Animal Testing

[Gedeon]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yep. That's what I meant.

[Blue_Dragon]

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]

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]

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]

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!