Animal Experimentation

Started by Chad - August 27th, 2010 2:37 AM
  • 1447 views
  • 42 replies

Katie_Q

Pokemon master in the making

Age 27
Female
Australia
Seen June 28th, 2013
Posted April 15th, 2013
473 posts
13.4 Years
Well personally I disagree with it. I guess I'm just more of what people would think as the 'hippie' (though I don't do drugs, I shave my legs, and so far haven't ran naked through feilds xD )

I'm a little more ok if it's for medication. Although I think humans shouldn't go to such extremes to prevent our death. People die. Animals die. It's always going to happen and maybe we shouldn't mess with it. But thats a bit off topic anyway (and I guess I'd want to prevent it if I was going to die). I still don't like animal testing.

I find animal testing for other products just wrong on so many levels though. Especially now. We know what doesn't kill us in products, so lets use those. Lets not try anything new that'll need testing at the expanse of somethings life. I find it just... disgusting. I mean, make up? Putting a living things life in danger so someone can look 'pretty'?

But that's just my opinion.
Age 11
Female
It should be "where do you live?" Get it right, PC. -.-
Seen July 24th, 2011
Posted June 19th, 2011
163 posts
12.7 Years
For a while now, people have been experimenting on non-humans, i.e animals, in order to develop products and medication. So, the main question is, is it morally acceptable to use animals as test subjects for human benefit?

Discuss.

A cliche topic, I know.
I'm not being insensitive but I kinda agree on animal experimentation. Scientists achieved some of the biggest goals in human history; the cloning technology, creation of new animal species/reliving of ancient animals like mammoths or dinosaurs, and the creation of artificial synthetic bacteria. Animals helped us in many ways of scientific advancement and in return we help them too through animal cloning preventing animal species to be endangered. Also human cloning is real too.
Age 31
Male
Seen August 28th, 2012
Posted August 27th, 2012
415 posts
13.9 Years
I am incredibly sympathetic to animals, so if I were ever forced to watch it, I would probably break down in tears and my stomach would turn endlessly. I would feel so awful for these animals and I would beg the people to stop what they're doing immediately.

However, we can't acquire new knowledge without testing. You can't ignore that fact. So it all comes down to what is more morally wrong, testing on animals or testing on human life?
i wanna say here's to me gonna change the world ▲

BareBones

The kids are all messed up.

Birmingham, England.
Seen September 1st, 2013
Posted April 9th, 2012
173 posts
12.9 Years
For medical purposes, I can agree. That said, you still have to be weary; not all animal bodies react the same way human bodies do, so while it may cure a mouse, it might make a person sick.

For cosmetics, no. We don't need cosmetics, it's not important.

| World of Warcraft | Homestuck | Persona 3 | Persona 4 |

Guillermo

i own a rabbit heh

Age 28
Australia
Seen April 11th, 2015
Posted May 18th, 2014
6,794 posts
14.9 Years
Eh, I'm two-sided about topics relating to animals. I love them, far more than I love people. We need to grow and learn, but so do animals. People rely on animals and animals rely on people.

I disagree with animal cruelty, but for medical purposes, I guess it's needed. However, I think we should be doing medical tests on people on death row more than animals.
credittoDukey
one life, one chance


| | le deux | | so-so-soulful

Katie_Q

Pokemon master in the making

Age 27
Female
Australia
Seen June 28th, 2013
Posted April 15th, 2013
473 posts
13.4 Years
Eh, I'm two-sided about topics relating to animals. I love them, far more than I love people. We need to grow and learn, but so do animals. People rely on animals and animals rely on people.

I disagree with animal cruelty, but for medical purposes, I guess it's needed. However, I think we should be doing medical tests on people on death row more than animals.
That would probably be a lot smarter. So long as the person gives permission of course Not that the rats ever do. And like someone above said, something tested on an animal could have a different effect on a human, so it's probably actually safer...

Jolene

Your huckleberry friend

Age 27
Female
Seen September 25th, 2012
Posted September 25th, 2012
1,287 posts
13.8 Years
Hmmm no I don't want them to experiment on animals because I love animals. I think they should experiment on human criminals but only the really bad criminals like mass murderers and human traffickers.

