|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 9:39 am
I am for limited animal testing. It's obviously wrong to test things like cosmetics, viagra, ect. However, I make my decisions based on logic and rationality. Not based on emotion. I know, for example, that we can save human lives right now simply by killing a pig. We kill it, harvest stem cells, and save people with horrible diseases.
Sometimes, we need to make a few sacrifices. Scientists everyday need to do this to benefit everyone. And it's not like they are going to try to advance, and be able to do it simply without sacrificing anything.
You can't just say "It's wrong to experiment on animals" or to kill them for medical purposes. However, people who didn't have any hope before can now live full, happy lives.
I am opposed to dissecting animals at School (which is why i failed High School Science), and testing most products. There are some medical reasons, however, where I say it is definitely necessary.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:15 pm
I understand what you're saying I guess, but I don't really support testing medications because sometimes people die from things approved ok in animals.. I suppose under certain circumstances it might need to be done, just as long its as humane as possible..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:23 am
In the past, testing on animals was the only way. Now there are completely 100% animal free tests for medical purposes. Consider the fact that animals are so completely different from us and then take into account the fact that almost all animals kept in testing facilities are abused, beaten, sick, and denied vet care. how can a test result be accurate? the animal free tests they have developed are proven to give more accurate and prompt results... no animals have to die anymore yet nobody really makes a huge deal out of it so they can keep doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:00 pm
shawna_hudson In the past, testing on animals was the only way. Now there are completely 100% animal free tests for medical purposes. Consider the fact that animals are so completely different from us and then take into account the fact that almost all animals kept in testing facilities are abused, beaten, sick, and denied vet care. how can a test result be accurate? the animal free tests they have developed are proven to give more accurate and prompt results... no animals have to die anymore yet nobody really makes a huge deal out of it so they can keep doing it. But they still need to be harvested for medicine. I think conditions need to be improved, and I also know there is still a necessity for it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:51 pm
Eh? Whats "harvested for medicine" mean? o_O
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:37 am
LETS DO THE MARIO!! Eh? Whats "harvested for medicine" mean? o_O My little sister has Lupus. Long story short, she needs a million dollar operation to save her life. Well, we don't have that. However, if we did, this is what we would need to do: Take a Pregnant pig, kill it, and harvest the stem cells. Stem Cells from a pig work better then human cells in some operations. My sister is a human being. Her life is more valuable then that pig's. No doubt animals are intelligent and deserve respect. A human life is still more valuable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:54 am
I agree that animal testing for things like cosmetics, as well as medications for stupid things such as ED is very stupid, but if animal testing is done to try to find medications that could save many lives, then I'm all for it.
If sacrificing the lives of lab animals is what it takes to find a cure for different types of cancer or for HIV/AIDS, then I'm all for it. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 8:37 pm
Simply put: If they can do it to animals, they should do it to humans too.
I understand that it's easier to do experiments on animals because they don't live as long and you can do life long experiments in a shorter amount of time in order to find cures faster, and also animals have a smaller brain capacity (I'm not callin' 'em stupid or anythin', but the way they think is different) so there are less variables, but I still believe that it isn't nice to use them as mere subjects and lower life forms in an experiment and not a livin' thing with a precious life.
I don't know what sort of compromise could be reached, since both sides have a good case. This may sound horrible, but perhaps animals that are strays or unable to be adopted but still in good health should be used for experimentation, just so their lives are not wasted. I know it sounds horrible, especially comin' from an animal lover, but it is a possible solution to help with the growin' rates of animals in shelters (besides the obvious solution of bein' responsible with your pets) as well as a way to still carry out experiments that could one day save lives.
