PDA

View Full Version : Animal Testing



Harvester_Of_Sorrow
08-10-2011, 12:26 PM
Alot of lies and exaggerations are told on both sides of the argument regarding animal testing. It certianly is a controversal issue. Now before we start, if someone is in favour of animal testing, and you are not, that does not immediately mean they jerk off to images of a slaughter house, and prefer lamb to mutton because they enjoy the idea of a baby animal dieing in the process. In short, keep it civil and don't be silly.

Before I give my 2 cents, I'd like to open the floor with your opinions on the matter.

What do y'all think about cosmetic products and medicines being tested on animals?

Delphinus
08-10-2011, 12:50 PM
I don't care. It's pretty mislead to feel empathy for animals, and the only reason I can see anyone doing so is because they anthropomorphise them, which is insane.

In addition, there are bigger and more important things to worry about than how we treat animals.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
08-10-2011, 01:14 PM
In addition, there are bigger and more important things to worry about than how we treat animals.

O Rly???

CypressDahlia
08-10-2011, 01:27 PM
Depending on what kind of cosmetics we're talking about. The suffering of another living being in exchange for something as frivolous as fashion is a bad compromise. But as far as medicines, I think it's necessary, mostly because it would defeat the purpose of medicine to put hundreds of peoples' lives at risk in attempt to save hundreds of peoples' lives.

Fenn
08-10-2011, 02:08 PM
I'm torn. Although I highly doubt that animals have nearly as complex emotions and feeling as humans, I can't help but wonder if there are unforseen consequences of taking animal testing too far. In fact, I feel this way about anything related to human treatment of the natural world.

CypressDahlia
08-10-2011, 02:25 PM
I'm torn. Although I highly doubt that animals have nearly as complex emotions and feeling as humans.

Emotions, no, but feelings yes. Sensations can be appreciated differently based on how complex one's brain is, but they're all essentially the same. That because sensation is not interpreted, simply quantified by how many nerves are stimulated at once. So pain is universal, really. And pain hurts. =[

Psy
08-10-2011, 05:30 PM
Every time I hear animals testing cosmetics I think of a chimp with blush and lipstick on. I dont know exactly what they are doing to them as far as testing cosmetics out on them goes so I dont know what I feel about it. Medicines Im ok with. I remember a science teacher of mine telling us that lab mice are only used because their dna is the closest to a humans and they are basically in abundance and using them is not hurting the population of them.

Kodos
08-10-2011, 05:56 PM
I'm opposed to testing frivolous and unnecessary products like cosmetics on animals, but I absolutely support the (humanely conducted) testing of medicines and treatments on animals. While animals can and do feel pain, and probably even fear, their ability to experience these sensations pales in comparison to our ability to feel them. As callous as it may sound, a human life is simply worth more than the life of any animal besides maybe a dolphin.

I think the real issues with animal rights are zoos and revolting places like sea world. Some animals can be cared for well in captivity, yes, but the more intelligent and social animals like ceteceans, elephants, and the higher primates? Not so much. They have social needs that cannot be satiated in captivity.

toast
08-10-2011, 07:27 PM
Every time I hear animals testing cosmetics I think of a chimp with blush and lipstick on.

this, lol.
Like everyone else, I'm for testing with medicine and against testing for makeup and shit (like wat?). I mean, we can't use humans for testing medicine that may possibly kill them. We value their life more, which is why we are making medicine in the first place.

But I've a question, are the mice/other animals bred just for testing or are they caught?

Also, Idunno if this is too off topic, (if it is, sorry HoS D: ), but what is your guys' opinions on stuff like slaughterhouses, farms (cows/chickens for milk and eggs), and all of that stuff? I'm not sure what my opinion is, other than "animals make some pretty yummy food, and man has always used them for food, and I don't think we'll ever stop, so sorry vegans/vegetarians."

To be honest, I haven't really researched the topic a great deal. So other than the animals are people too argument, I don't know why people are against eating meat/eggs/milk/cheese?