What light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Joliet is the sun!

Charizard★

Age 28
Female
Seen January 28th, 2019
Posted November 13th, 2018
13,369 posts
13.8 Years
i think they should experiment on people who experiment on animals
My thoughts exactly. Just because animals don't talk doesn't mean they don't feel pain. It outrages me to see animal cruelty like that.


Age 31
Female
The Wired
Seen April 27th, 2016
Posted February 1st, 2016
7,540 posts
13 Years
I am an animal lover but if it came down to it I would rather experiment on an animals than humans even though there are humans on this earth that don't deserve to breathe.

I can assure you if you had to sacrifice your morals and test on animals to save a loved one you wouldn't hesitate in doing so.

Testing for unnecessary products like make up is a different matter though.
Age 29
Male
Seen March 10th, 2023
Posted August 22nd, 2022
3,482 posts
15 Years
To be honest, I don't really care. I can see the good of testing on animals (we wouldn't have half the medical stuff we have today without animal testing. Such as antibiotics), but also the bad (it is quite cruel)

What people do not seem to get is that the treatments are tested on cells first (or should do, legally), before animals. If anything adverse happens to the cells, then it doesn't get tested on animals. Most of the times, yes animals do get reactions that cells don't get, but you do have to see that you do need to pay a price for discoveries. If we weren't allowed to test on animals, there would be less medication, as no one would test on people for the same reason.

As for what the above poster said, in saying that, is it worth it? An eye for an eye, and all that.

I kinda do and do not see the point of animal testings.


Temmie vibrates intensely.

awwAwa cute!! (pets u)

OMG!! humans TOO CUTE (dies)

can't blame a BARK for tryin'...

RATED TEM OUTTA TEM.

Seen September 18th, 2020
Posted February 18th, 2018
7,741 posts
16.6 Years
IMO we should test products on the species they are intended for — for the most part, this means H. sapiens. The persons I have in mind are criminals already condemned to death or life imprisonment; they may as well 'be useful'. This is more out of practical interest than anything, really; such that the outcomes of the experiments are as precise as possible and less is wasted. Of course, the main problem with using certain humans is there aren't as many bodies to go around... Wouldn't want the gravedigging business to start up again.

Anyway, more specifically, non-human animal experiemntation... Apart from the above suggestion I'm indifferent to it. What I do find a little bewildering however is this distinction people make between medical and cosmetic purposes. How is medicine, that is the selfish prolonging of our own lives and expanding of our wellbeings, comparatively noble? Like rabbits, may be fall victim to our increasing numbers and furthered displacement.
Age 30
Male
Not Okazaki, Japan
Seen October 18th, 2010
Posted October 15th, 2010
1,101 posts
12.8 Years
There are millions of humans out there. I would use someone who was condemned to death rather than an animal :/
Billions, not millions.

Personally, I don't see why they can't just do what the medical industry does. Test on humans, but have them sign forms so if anything goes wrong they can't sue. Then pay them.

Testing on animals is a bit messed up. :x
Are you gay?
Are you bisexual?
Are you transgendered?
Are you an ally?

Are you looking for a friend?
Maybe some advice?
Or maybe just a place to feel normal?

Go to EmptyClosets.

Starstruck★ :Pair
Shinies :Important Links
Age 29
Male
Seen March 10th, 2023
Posted August 22nd, 2022
3,482 posts
15 Years
Billions, not millions.

Personally, I don't see why they can't just do what the medical industry does. Test on humans, but have them sign forms so if anything goes wrong they can't sue. Then pay them.

Testing on animals is a bit messed up. :x
Yeah, but even in the medical industry, it is tested on animals before humans even touch it.

Think of it like this, would you rather let hundreds of people die of a disease which could have been researched by testing on hundreds of animals?


Temmie vibrates intensely.

awwAwa cute!! (pets u)

OMG!! humans TOO CUTE (dies)

can't blame a BARK for tryin'...

RATED TEM OUTTA TEM.

Age 30
Male
Not Okazaki, Japan
Seen October 18th, 2010
Posted October 15th, 2010
1,101 posts
12.8 Years


Yeah, but even in the medical industry, it is tested on animals before humans even touch it.

Think of it like this, would you rather let hundreds of people die of a disease which could have been researched by testing on hundreds of animals?
There must be a safer way. :(

Can't we just..test it on trees or something? ;~; No one likes trees! that's a joke
Are you gay?
Are you bisexual?
Are you transgendered?
Are you an ally?

Are you looking for a friend?
Maybe some advice?
Or maybe just a place to feel normal?

Go to EmptyClosets.

Starstruck★ :Pair
Shinies :Important Links

Charizard★

Age 28
Female
Seen January 28th, 2019
Posted November 13th, 2018
13,369 posts
13.8 Years
Billions, not millions.

Personally, I don't see why they can't just do what the medical industry does. Test on humans, but have them sign forms so if anything goes wrong they can't sue. Then pay them.

Testing on animals is a bit messed up. :x
I meant that >< typo sorry



Yeah, but even in the medical industry, it is tested on animals before humans even touch it.

Think of it like this, would you rather let hundreds of people die of a disease which could have been researched by testing on hundreds of animals?
It depends on the rarity of the animal. Each life is equal to a life. No organism is above another organism.


Age 29
Male
Seen March 10th, 2023
Posted August 22nd, 2022
3,482 posts
15 Years

I meant that >< typo sorry



It depends on the rarity of the animal. Each life is equal to a life. No organism is above another organism.
OK, what they normally test on - mice, guinea pigs, normal pigs, whatever.


Temmie vibrates intensely.

awwAwa cute!! (pets u)

OMG!! humans TOO CUTE (dies)

can't blame a BARK for tryin'...

RATED TEM OUTTA TEM.

Charizard★

Age 28
Female
Seen January 28th, 2019
Posted November 13th, 2018
13,369 posts
13.8 Years
Sorry on my post I kind of contradicted myself ><



OK, what they normally test on - mice, guinea pigs, normal pigs, whatever.
Still, each life has a value, like I said before you can't say that some humans life is more valuable then an elephant's or something.


Age 29
Male
Seen March 10th, 2023
Posted August 22nd, 2022
3,482 posts
15 Years
Sorry on my post I kind of contradicted myself ><


Still, each life has a value, like I said before you can't say that some humans life is more valuable then an elephant's or something.
You can't say that it is worth risking the humans life in case of any disease either, if you are using that argument. Think, one way, you are risking animals (testing doesn't always lead to weird mutations, that is the thing), but the other you are risking lives (when the disease strikes, it hits big if it is major enough).

So, there is always a risk, but always a benefit. If we do test, we risk animals (may not affect them anyway, we can't tell, but yes, it does risk their lives, or mutating them), but if we don't test we risk humanity (huge diseases, could eventually do major harm, but it may not be worth it anyway. The bigwigs in their labs say we cannot test on humans until we have tested on simple organisms, then more complex animals, then humans, apparently). Either way, something has to give, no matter if you are for or against. One side is majorly affected in some way.


Temmie vibrates intensely.

awwAwa cute!! (pets u)

OMG!! humans TOO CUTE (dies)

can't blame a BARK for tryin'...

RATED TEM OUTTA TEM.

Charizard★

Age 28
Female
Seen January 28th, 2019
Posted November 13th, 2018
13,369 posts
13.8 Years


You can't say that it is worth risking the humans life in case of any disease either, if you are using that argument. Think, one way, you are risking animals (testing doesn't always lead to weird mutations, that is the thing), but the other you are risking lives (when the disease strikes, it hits big if it is major enough).

So, there is always a risk, but always a benefit. If we do test, we risk animals (may not affect them anyway, we can't tell, but yes, it does risk their lives, or mutating them), but if we don't test we risk humanity (huge diseases, could eventually do major harm, but it may not be worth it anyway. The bigwigs in their labs say we cannot test on humans until we have tested on simple organisms, then more complex animals, then humans, apparently). Either way, something has to give, no matter if you are for or against. One side is majorly affected in some way.
I know what you mean, but for me its not right. I mean humans are creating a way to live longer which isn't natural. I don't think we need a lot of these medications. But still, testing on animals seems cruel to me. If we test on people who are condemned to death because they murdered I think it would be just as good :/

Wow, I sound kinda heartless saying that D: