PDA

View Full Version : Debate: Should Animal Testing Be Illegal?


Dog of Hellsing
02-08-2006, 07:44 PM
Animal testing.

These two words make most people cringe and spark outrage throughout the world. Others think it's no big deal, and still others support it all the way.

This is a thread where you can debate whether or not you think animal testing should be made illegal. Be sure to give descriptive reasons for your answer. This is intended to be an intelligent, thoughtful topic and I don't want it getting SPAM-ed up. Here is my belief on the topic.

I think animal testing should be made illegal to the highest degree. I don't understand why people say it's "science" when it's obviously torture. Scientists and such justify their actions by claiming that animals don't feel pain in the same way that humans do, so it's okay. But humans are animals too, and can ANY type of suffering be justified like this? How can a dog feel pain differently than a human? Pain is pain and that's it.

People claim that the cries and howls of agony animals make are just automatic, that they don't really convey the true agnoy the animal is feeling, but how can anyone believe such a thing? If you hear a dog screaming in pain after it's been hit by a car, and compare it to a human's screams, how can you say, "Well the dog is obviously not feeling real pain, but the human is." Is it because humans are capable of "rational thought?" Is it because of their "unique language abilities?"

Not only that, but a lot of animal testing is done for cosmetic companies and cleaning agencies and such. Rabbits have acidic things poured into their eyes to see what it does to them. Monkies are painted with makeup to see if it causes any sort of skin rashes or what not. What's the point of these mindless, painful experiments? Humans are animals, yes, but that doesn't mean what happens to the rabbits or the monkies will happen to humans. It's a horrible practice.

Imagine yourself in a test animal's life. You sit in a cage all day, only being taken out when you have awful things force-fed to you, never for affection and love and kindness and company. Your screams go unheeded, your wounds are never treated with care and compassion, you die in horrible, agonized darkness and no one cries for you. Animal testing doesn't seem so "justified" when you see it like that, does it?

To close my argument for now, I have this to say: humans are animals and when pain is inflicted on them against their will, most would call it assult or torture. But why, WHY, when such disgusting things are being done to other animals, why do people say it's not torture? How can they claim that if it's not human it's not worth protecting and respecting?

Neo Emolga
02-09-2006, 06:02 PM
As much as it pains me to admit, if you eliminate the option of animal testing "to the highest degree" as you say, then you likely delay a possible cure for AIDS or cancer, to the point thousands of people would die because they didn't obtain a cure as soon as possible. Already, through animal testing, researchers have been able to examine the effects of a drug, and made sure it was safe before it hit store shelves and thousands of people would buy it. So what does animal testing do? It drops the risk of a possibly dangerous drug hitting store shelves where thousands of people could possibly get severely ill or die because of it. Don't mind me saying, but if the sacrifice of a few lab rats could save the lives of thousands of humans, I'd be all for it.

If medical researchers can't use animals for live testing, then the next in line becomes humans themselves. You would likely hear more about accidental deaths due from chemicals that examiners could not fully test before release. Major developments in science including the creation of penicillin and organ transplant involved... you got it, animal testing. Whether or not it could have been done without it is still a question, but needless to say, we got there one step sooner because of it.

While I definitely agree, something should be done to make sure animal testing is done under humane conditions, should be regulated closely, and should only be used when absolutely no other option is possible or feasible, you can't eliminate it completely.

Next time you're sick and you find yourself having to pick up a cold medicine or asprin, consider the fact that animals could have been used to make that possible for you. And consider the thought that if you ever need an organ transplant, the loss of being able to test animals might have delayed that medical breakthrough, or perhaps cancel it completely.

I agree, minimize the use of animal testing, especially if an alternate method is possible. But if there's no other option, it's something that needs to be done to help as many people as possible.

Dog of Hellsing
02-09-2006, 09:06 PM
I see your point, but I can't help thinking what right humans have to place their lives over the lives of other animals. How many animals do you think might have died as a result of organ transplant experiments or any kind of testing? It's not just a few animals here and there that die. Not to mention it's not just rats that get tested on, it's all sorts of animals, including humankind's closest evolutionary cousin, the monkey. Would you be so for testing if it was a cat, or a dog being made to anguish?

Also, there's no way to can conduct "humane" experiments like this on live animals. Even if you use painkillers or something on them, they still may suffer painful side-affects after the drugs have worn off.

Think about it. Can saving the lives of thousands of one species ever really justify the pain, fear, suffering, and ultimately death of even one single individual of another species? To be completely honest I'd rather suffer a cold than think I'm using something that could have caused an unknown amount of animals pain and death. Others might call me an idtiot for felling so strongly about this, but I could care less.

DaRkUmBrEoN
02-09-2006, 09:14 PM
I see it this way, and for the record I agree with NP.

Animals life in certain relationships, like predator-prey, parasite-prey, and so on. For one species to survive, another must be eaten, used, slaughtered, and so on. It's just natural.