CypressDahlia
08-10-2011, 07:45 PM
Animals don't feel pain from us any differently. They are just far less expressive about it because...well...they're just not as sophisticated as us. But human lives are definitely worth more simply because of our potential to contribute to society.

And mice may be bred or ordered from a breeder for testing, because for results to remain consistent, it has to be very controlled; even down to the genetic level. And the reason rights activists don't have issues with milk or cheese is because they're byproducts, and don't require killing the animal. In fact, animals who create these byproducts are actually maintained particularly well to ensure the best produce. And hen eggs--the kinds you get at stores--are not fertilized so you will not have killed an unborn chicken by eating one. If they were fertilized, there would be visible embryos in all of them.

Hamachi
08-10-2011, 08:02 PM
Just remember that it's mandatory to do stuff to animals for serums and vaccines.

toast
08-10-2011, 10:02 PM
Animals don't feel pain from us any differently. They are just far less expressive about it because...well...they're just not as sophisticated as us. But human lives are definitely worth more simply because of our potential to contribute to society.

And mice may be bred or ordered from a breeder for testing, because for results to remain consistent, it has to be very controlled; even down to the genetic level. And the reason rights activists don't have issues with milk or cheese is because they're byproducts, and don't require killing the animal. In fact, animals who create these byproducts are actually maintained particularly well to ensure the best produce. And hen eggs--the kinds you get at stores--are not fertilized so you will not have killed an unborn chicken by eating one. If they were fertilized, there would be visible embryos in all of them.

If so, then I don't quite understand why a lot of vegans get mad about humans using animals for their milk and cheese?

CypressDahlia
08-10-2011, 10:04 PM
They're mad about the way they //think// those animals are being treated due to propaganda films. Animals which are to be slaughtered are treated horribly but animals raised for their produce are treated fairly well.

Harvester_Of_Sorrow
08-10-2011, 10:20 PM
It can also be for religious reasons too. There a sects of Hinduism which forbid the eating of milk and cheese, but yeah, when middle class people in the west do it their doing it usually because they think it is somehow cruel to the animal to eat its produce because they feel the animal is being exploited in the process. They may have a point with chickens farms, but using the same argument in regards to cow pastures is just silly.

There are some vegans who have this strange idea that one should only eat, essentially, vegetables for moral reasons. However you could argue, if you really wanted too, that plants have 'feelings' aswell, to an extent. The fact that animals eat other living organisms, in some form, is just simply that; fact. No getting away from it.

Sylux
08-10-2011, 10:29 PM
I think it's pretty okay to test on both animals and humans... But that's just the horrible, unpopular opinion of a horribly unpopular person, haha.

CypressDahlia
08-10-2011, 10:32 PM
Would you volunteer to be tested on?

Sylux
08-11-2011, 02:25 AM
No, but I'd apply for a job to be tested on if I were desperate and fell into an immense depression where I had no hope for the future.

Delphinus
08-11-2011, 09:50 AM
I hear you get paid good money for taking part in drug trials, actually.

And most drug trials should be relatively safe.

Sylux
08-11-2011, 10:09 AM
I might do that to pay for college, haha. Wouldn't it be ironic, if I died getting prepared to live my dream?

EDIT: Shit, can't, forgot, damn.

Fenn
08-13-2011, 03:47 PM
This is a good question.topic because it raises morality questions about humans too. For example, if you are worried about human testing being "inhumane," why is doing the same thing to an animal necessarily humane?

As far as food, I thought I read/heard that the best tasting meats and animal products come from the healthiest, "happiest" animals. If they are completely satisfied while they are alive and don't suffer for more than a moment during slaughter, is that really a bad life for an animal that would have to fight and fend for itself in the wild?

Gedeon
08-13-2011, 09:21 PM
For me its easy. Food chain. I love animals and my parents own a pet care center, but i can't say that i feel bad about testing chemicals on animals. Sure it would be nice if we didn't have to test it on them, but why the heck should some millioner worry bout animals when he's new boss perfume gave him a few more zero's to his Swiss bank account.Men with power(money) will always want more money(power). As for eating animals, i don't have a problem with that. We ate them, and they ate us since we started existing.

