By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Do you think animal testing is right?

Kantor on 16 December 2009

I agree with what most people have said:

1) There is no need to test cosmetic products on animals. Really.

2) A human life IS more valuable than an animal life. Much more valuable. Humans are capable of conscious thought and expression, we created civilisation and changed the world, we have a far greater impact on our surroundings than any other animal. To put it simply, yes, we are more important. In a hospital, if one patient can be treated, and a dog and a human are dying, who will they treat? How about a RAT and a human? People lay traps and set poison to KILL rats for no real reason. Scientists kill rats to save human lives.

3) It's not the same as racism. All humans, be they white, black, brown, yellow, green, or whatever, are HUMAN. Everything I described in point 2. All that changes is the physical anatomy of the person, and they are still part of the dominant species on Earth.

4) Killing animals for food is much more inhumane than killing or harming them for medical reasearch. There are alternatives to eating animals. Widely available alternatives. There is NO alternative to animal testing of medicine, unless you want to risk killing a human. I'm not going to turn vegetarian, because the way I see it, the animal is dead and prepared already. Meat is nutritious. And it's also tasty. No, I don't feel bad for saying that. I wouldn't eat a dog, or a cat, or even a rabbit, or, god forbid, a dolphin. These are domestic animals. Dolphins are extremely intelligent. I wouldn't be able to sleep. But a pig, or a chicken, or a sheep...they have been bred for slaughter for millenia. They are not intelligent animals. Few people could love a pig like they love a dog.

5) So essentially, yes, I believe that animal testing is right. Right because it's ESSENTIAL. If and when there is a feasible alternative, I will support it.

That's where I stand.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

Around the Network
Kantor on 16 December 2009
darthdevidem01 said:
Fate has a weird way of changing things

In a future where bugs rule the lands & fly's swarm throughout the never ending sky's this will all come back to bite us

Bugs are going to test on humans who are 1000 times their size?

What are they going to test, nukes?



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

darthdevidem01 on 16 December 2009
Kantor said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Fate has a weird way of changing things

In a future where bugs rule the lands & fly's swarm throughout the never ending sky's this will all come back to bite us

Bugs are going to test on humans who are 1000 times their size?

What are they going to test, nukes?

Its when bugs will MUCH larger than humans kantor

The day is only a few millenia's away

{starts cackling like an evil hyena from the lion king}



All hail the KING, Andrespetmonkey

Kantor on 16 December 2009
darthdevidem01 said:
Kantor said:
darthdevidem01 said:
Fate has a weird way of changing things

In a future where bugs rule the lands & fly's swarm throughout the never ending sky's this will all come back to bite us

Bugs are going to test on humans who are 1000 times their size?

What are they going to test, nukes?

Its when bugs will MUCH larger than humans kantor

The day is only a few millenia's away

{starts cackling like an evil hyena from the lion king}

And these flies that fill the sky, are they the size of an aeroplane?

We'd just leave Earth, lol. Find a nice spot on Europa, or maybe Mars.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

rocketpig on 16 December 2009

So if we don't stop testing on animals, Gears of War is going to happen?

Damn, first I find out that Nathan Drake is an alien and now this... Hell of a day.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

Around the Network
Signalstar on 16 December 2009

Yeah its fine. Some animals are overpopulated (at least according to Bob Barker) so it helps. Testing for medical reasons is acceptable. cosmetics...... hell no.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1gWECYYOSo

Please Watch/Share this video so it gets shown in Hollywood.

Reasonable on 16 December 2009
Scoobes said:
Reasonable said:
Scoobes said:
Animal testing is needed for medical drugs. We don't have a better alternative (although testing on pedo's sounds like it could work :P). What other alternative is there? Can anyone come up with one? because testing straight to human beings would essentially be murder. If the animals are treated well before and as well as can be during the tests I see no problem.

We don't have a suitable foolproof model for testing new drugs, but animals are the closest we have. We already have to test drugs on up to 5000 people before it gets to market. Animal testing is there to ensure that when we get to test on humans, the risk factor is low.

I'm actually an animal lover, have 2 cats and love them to bits. I still see the necessity for animal testing for medical research.

The two alternatives I could see (eventually, given enough research and assuming the fruition of certain lines of thought) are:

1 - greatly improved understanding of chemical responses and very accurate simulation models of likely response of a body to different inputs - i.e. better computer modelling of what will happen if you do X with drug Y to a human body.

 

2 - genetically created organs developed purely for research - i.e. want to test a drug on human heart?  Here's a 'grown' heart surrogate organ to use.

 

Both could work together however I suspect they are a bit in the future, so if we want to cure certain diseases now, we're still going to have to combine animal testing with simulation and research activity - or decide certain crimes automatically 'volunteer' you for the role as you suggest!

 

I agree with the alternatives but I think they're far into the future, especially 1 as our understanding of the body barely scratches the surface of all the different reactions occuring in the body (even though its come a long way in recent years), not to mention all the little variations between one person and the next. The other problem is lack of computer power, but I think this will be fixed by the time it becomes viable.

2 is more plausable in the nearer future, but still a long way off. And the problem with this is that a drug might be designed to target the heart, but can have very bizzare and potentially dangerous side effects on other organs that no-one would have been able to predict. Example: Viagra was designed as a heart drug... it had some other useful (if you're old at least) side effects!

Yeah, I think while viable those approaches are way off unless something else appears from left field.  As I see it we either:

a - accept a rapid slowing of medical progress and halt animal testing - seems unlikely to me

b - accept animal testing is necessary for at least medium term

c - go with your idea for the unsavoury criminals

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

AngelFire18 on 16 December 2009
Ps3 said:

 It's humane!!

point made.



Brawl Code- 3179-6370-3098 Name:Richi   

Mk Code-3480-4494-2675 Name:Richi

 

Profcrab on 18 December 2009

If there wasn't animal testing then they wouldn't have had a premise for 28 Days Later so that is good enough for me.

Oh, and I want a cybernetic dog. That will never happen without animal testing.

I give this thread a 9.6



Thank god for the disable signatures option.

AngelFire18 on 18 December 2009
rocketpig said:
So if we don't stop testing on animals, Gears of War is going to happen?

Damn, first I find out that Nathan Drake is an alien and now this... Hell of a day.

nathan drake is an alien?... he is stil hot.



Brawl Code- 3179-6370-3098 Name:Richi   

Mk Code-3480-4494-2675 Name:Richi