I hope y'all don't find what I said cruel, I'm just tryin' to think up a compromise. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 16, 2007 2:03 pm
Newski LETS DO THE MARIO!! Eh? Whats "harvested for medicine" mean? o_O My little sister has Lupus. Long story short, she needs a million dollar operation to save her life. Well, we don't have that. However, if we did, this is what we would need to do: Take a Pregnant pig, kill it, and harvest the stem cells. Stem Cells from a pig work better then human cells in some operations. My sister is a human being. Her life is more valuable then that pig's. No doubt animals are intelligent and deserve respect. A human life is still more valuable. I don't understand. You make a thread about animal testing and then talk about harvesting animals for medicine. I thought animal testing was using animals in experiments; I understand that to get to the point of harvesting for medicine testing would have certainly occurred, but I don't believe what you're describing qualifies as animal testing. The harvesting is a known medical procedure that was established through testing, but the current harvesting is simply a medical procedure that takes the animal's life, but doesn't serve an experimental purpose because the outcome is known. Therefore, it's not animal testing. However, I think that distinction raises another valid question: under what circumstances is it acceptable to take an animal's life to prolong a human's life?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2007 9:50 pm
It's always right to use an animal life to prolong a human life. We have the higher brain functions. But I know what you are saying about the difference between testing and harvesting.
HOWEVER, unless they experimented with the Pig cells in the first place, they wouldn't have known the wonders that they will do. How many animals did they kill? Hundreds? Thousands? Yes. How many people are going to benefit? Millions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:11 am
I know, you simply rehashed what I said about needing the testing to get to the point of harvesting. Animal testing and animal harvesting are not equal; trying to make an argument for animal testing by noting an instance of animal harvesting is misleading because not all animal testing leads to a treatment for humans. Animal harvesting causes animal suffering, but in that instance it is done knowing it will benefit a human. Animal testing always causes animal suffering, but does not always lead to a treatment for humans. The two are not equal. Animal testing is conducted under the premise that non-human animals will respond to treatments in the same way that a human body would. This is untrue. When we test on a rat, we learn about rats. "Attempts to sue the manufacturers of the drug Surgam failed due to the testimony of medical experts that: ‘data from animals could not be extrapolated safely to patients’." More facts.I don't share your views. I don't think the abuse or death of a non-human animal is acceptable even if it benefits humans. I think it's sick to say humans are better because of our mental capacity, and then to say this allows us to commit such atrocities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 30, 2007 12:03 pm
pilliwinks I don't share your views. I don't think the abuse or death of a non-human animal is acceptable even if it benefits humans. I think it's sick to say humans are better because of our mental capacity, and then to say this allows us to commit such atrocities. Fine. My sister is dying, you a*****e. She's not expected to make it passed this week. Because you care about your precious animals so much more, I guess you really don't value life. Since you actively oppose treating her, you are ******** guilty of murder. And I will think of you as a killer, and I will treat you like somebody who has commited a crime where the only punishment is a loss of all personal freedoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:23 pm
I'm personally, 'stuck in the middle' as some would say. Animals react to drugs differently then we do. Mice aren't little people. They can't tell you how much it hurts or what the side effects are. Their systems are much different then ours.
We all have to remember, animals want to live and be free like humans. They feel pain, they bleed, and they feel lonely and sad. When it comes to pain, hunger, and thirst and not wanting to die, we are all basically the same.
It's hard to think of all the animals suffering. No food. No water. No medical attention. Just so we can have a new hairspray or lipstick. Yes I know, the experimentations for medical purposes have a more better purpose. Thats where I am 'stuck in the middle'. If a sacrifation of pigs is needed to save the lives of children, and rid people of AIDS/HIV and other diseases, for now and in the distant future, then I think it's right. I hate saying that, but it's hard to argue against.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:33 pm
Would it then be acceptable to harvest parts from or test medical treatments on mentally disabled humans?
I don't agree with torturing and murdering one animal for the sake of another - ever.
How can we judge who's life is worth more? Being a human isn't a default for a "more valuable" life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 6:37 pm
Lately, my views on Animal Rights have definately been shifting, due to the fact that I've been reading a lot about ethics and animal rights lately. Knowledge is a powerful tool, and has the capacity to change an individuals views around fully.
Though I have never been a proponent of testing non-medical items on animals, my view has been expanded, to the point where I see animal testion as bad, period.
A great deal of valuable scientific information was gathered in the 1940's through human expirimentation at Aushwitz, yet the torture that was used to obtain that information is denounced today. Animal expirementation may give humanity some bits and pieces of scientific and medical information, but does that give us any right to administer torture to sentient beings?
A more compelling question is; Would you support using mentally retarded humans with the intellectual capacity of a six year old as subjects for medical expirimentation? If not, then why do you support the use of primates with similar or greater mental capabilities as subjects for such tests? It does not make sense...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