CypressDahlia
08-13-2011, 09:32 PM
Yeah. That second part is completely true. Quality meat comes from quality animals, and quality animals are given quality care. I think it's an ideal for even meat-eaters that ALL food animals be given this quality of care as it also increases the quality of the resulting products. The animals get treated better, too, so it's a win-win.

And humans, for some reason, have excluded themselves entirely from the animal classification. We consider ourselves to be in our own category, which probably has something to do with our massive ego.

Bacon_Barbarian
08-13-2011, 09:38 PM
What else would we test? As for the cosmetics bit ... That's just dumb. Why would we put stuff in cosmetics that was dangerous enough it needed testing?

ClockHand
08-13-2011, 09:52 PM
Test on animals: I support it when the arguments to do the tests are good.
Test on people: It depend on the argument of the tests and the level of hypothetical damage the person could have. But it's needed at the end.
Eat animals: I support it, and of course I support the good care of animals, as it's pointed, better care equals better quality, and is not just quality is also more healthy and safe. Stop eating animals is stupid, because those animals are domesticated to a point beyond repair, if you left them alone they might die. If people can sell them (meat), there is no motivation to have them, and so the animals die, cows, horses, sheep, and others animals need people to even born. Even more in the case of rabbits and other season hunted animals, because the environment has been so altered by us, that we can't let those animals to grow their population without controlling them, and season hunting is a way to control population in a more sane way than let them grow and destroy their own little environment.

Delphinus
08-13-2011, 10:29 PM
Holy shit, Clockhand, the argument for eating animals you gave is one of the best I've seen. You win a cookie (now you don't need to log on every time you visit MT).

EDIT:
And humans, for some reason, have excluded themselves entirely from the animal classification. We consider ourselves to be in our own category, which probably has something to do with our massive ego.
Animals don't have egos. Incidentally, that's why we treat humans differently to animals.
ego in the freudian and the normal sense

CypressDahlia
08-13-2011, 11:59 PM
Yep. That's what I meant.

Blue_Dragon
08-30-2011, 01:18 AM
I'd have to say some animal testing for medications and such is okay: but some of it really is pointless, because animals/humans react to chemicals differently. A dog can't eat too much chocolate or it'll make extremely sick and/or kill them. Whereas humans can use aspirin, a horse cannot. And I'm sure there are chemicals we can't handle that some animals can. So, to a degree, I kinda think its okay to test on animals, but on the other hand, there are aspects I don't agree with because each species is unique and what effects a creature one way may do something completely different to another creature (and we don't always test on animals evolutionary close to humans.) When animal testing is done, I think it should be handled in the least cruel way possible. IAMs company cutting out chunks of muscle from dogs to see if a new formula is building muscle or whatnot is unacceptable and cruel. So is cramming them into crap-riddled kennels. There's all kinds of animal testing that goes on, not just on medications.

Also, some people were asking about why vegans take qualm with drinking milk--and a few were saying that getting milk from cows isn't a problem. That's actually not true in many cases. In fact, the machines they use to milk cows often blister and ware at a cow's utters. They're usually shot up with estrogen to keep them producing milk (which is why a lot of people think little girls are developing more quickly than the past,) or impregnated so they keep producing: the calf then sent off for veal. So you can see why vegans don't agree w/ drinking milk, besides the whole "it's an animal product" thing. Personally, I don't mind milk so long as the cow is treated decently. It's better quality, too, when it's not full of hormones and chemicals. I also think if it weren't for honey farms, they'd be a lot less honey bees what with the bee mite that's been killing a lot of them. In a way, our desire for honey has helped keep that species alive...but I digress.

Testing on humans I'm kinda iffy about. On one hand, a person has the right to sign up for it if they want, but on the other, I think there are some people who do it out of desperation for money. So...I guess I'd feel guilty if they got all screwed up because they had to have money and weren't able to gain dependable employment. But, if they want to do it, I think it's admirable because they're willing to possibly ruin their life for advancements that may help people. Regardless of their intent--whether they want the money or whatever--I can respect someone who allows themself to be tested on. I'd have to say I'm more for testing on humans because 1) They chose to do it, whereas an animal can't speak our language and say "no," 2) It's more likely the end result of the testing will be useful, since you're testing on the correct species (even then, not all people react to things the same,) & 3) Any testing done on humans is going to be handled more humanely than testing we do on animals, because most people just don't give a f* about how other creatures are treated (or at least, they don't care enough to do anything about it) and animals can't sue if they lose a family member (though I'm sure there are waivers people have to sign if they go in to be tested on...I'd have to look into that, since I'm not well versed in human testing.)

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Edit: This was longer than I intended. Sorry. Also, if I sound offensive, I'm not trying to. I really not wholly against animal testing, just various branches of it, and how its executed.

Dustycher
08-30-2011, 06:47 PM
Personally I support chemical testing on animals, since it is neccesary; we do harm animals in the proccess, but we get to improve human life. Medicine is certainly impotant, although I have no idea on cosmetics testing.

Also, Blue Dragon, I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware they don't just test on any animal. Dogs and Horses differ considerably from human beings, which is why rats are used instead, who also happen to be more like humans genetically , be easier to raise, keep and control. Pigs also happen to me more like humans, which is why pig hormones are used occasionally to sumplement patients.

Honestly, although most animals feel pain, causing a rat to feel pain is something I can live with. On the contrary, dogs and horses are much more intelligent and social. It wouldn't be the same thing.

Regarding eating animals, that on it's own is no issue. What is to be considered is animal treatment, and that is dependant on the raising agent.

ClockHand
08-30-2011, 07:02 PM
I'd have to say some animal testing for medications and such is okay: but some of it really is pointless, because animals/humans react to chemicals differently. A dog can't eat too much chocolate or it'll make extremely sick and/or kill them. Whereas humans can use aspirin, a horse cannot. And I'm sure there are chemicals we can't handle that some animals can. So, to a degree, I kinda think its okay to test on animals, but on the other hand, there are aspects I don't agree with because each species is unique and what effects a creature one way may do something completely different to another creature (and we don't always test on animals evolutionary close to humans.) When animal testing is done, I think it should be handled in the least cruel way possible. IAMs company cutting out chunks of muscle from dogs to see if a new formula is building muscle or whatnot is unacceptable and cruel. So is cramming them into crap-riddled kennels. There's all kinds of animal testing that goes on, not just on medications.

Do you believe horse tests are the same as rat tests? A tests made over a dog is completely different and has its own reasons.


Also, some people were asking about why vegans take qualm with drinking milk--and a few were saying that getting milk from cows isn't a problem. That's actually not true in many cases. In fact, the machines they use to milk cows often blister and ware at a cow's utters. They're usually shot up with estrogen to keep them producing milk (which is why a lot of people think little girls are developing more quickly than the past,) or impregnated so they keep producing: the calf then sent off for veal. So you can see why vegans don't agree w/ drinking milk, besides the whole "it's an animal product" thing.

So? We do this all the time with plants to, and I don't see people saying "I'm not going to eat my broccoli by the way the companies had handle it". I agree, the way it's handled is the problem, not milking, but again, I don't see a real reason to stop drinking milk, and even more I still see more reasons to keep drinking (girls with earlier boobies? hell yeah).


Apparently people think that animal's testings are done like this "Hey, can rats get on fire?". No, there are hypothesis, diagnostics, and others, "scientist's" don't do tests just because their balls are itching, they do when they have a real problem to solve and they use theories to try to get to the less harmful way to do the test.

We shouldn't fight against animals testing, animal's farms, milking animals or others just because we exploit animals, we should when it's done unethical.

Gedeon
08-30-2011, 10:36 PM
I don't see a real reason to stop drinking milk, and even more I still see more reasons to keep drinking (girls with earlier boobies? hell yeah).
Apparently people think that animal's testings are done like this "Hey, can rats get on fire?". No, there are hypothesis, diagnostics, and others, "scientist's" don't do tests just because their balls are itching, they do when they have a real problem to solve and they use theories to try to get to the less harmful way to do the test.
We shouldn't fight against animals testing, animal's farms, milking animals or others just because we exploit animals, we should when it's done unethical.

First had to quote the boobies part(it also goes to the Chats and Quotes thread)

And i also agree that as much as some people think that scientists don't have a soul, its not true(few freinds think that every being that tests on animals are the root of all evil). They don't go around doing tests for their own amusement, i imagine some of them hate testing animals cuz they need to stay longer on their job or something. But they arn't doing the tests so that they could pass time!

CypressDahlia
08-31-2011, 05:24 PM
Honestly, although most animals feel pain, causing a rat to feel pain is something I can live with. On the contrary, dogs and horses are much more intelligent and social. It wouldn't be the same thing.

How "social" a creature is doesn't determine their capacity for pain. This is a wrong way of thinking and the root of animal abuse. Pain is the most objective of animal senses.

And, for the record, Clockhand, vegetables are not really comparable to animals. I mean...really. The reasons are obvious. I understand where Blue_dragon is coming from, but B_D, people can drink milk, just get it from more reputable sources. It might cost 8 more dollars, but you can be sure those animals are treated better.

Blue_Dragon
09-02-2011, 11:48 AM
Do you believe horse tests are the same as rat tests? A tests made over a dog is completely different and has its own reasons.

You've missed the whole point, Clock. Although we do share similar genes, my comment here is to demonstrate that although similar, species are still different. Even testing on humans isn't wholly efficient because I'm not allergic to any medications, but other people are. I'm have no gluten allergies, but some people do. I can eat peanuts, but one of my coworkers can't. If even other humans react differently to various chemicals/additives/etc, then you can see how testing on a completely different species has its holes. Yes, you can get an idea of how it will affect the general populous, but there's also a large population that will have a different reaction to the drug/med/etc. That's what I was trying to get across.




So? We do this all the time with plants to, and I don't see people saying "I'm not going to eat my broccoli by the way the companies had handle it". I agree, the way it's handled is the problem, not milking, but again, I don't see a real reason to stop drinking milk, and even more I still see more reasons to keep drinking (girls with earlier boobies? hell yeah).

There's quite a difference between a plant, which doesn't have a central nervous system, and has no memory (that we know of,) and an animal capable of learning and experiencing different things. Granted, there are people out there who won't eat anything that harms a plant--if they can do it, more power to them, I'm not one of those people--but over all consensus is that plants can't feel pain as far as we can scientifically tell. Further, I was offering up an answer to someone else who didn't know why vegans don't eat milk, so you're personal opinion is valued, but wasn't really being attacked in my statement.

And your comment on young girls getting breasts is bordering (if not) pedophilia, which I'm not going to touch--it's disgusting. I'm hoping your definition of "young" is different than mine, but in case you didn't know, girls sometimes younger than 12 are developing breasts. Just throwing that out there.


Apparently people think that animal's testings are done like this "Hey, can rats get on fire?". No, there are hypothesis, diagnostics, and others, "scientist's" don't do tests just because their balls are itching, they do when they have a real problem to solve and they use theories to try to get to the less harmful way to do the test. Please don't think so little of my intellect that I don't know what type of testing has been going on. I've done plenty of research and have been in classes where I've had to do dissections (not high school) and other tests. I'm not so naive as to think people are catching rats on fire. Thank you.


We shouldn't fight against animals testing, animal's farms, milking animals or others just because we exploit animals, we should when it's done unethical. I can agree to this, as I'm not the type of vegetarian to impose my life choices on other people (I don't give a crap what others eat so long as things are done humanely, and as I stated, I'm not completely against animal testing.)

Edit:


And, for the record, Clockhand, vegetables are not really comparable to animals. I mean...really. The reasons are obvious. I understand where Blue_dragon is coming from, but B_D, people can drink milk, just get it from more reputable sources. It might cost 8 more dollars, but you can be sure those animals are treated better.

