animal testing wrong or not

Feel free to debate any issues you wish here. Warning: The topics discussed and their content may on occassion offend some.

what do you think of animal testing

wrong
14
74%
fine
5
26%
 
Total votes : 19

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:51 pm

Has anyone listened to the news reacently?

These 6 men were given this drug that was being tested.
This Drug Has been tested on animals. all the animals are fine.
Two of the men that were given this drug are now in a critical condition and the other 4 are seriously ill, as a result of the drug.

Animals are not people - What is the point of animal testing if when they finally find something that cures the animals but then makes people critically ill??

parnassus wrote:And I can't help thinking that if (and may the Good Lord forbid it) someone from this forum were to develop a life-threatening illness, your opinions on the way that doctors are testing your life-saving medicine might take a U-turn.

maybe. I Don't know, some may, but others may not. I hope no-one does develop a life-threatening illness.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby Taradino_Cassat » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:30 pm

I shiver and sometimes break down and cry when I see hurt animals, My friend's dad likes to go fishing and his dog enjoys the beach, so he'd take his fishing equipment and the dog to the beach. I was invited to go to my friends beach house one weekend and The dog got a fishing hook stuck in it's nose and was constantly wimpering, i couldn't take it. I'm against all forms of cruelty to animals.
If you can find a Videogame you can beat me at I'll give you $1000000.

"Whoops I dropped the soap! ^_^;"
Taradino_Cassat
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:06 pm
Location: Australia

Postby parnassus » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:19 pm

There's a difference between deliberately inflicting pain on an animal for your own twisted pleasure (i.e. through pointless blood-sports such as fox-hunting) and trying to save lives, as I have already mentioned in my previous messages.

Would you shiver and break down and cry if you saw a child in the final stages of AIDS, days away from his death? What would you do if the doctors told you that through using apes they had found a way to save millions of such children? Say no, stop the animal experimentation and let the children die?
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Fortnox » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:59 pm

I say its wrong, completely wrong. I see bull in school about this debate from English teachers, posters in the wall saying stuff like "This is betty, if a drug had not been tested on Chimpanzees and apes she would have died from cancer of the hair" I've always wanted to put up one saying "This is Cortney, if her makeup had not been tested on young, incaptive apes and baboons, she may not have looked pretty enough at a stupid social event, and if her fake nails had not been tested on apes she may have not had long enough nails to impress pepole" Or something along those lines.

*edit* And in response to Vickey's post, I would say no, and let the childeren die. Sure, he cuaght a terrible illness, and he's dieing. Thats the natural way of things. We shouldn't go capturing innocent, free creatures and forcing them to suffer the side effects of dangerous, poinsious drugs so they can eventualy get a effective cure for humans. Thats selfish, self-centered and arrogant. Never have we been used for drug testing by apes, never have they thrown us off a ledge to see if we could survive, so they would know if they could survive too, we should not do so either.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Postby parnassus » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:20 pm

Fortnox, I don't think you have read this thread in its entirity, as I made far more than one post. If you had read the whole thread, you would know that we have made a distinction between testing for medical reasons and testing for cosmetic reasons. As I have already said, I think testing make-up on animals is morally unjustifiable. No living creature should have to suffer for our vanity. If you want to slather paint on your face, test the paint on yourself. But there is a distinction between being vain and wanting to stay alive.

We shouldn't go capturing innocent, free creatures and forcing them to suffer the side effects of dangerous, poinsious drugs so they can eventualy get a effective cure for humans. Thats selfish, self-centered and arrogant. Never have we been used for drug testing by apes, never have they thrown us off a ledge to see if we could survive, so they would know if they could survive too, we should not do so either.


You're presuming that apes are exactly like us in terms of mental and moral capacity, and that the apes have made a free choice not to test things on us. That is obviously not the case - they haven't made any such choice because they simply aren't capable of it, not because they have an excellent system of ethics. Secondly, we have never thrown apes off ledges to see if they could survive, either - animal experiments aren't wanton and arbitrary. They are based on logical principles. The theory of gravity wasn't tested with animal help. There are stringent rules in place that guarantee researchers can only use animals in so-called 'invasive' experiments when there is no other alternative. Furthermore, not all animal experiments cause pain. Some of these tests simply involve observing chimpanzees in their natural habitat and watching what they eat, in order to find out if there is a diet factor that keeps them immune to certain parasites. As I have already said earlier in this thread, the anti-vivisectionist movement portrays all animal experiments as brutal, sadistic, and ultimately pointless tests that happen in an unnatural and hostile environment. Not true.

Forbidding animal testing is akin to saying that animals are not only equal to us, but superior. If you are faced with an array of medical knowledge and potential cures (gained through animal testing) and then offered the life of a child over the life of an animal, saying, "The child must die - it's only natural," is akin to making a positive choice in favour of the chimpanzee. You are effectively saying that the chimpanzee's health is worth more than the child. If you refuse to have your injections or take any medicines when you're sick because of your principles (do you boycott medication and vaccines, incidentally?) that's fine. If you believe that an animal's health is superior to yours, no one need get hurt - it's your choice to refuse to get vaccinated against killer diseases. But I would argue that it is much more 'selfish, self-centred, and arrogant' to try and make that choice for the rest of humanity.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby monkey » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:56 pm

my first reaction was no, but it seems taht all of the information i have herd untill now has been biased. i agree that that animal testing can be justified but only to save lives.

i do have a problem with Japenese science boats killing hundreds of whale each year for sientific perposes. i cannot see why they need hundreds. a couple a year i could understand. every one here knows that its just an excuse to take them back to japan and eat them, over there its a very expensive and nice dish. in the words of a sign advatising alcahole by the tauranga harbor bridage "there aer pleaty more whales in the sea... yeah right!" (yeah right means no)
monkey
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1397
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 6:21 am

Postby parnassus » Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:15 am

The Japanese and the Norwegians are the culprits for that. (Odd that the only two countries in the world where whalemeat is a delicacy are the only two countries who feel the need to do so much 'scientific research...) The United Nations has declared that whaling for food is wrong, so these whalers have just wriggled about to find a loophole in the law. The UN is drafting disciplinary measures, though.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Fortnox » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:29 am

I realised pepole are talking about clinical and medical purposes seperately, thats why I edited my post to state my opinion on medical purposes, I didn't really make that clear, sorry. I haven't got much more to say on the subject, but I'm a middle-class, white teen-ager, and I'm selfish, I can admit that. While I sleep in my cosy bed, there are pepole who must sit around the streets of Paris selling flashing eifel towers just to make a half-decent living. And to be honest, if I was suffering from cancer, well obviously if they had this miricale drug already I'd take it, but if I had a choice to die or let them test this drug on apes, I'd rather die. The human race needs to learn to value all animals lifes as much as their own, wasn't something like that said in the bible? It should've been.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Postby Taradino_Cassat » Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:14 am

parnassus wrote:There's a difference between deliberately inflicting pain on an animal for your own twisted pleasure (i.e. through pointless blood-sports such as fox-hunting) and trying to save lives, as I have already mentioned in my previous messages.

Would you shiver and break down and cry if you saw a child in the final stages of AIDS, days away from his death? What would you do if the doctors told you that through using apes they had found a way to save millions of such children? Say no, stop the animal experimentation and let the children die?


:cry: I don't know anymore...
If you can find a Videogame you can beat me at I'll give you $1000000.

"Whoops I dropped the soap! ^_^;"
Taradino_Cassat
Advanced Member
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:06 pm
Location: Australia

Postby parnassus » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:25 pm

While I sleep in my cosy bed, there are pepole who must sit around the streets of Paris selling flashing eifel towers just to make a half-decent living.


It doesn't make you selfish just because you were born into a comfortable life and they were born into awful ones - that wasn't your choice. We only become selfish if we refuse to acknowledge that this injustice exists and don't do anything to change it.

The human race needs to learn to value all animals lifes as much as their own, wasn't something like that said in the bible? It should've been.


The Bible on animal status and animal welfare:

"A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal." - Proverbs 12:10.

Ancient Jewish custom teaches that it is a sin to make a beast of burden such as a donkey or a camel work on the Sabbath - animals are entitled to rest, too. But while the Judaeo-Christian tradition actively encourages believers to tend to the needs of animals out of the compassion of our hearts, it also makes it plain that animals are not our equals:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." - Genesis 1: 27-28.

"Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from the will of your Father. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows." - Matthew 10: 29-30

So while wilful and pointless cruelty to animals can never be justified theologically (hunting for pleasure and testing for cosmetic purposes are clearly out), and we are encouraged to take good care of the animals in our custodianship, medical testing in order to save the life of a human being is acceptable. It's not pleasant. No one enjoys it. But it's got to be done.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby parnassus » Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:33 pm

Has anyone listened to the news reacently?

These 6 men were given this drug that was being tested.
This Drug Has been tested on animals. all the animals are fine.
Two of the men that were given this drug are now in a critical condition and the other 4 are seriously ill, as a result of the drug.

Animals are not people - What is the point of animal testing if when they finally find something that cures the animals but then makes people critically ill??


Sorry, ChocFC; I didn't see this post. But I have already responded to this idea. Next time you go into your local pharmacy, take a look at all the thousands of different kinds of medicine that it stocks. The vast bulk of those will have been tested on animals and then checked against people. All of them - all those thousands of medicines - have been proven safe. Now, no one has ever claimed animal testing to be foolproof. Occasionally a scientist may discover a drug that cures a sheep but doesn't cure a human being. But that is one drug out of literally thousands of drugs. Such cases are extremely rare. If they were common, we wouldn't have thousands of medicines on the pharmacy shelves. We would have about six, if that.

Secondly, I have found the news article that you're referring to...and there is no mention of animals anywhere in the report. By the sounds of things, that drug was tested directly on the people. The people weren't sick patients in hospital, but healthy volunteers who agreed to the testing.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/17032006/356/h ... -year.html
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Fortnox » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:22 pm

Sorry, when I mentioned the bible I meant it just as an example, myself I'm not christian (I guess I'm an athiest) I just meant to refer to the bible as it beng a example of, like, goodly stuff, I'm not encouraged or influenced by christian god.
Image
User avatar
Fortnox
Forum Master
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:17 pm

Postby chocolatefudgecake » Fri Mar 17, 2006 6:57 pm

parnassus wrote: Secondly, I have found the news article that you're referring to...and there is no mention of animals anywhere in the report. By the sounds of things, that drug was tested directly on the people. The people weren't sick patients in hospital, but healthy volunteers who agreed to the testing.


A) I listened to it on the radio, so I may not have heard it all,

B) Whilst it doesn't say it was tested on animals, it didn't say it wasn't, but in the newspaper it says that there there were no problems in previous trials, so it had been tested before,

D) According to mum, drugs have to be teasted on animals, before they are alloud to be tested on animals, but I can't find anything on the internet about the laws on testing new drugs, so this may not be true.

and C) At the moment I'm not sure if it's right or not - I don't want people to die, but I don't want the animals to be harmed.


Edit: It just said on the news (on T.V) that the drug had been tested on animals.
-ChocFC-
A badger! a badger! My Kingdom for a Badger!
User avatar
chocolatefudgecake
The Cat's Pajamas !!
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:13 pm
Location: Hampshire, England

Postby parnassus » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:05 am

According to an article in today's Daily Mail (a dreadful newspaper, but it's the only one in the common room that hasn't had someone's dinner poured all over it) the controversy arose "amid claims that it [the drug] had not been properly tested on animals". The article adds that the manufacturers of this drug are based outside the United Kingdom. Your mum is right: under British law new medicines must be tried out on animals first. But not all other countries have this law.

At the moment I'm not sure if it's right or not - I don't want people to die, but I don't want the animals to be harmed.


The idea of a living creature having to suffer doesn't make me happy either. In fact, it makes me very sad. But we don't have a perfect world and sometimes we have to make very difficult choices. No matter whether we use animal testing or not, something alive is going to have suffer and die. We have to make a choice over whether that 'something' should be one hundred rhesus monkeys or one hundred thousand human beings. That choice will never be painless. But it's got to be made.
"This above all, to thine own self be true." - Polonius, Hamlet.
User avatar
parnassus
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5924
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 8:10 pm
Location: Over here

Postby Joss1991 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:34 pm

I thinks its wrong especially for pointless things (like glow in the dark pigs)as this doesnt help anyone and is harmful to the animal. I also think its wrong to kill a animal to use in a dying human especially if theres a small chance the human will live as animals shouldnt be punished beacuse humans are dying i also think people and animals have to die to keep the population down (this is not to say that we should go round killing animal) im just saying that humans and animals shouldnt try and hang on to there life too long especially when there using animal products and machinery that people that have a chance to live should be using.
I myself have never been in a situation where someone i love has to use animals products to survive so cant say for certain what i would do. But i dont eat meat or use products tested on animals.
Joss1991
Splendiferous Member
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 7:13 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Debate Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest