'm sick because I don't care about little children, don't bother replying.)

 

---

 

 

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

[Mikey]

I honestly don't see the problem. If an animal has the same intelligence as that child, then what is the actual difference? Just because one is human it means we mut value it more?

 

So just because something is human, though it has the same intelligence as a, say chimp it's ok for that chimp to die to save the child?

 

I mean, that chimp might have a family, they show very strong social bonds in the wild and obviously form friendships of sorts. They can feel emotions aswell. So, where exactly should the line be drawn?

 

 

(If you reply with something about I'm sick because I don't care about little children, don't bother replying.)

 

Yes, all humans are more important than any animals, regardless of intelligence. We look after ourselves, and rightfully so.

[Tellyn]

 

I'm not asking you to agree. I'm just asking you to accept that your opinion is not categorically exempted from being wrong or right.

 

What I am asking you to do, is justify what you say. Unlike Mikey for example; "We don't owe animals anything." Self righteous to the core. We wouldn't survive as the only species on this planet. Funnily enough, though, Animals would get on a whole lot better without us.

 

As the title states, this is supposed to be an "ethical debate." I'm not sure Mikey actually understands the concept of "ethics," and if he does, he just disregards it, or so the evidence seems to suggest.

 

Fair enough. But I think that until the law changes and we're allowed to inject smallpox into criminals, animal testing is the only alternative. I do value animal life and human life, and I don't agree with animal cruelty, but it comes down to human survival at the end of the day. If we stop animal testing, and there is a sudden outbreak of a dangerous mutated disease that is capable of killing a lot of the earth's population, I think the government would want to prevent that. It's an extreme example, but animal testing stops it from getting to that point. The Black Death could probably have been prevented if it occurred in the modern day and we tested vaccines for it on animals.

[Kirkatronics]

Yes, all humans are more important than any animals, regardless of intelligence. We look after ourselves, and rightfully so.

i think animals and people have abuilt in feeling that their own kind is more important than anything.

 

i believe thats why we test on animals.

 

but a lot of animal testing is unneeded, and cruel.

 

would you like bleach poured into your eyes to test its effects? just because your not as big as the ones doing it.

[ReZourceman]

End of debate as far as I'm concerned.

 

Right. Now whos your favourite teletubbie?

 

(Joking folks)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(La-La is clearly the best, no debate)

[Oxigen_Waste]

You're not one to be talking about my ethics, when you put the life of an animal before a sick child, because that's what you are doing.

 

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.

[Mikey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ijLulwUTY

 

Fast forward to about 12 minutes in.

[Kirkatronics]

End of debate as far as I'm concerned.

a debate isnt over just because one view was just 'nut shelled', there are limitless views and argument both valid and invalid.

 

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.

i agree that people only usually care about if its their mum, dad, friend, brother, dog, auntie, or anyone/thing else is close to us.

[Tellyn]

Oh please. You're saying that like animal testing is the only way to get vaccines.

 

No, animal testing is also useful for ensuring that we don't inject 1,000,000 people with this vaccination, only to find out that it also shuts down their circulation system.

[Oxigen_Waste]

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

[Slaggis]

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

 

I love you. : peace:

 

You said exactly what I was trying to say. We, as humans, are animals. Therefore a chimp has as much right to be here as us. So saying an animal has more right to live than another one with the same amount of intelligence is wrong surely?

 

The video I watched, has a kid of about 14 in. He had lost most movement in his body due to a disease but his mind was perfect. He actually said himself that he would rather live like he is than have some intelligent animal die for him.

[The Bard]

You're not one to be talking about my ethics, when you put the life of an animal before a sick child, because that's what you are doing.

 

"Little Children" haha...this guy sounds like one of those cheesy conscription posters. "Support animal testing...and save a little child." Animal testing is not the only way to find, or test cures, it's not even remotely essential. What I'm saying is that the nature of your morality is a little dubious, when you detach yourself so completely from the suffering of another living thing. You're saying that animal testing is "the lesser of two evils," when I'm saying that it doesn't need to exist at all. If I get ill, and there is no drug to save my life as a result of Animal testing being outlawed, I wouldn't be happy or sad as a result, I would be content in the knowledge that the sole purpose of another creatures existence was not to delay the inevitable. People die, children die, and so will you.

[Mikey]

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 Bard]

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.

 

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

[Mikey]

 

"Little Children" haha...this guy sounds like one of those cheesy conscription posters. "Support animal testing...and save a little child." Animal testing is not the only way to find, or test cures, it's not even remotely essential. What I'm saying is that the nature of your morality is a little dubious, when you detach yourself so completely from the suffering of another living thing. You're saying that animal testing is "the lesser of two evils," when I'm saying that it doesn't need to exist at all. If I get ill, and there is no drug to save my life as a result of Animal testing being outlawed, I wouldn't be happy or sad as a result, I would be content in the knowledge that the sole purpose of another creatures existence was not to delay the inevitable. People die, children die, and so will you.

 

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.