Doesn't a rabbit feel pain, fear, suffering and ultimately death, just to take care of the fox's appetite?

The problem with humans is that we can't always control ourselves, causing massive depletion in the populations of other species.

Another problem with humans is, that they don't reproduce fast enough to make some kinds of testing useful. Who'd wanna buy mascara, if their kids end up with a genetical disfunction leading to eye cancer? Well?

I'm not advocating every kind of animal testing, and yeah, sure if there are alternatives use them. But you can't make anyone suffer just because you care about other species. It's just not natural.

Dog of Hellsing
02-09-2006, 09:26 PM
Animals life in certain relationships, like predator-prey, parasite-prey, and so on. For one species to survive, another must be eaten, used, slaughtered, and so on. It's just natural.

Humans are the only animals who "use" animals for things other than survival (food, protection, etc). I don't see how it's "natural" for an animal to be tested on with man-made products that serve no true survival purpose.

Doesn't a rabbit feel pain, fear, suffering and ultimately death, just to take care of the fox's appetite?

Yes, I'm absolutely sure it does. I once had a Burmese python that only ate live rabbits and many of them screamed just before death. But the fox (and my snake) kills for survival, not to test a new cleaning product to make its life easier. There is a difference between killing for survival and killing for the vain, simple reason of looking good.

Another problem with humans is, that they don't reproduce fast enough to make some kinds of testing useful.

Humans don't reproduce fast enough? Then how do you explain world hunger, homelessness, the fact that people can't work because they're aren't enough jobs? Humans reproduce much more quickly and more often than many other animals.

I'm not advocating every kind of animal testing, and yeah, sure if there are alternatives use them. But you can't make anyone suffer just because you care about other species. It's just not natural.

And it IS natural to not care about them at all? What you say can be said for the animals being tested on, not just for the humans being saved because of the testing being done.

Incongruity
02-09-2006, 10:05 PM
Not only that, but a lot of animal testing is done for cosmetic companies and cleaning agencies and such. Rabbits have acidic things poured into their eyes to see what it does to them. Monkies are painted with makeup to see if it causes any sort of skin rashes or what not. What's the point of these mindless, painful experiments? Humans are animals, yes, but that doesn't mean what happens to the rabbits or the monkies will happen to humans. It's a horrible practice.

Please show statistics that reinforce the idea that "a lot" of testing is done for cosmetic companies. By a lot, I'm assuming a near majority. It's not that I'm challenging you, it's just that I'm apparently not as familiar with this topic as you are.

I see your point, but I can't help thinking what right humans have to place their lives over the lives of other animals. How many animals do you think might have died as a result of organ transplant experiments or any kind of testing? It's not just a few animals here and there that die. Not to mention it's not just rats that get tested on, it's all sorts of animals, including humankind's closest evolutionary cousin, the monkey. Would you be so for testing if it was a cat, or a dog being made to anguish?

Iirc correctly, non-human primates compose somewhere near 0.3% of the animal testing population, but this part of your argument (at least to me) seems to imply that many non-human primates are used in experimentation

Humans are the only animals who "use" animals for things other than survival (food, protection, etc). I don't see how it's "natural" for an animal to be tested on with man-made products that serve no true survival purpose.

Seeing as how you are the one who stated this, the burden of proof is on you. Please list every single "man-made product" that comes as a result of animal research and show how it serves "no true survival purpose."

Yes, I'm absolutely sure it does. I once had a Burmese python that only ate live rabbits and many of them screamed just before death. But the fox (and my snake) kills for survival, not to test a new cleaning product to make its life easier. There is a difference between killing for survival and killing for the vain, simple reason of looking good.

Ok. What is our evolutionary advantage then? Would you rather have those of us that are weak die out from lack of medicine? Would you rather have us constantly fearing a minor disease that could become an epidemic? Yes, let's shorten our lifespan by twenty years. In fact, let's go back to medieval times. Yes. That will extend the survivability of the human species

Humans don't reproduce fast enough? Then how do you explain world hunger, homelessness, the fact that people can't work because they're aren't enough jobs? Humans reproduce much more quickly and more often than many other animals.

Ehhh. "More quickly and more often." Ehhhh. Insects? Birds? Small mammals? Lizards? Fish? We're one of the few mammals that don't reproduce in litters. We don't lay multiple eggs. How can you say that we reproduce quicker than "many other animals." Although, I suppose if by many you mean like two, yeah.




Don't take my questions as challenges. It's just that a lot of these claims I've heard only from the mouths of hippies, and I want to see the factual basis. I'm assuming you have it available.

DaRkUmBrEoN
02-12-2006, 10:15 AM
Humans are the only animals who "use" animals for things other than survival (food, protection, etc). I don't see how it's "natural" for an animal to be tested on with man-made products that serve no true survival purpose.
Make-up and sorts make us look better, which increase our chance to spread our genes into the next generation. If that isn't a survival purpose, what is then?

SideStep
02-12-2006, 01:47 PM
...how does having good make-up make you have a higher chance of having a kid? You could get hooked up with a fat 90 pound woman and a slim and beautiful lady and you'd still have kids. Well, yes, the quality of the kid will be different, but make-up doesn't change anything here.

DaRkUmBrEoN
02-12-2006, 07:22 PM
...Well, yes, the quality of the kid will be differentThat's the whole point with most species. The male/female who looks the best or sings the best, gets a higher chance of spreading his genes. That way their offspring can have a higher chance of being able to sing good or look good.

Humans seem to follow up these rules, but our living standard are now so different, we actually don't have to look pretty anymore. Though, it seems to help.

MystiKal
02-13-2006, 03:53 AM
Nice own Sk, I can't stand animal activists either. Let all animals be tested on for all I care.

bleep
02-21-2006, 01:11 AM
for medicinal purposes, i'm seriously all for it. its the animals or us, i'd rather it be them.

for cosmetic purposes, its just freaking retarded. "OH NO MY SHAMPOO ISNT PERFECTLY PH BALANCED LETS TEST IT ON THOSE MONKEYS OVER THERE." << no, i'm not for that at all.

King Zark
03-01-2006, 09:55 PM
Animal testing ILLEGAL now!

We are harming animals WAY to much. Every animal had a right to live. We eat animals, we use them as entertainement and also as pets. Now we put chemicals on them. Did i mention we are the cause of all extiction of animals besides the Dinos(few others.)

Aethis(sp.) to let you know there is a god.

God created everything and animals are life forms too. Killing an animal that doesn't do you harm is wrong.

So we are allowed to harm animals but they have NO will of saying "LET ME GO!" but animals don't have chance to say no because when they do we just kill them.

Animal Testing is like testing a unsafe chemical on a baby.

DaRkUmBrEoN
03-01-2006, 09:59 PM
Animal Testing is like testing a unsafe chemical on a baby. Which they probably do, but then on embryo's, so they can't yell off pain and agony.

Zark, do you want a normal, modern day life? Or would you rather give all that up just to save a couple of thousand animals, who wouldn't survive in the outside world?

No, didn't think so either.

King Zark
03-01-2006, 10:07 PM
There is animal testing and i know it. I just don't like it at all.

"Let's test lipstick on a pig."
"Opps i think we damaged the eye of the monkey with the eyeliner"
"Ah to bad the horse's hair fell out, we can't use himanymore just sell him off on ebay."

Pyro
03-03-2006, 05:24 AM
oh brother -_- .......... animals are here for a reason, some are here for companionship such as dogs, cats, and other pets, some are here for food, cows, pigs, chickens, etc. some are here for our enjoyment, such as fancy feathered wild birds. theyre here for us. some animals were made to control the populations of other animals, such as wolves, and other predators.
sure, i have a heart, i would hate to kill an animal if i didnt HAVE to. if its helping people, such as disease testing, or medicine(thats actually needed) its different, rabbits multiply very quickly, they were made for feeding other animals. pigs were made simalar to humans, like their insides, so they aren suited for disease, and medicine testing. everything was made for a reason.

Lord Mullet
03-04-2006, 12:09 AM
man-made products that serve no true survival purpose.

Yeah. Take insulin, for example. That was discovered through animal testing: no survival value at all. Those diabetics are just a bunch of wusses.

Seriously, though, to quote one of the websites I visited,"without animal research...most of the nation's 130,000 insulin-dependent diabetics wouldn't be insulin-dependent. They would be dead."

In addition to insulin,

the smallpox vaccine
the polio vaccine
many, if not all, antibiotics
radiotherapy and chemotherapy for cancer sufferers
the heart lung machine that made open heart surgery possible
coronary bypass operations
heart transplants
immunosuppressive drugs for transplant patients
beta-blocking drugs
the kidney machine
kidney transplants
modern research on Alzheimer's disease
much of modern knowledge about epilepsy
many drugs used on animals
treatment for distemper in dogs
modern advancements in gene therapy for cystic fibrosis
understanding of multiple sclerosis
phototherapy, which saves 7,500 newborns from cerebral palsy annually
the rubella vaccine
hip replacement surgery
cataract surgery
stroke and head injury rehabilitation techniques
medications that help keep HIV under control
our modern understanding of schizophrenia
modern techniques for helping hearing-impaired people

are all around solely because of the important research done on animals. I can understand your 'illegal to the highest degree' position if you are ignorant of this, but to know these things and demand the outlawing of animal research is, in my opinion, abhorrent.

Sources:
http://www.ncabr.org/biomed/FAQ_animal/faq_animal_8.html
http://www.simr.org.uk/pages/research/index.html
http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.913145/k.CBB4/Home.htm