Yeah, that's what I personally try to do, but as for vegans, there are other reasons why they don't drink milk. A big one, besides exploiting the animal, is that we're "technically" not supposed to drink milk after a certain age. Humans are the only creature (that I can think of, and that vegans argue) that drinks milk after its developing stages. They therefore argue we neither need the milk, nor should be taking a product from an animal. My personal ideal is to have a cow of my own to milk. But that's nothing to do with this thread...so I'll leave it at that.

CypressDahlia
09-02-2011, 12:15 PM
I don't really understand that logic.

Blue_Dragon
09-02-2011, 12:28 PM
That's why I'm not vegan. Ask them or go to PETA.com if you want a better explanation. I'm no longer Pres. of the Veggie Club on my campus, so I don't need to know.

Or are you talking about having my own cow? Because then I'd know the treatment it received and would be caring for it myself. Plus I'd have my own supply of fresh milk. Anywho, I'm getting off topic. Sorry.

ClockHand
09-02-2011, 07:10 PM
You've missed the whole point, Clock. Although we do share similar genes, my comment here is to demonstrate that although similar, species are still different. Even testing on humans isn't wholly efficient because I'm not allergic to any medications, but other people are. I'm have no gluten allergies, but some people do. I can eat peanuts, but one of my coworkers can't. If even other humans react differently to various chemicals/additives/etc, then you can see how testing on a completely different species has its holes. Yes, you can get an idea of how it will affect the general populous, but there's also a large population that will have a different reaction to the drug/med/etc. That's what I was trying to get across.

We are different, but also we are similar. Which mean that if something work for one it MIGHT work for the other, or at least that is the first hypothesis.



There's quite a difference between a plant, which doesn't have a central nervous system, and has no memory (that we know of,) and an animal capable of learning and experiencing different things. Granted, there are people out there who won't eat anything that harms a plant--if they can do it, more power to them, I'm not one of those people--but over all consensus is that plants can't feel pain as far as we can scientifically tell. Further, I was offering up an answer to someone else who didn't know why vegans don't eat milk, so you're personal opinion is valued, but wasn't really being attacked in my statement.

I was joking at your point, but if you want I can be more clear. We manipulate plants and animals, but we care about animals because they feel pain, but still a plant carry nutrients and others that being damaged also hurt us. I could say "I'm not going to eat this broccoli because it has been genetically modified in a way I don't know, so I don't trust", which is a good option. But as I was joking at, people only care about if the animal feel pain or not. Not about the real consequences of the manipulation.


And your comment on young girls getting breasts is bordering (if not) pedophilia, which I'm not going to touch--it's disgusting. I'm hoping your definition of "young" is different than mine, but in case you didn't know, girls sometimes younger than 12 are developing breasts. Just throwing that out there.

You find weird that a girl develop breast at 12 years old, and not when she develop it at 16? I don't know but the range of boob growth in womans is pretty wide, my cousin start developing at 12 years old and a friend at 17. I have never seen this related to cow hormones, especially because in here those practice have never been popular.


Please don't think so little of my intellect that I don't know what type of testing has been going on. I've done plenty of research and have been in classes where I've had to do dissections (not high school) and other tests. I'm not so naive as to think people are catching rats on fire. Thank you.

Was I pointing to you? As far as I know I wasn't. I have never dissected a animal (I find that practice extremely stupid), and neither the one of the mouse in the maze. If we are gonna do tests for the sake of education, we better do some relevant tests.


Also if you are concerned about the care of the animal you are eating, go and buy meat from your local butcher. They should know about the meat you are buying, where they grow up, and how was the care of it (actually they know more of meat and animals than all of us).

Blue_Dragon
09-03-2011, 10:53 PM
We're cool, I just thought the comments were directed at me. My apologies.

On the early development, though: it is happening: 12 is about normal, (I think I started around that age...but not really more until later) but there are more extreme cases becoming more common.

http://articles.cnn.com/2000-03-31/health/early.puberty.wmd_1_puberty-young-girls-early-signs?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.livescience.com/1824-truth-early-puberty.html

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/11/early-puberty-in-girls-what-are-the-social-consequences/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/health/08real.html

Anyway, reading these articles, so say it is milk, some say it's not, some say we just don't know. I tried to post a variety of different articles.