|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:02 pm
marshjazz I think it is wrong to test on animals period.
1. If you want to know if a drug works, test it on humans. That is who your creating it for. Animals do nothing. Everything that happens are humans fault and I honestly don't care if humans die from it. It is the same as all those other people I don't know dieing. I however think that it should be optional. That if they are testing an AIDs treatment or something, they should find people with that condition and ask them if they want to participate. If enough people don't participate, all the people with that disease can die. Simple as that.
2. Again, use humans. Same reason as above. We don't really need to be removing the brain to see how something works however, most of that we can figure out without invasive procedures. We've already gathered alot of data about that.
3. Definately no. Possibly kill an animal so that ugly people can look like clowns?
Now maybe testing drugs/phycology experiments on rats that people want exterminated, NOT the ones you buy from the pet store. They were going to end up dead anyway. But the make-up thing is still retarded.
And don't come back with the lame "What if it is someone your close to?" response to this. Cause I'll just ignore you. i halff agree with you, marsh.
i totally agree on the make up thing..
it's really stupid.
im not arguing or fighting, or debating with you,
because testing on animals is wrong,
but if they weren't allowed to test on,
lets say a baby kitten,
i think then testing on humans,
equal to the baby kitten = human baby
is just as cruel.
and people do animal testing
to save human's lives..
so even if not enough people participate
for a test on AIDs, i think it's wrong
to think people should die from that
just because not enough people participated.
AIDs is a horrible disease
and i don't think people should from that
because not enough people participated.
just saying..
don't kill me..
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:07 pm
NEUTiN i think testing animals for cosmetics is okay, because they are not essentially hurting the animal. i mean a little shampoo or a little soap will not hurt. but anything mentally or physically hurting the animal should not be done. i don't think it is right to take out a piece of the brain, to see how the animal reacts, or to deprive the animal of sleep, because that is just inhumanly wrong. i mean, would you want a piece of your brain to be taken out, or would you want to be deprived of sleep for a certain period of time, to see how you would react?
i think anything that hurts the animal physically or mentally, should be done on humans. because a human can state their opinon, if they want the test to be done, or don't want the test to be done. an animal cannot say that, they have no choice. i agree
even though i still think make up tests are
really just pointless..
humans should just test a smaple of their lipstick or soap or something..
argh i'm so confused.
there's too many sides to
animal testing gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:07 am
Well if people are to stubborn to save their own life and those of other people, then they don't deserve to live. Honestly the whole AIDS episemic is stupid to me, because if it was up to me it wouldn't be an epidemic. AIDS was caused by some dumb human anyway. I still stick to it. It may be "wrong" in your opinion, but the world is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 11:53 am
1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc. I don't think it is right, because animals can't say no, I mean it isn't right to test on a human being without consent, so why should it be ok for animals? 2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things) Same opinoin as above, There are people who are willing to do this kind of thing for money, why do it on a animal that most likely wouldn't want it. 3) Is it right to test animals for cosmetics? Definately no.
If it's for humans, test it on humans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
xXxR e p t a r B a r sxXx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:47 am
1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc.
No it is not. It doesn't make sense in my mind. You don't test flea repellent on humans to see if it gets rid of fleas. You test it on animals. You shouldn't test the next batch of anti-depressants on animals, you test it on humans, because even if the dog becomes happier in the next 6-8 weeks, it could make the human feel worse and they commit suicide. We do not have the same body structure, brain chemistry, or the ability to communicate in a way scientists can understand. A dog can't say "This new drug is making me dizzy. I'm having cramps." They can't tell us the side effects.
2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things)
No it is not. They do not have the same brain as a human, so explain to me what taking a piece of brain out of a cat is going to prove. You shouldn't be taking this out an organisms brain, anyway. Brain cells don't grow back!
3) Is it right to test animals for cosmetics?
NO IT IS NOT!
Animals shouldn't have to suffer so we can look like what the media calls beautiful. If one isn't comfortable in their own skin, that's their problem. Animals shouldn't have to suffer for temporary beauty. Again, you dont test flea repellent humans, test human products on humans!
Test on animals adds up. Cages, food, water, new animals to test on when the olds one die, ect, it all adds up to millions of dollars that could have been spent otherwise. Not only is it cheaper to pay volunteers, it's more humane.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 03, 2007 1:09 pm
1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc.
Right or wrong, its a necessary evil. Granted, animals can't say no; but they also don't have the cognitive thinking levels that a human being does (at least the animals we do medical testing on). If we're trying to create a cure for cancer or leukemia. Its not going to d ous any good to pump humans full of a drug that doesn't work, cuz then you've got malpractice, lawsuits, trials, payments, etc. Its just not logical to spend all the time trying to fiz the outcome of a treatment than doesn't work, when it could be tested and imporved before being used as a treatment for certain medical issues.
2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things)
Well, I don't see dissecting an animal's brain as necessary, but simple behavioral experiments, Pavlov's Bell, sleep deprivation, social learning. I don't see a problem with. We're simply learning more of how things work then harming anything thing.
3) Is it right to test animals for cosmetics?
No its not right. There's no logical reason to test and animal for cosmetics. This is what test groups are for, this is also what test group insurance is for (if something went wrong).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 2:50 am
I do not approve of animal testing (of course, who care what I approve...) but sometimes it's the only thing we can do. Most animal brains work differently than ours. I won't really help any to test on them. Same ith the drugs. It'll most likely have a different effect on them than it would on us. And nobody needs makeup! If you wanna test something, test it on a willing human. Atleast the human can say that it wants to be tested, and can easily fight back if it get's scared. An animal can't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 11:47 am
Hikari Aijuntani 1) Is it right to test animals for medical purposes? To find new cures/drugs etc. Right or wrong, its a necessary evil. Granted, animals can't say no; but they also don't have the cognitive thinking levels that a human being does (at least the animals we do medical testing on). If we're trying to create a cure for cancer or leukemia. Its not going to d ous any good to pump humans full of a drug that doesn't work, cuz then you've got malpractice, lawsuits, trials, payments, etc. Its just not logical to spend all the time trying to fiz the outcome of a treatment than doesn't work, when it could be tested and imporved before being used as a treatment for certain medical issues.Necessary? No it's not. It isn't necessary to choose a human life over that of an animal. We have no more right to exist than that animals does. Yeah, those cognitive thinking skill are also wasted on alot of us. Cognitive thinking skills do not give us more right to exist. Those diseases were created for a reason. That reason being: to kill us. Survival of the fittist/healthyist. So it's alright to pump and animal full of a drug and let it go through all the pain to cure a human because they can't file lawsuits. Well maybe they should. Quote: 2) Is it right to use animals for psychological experiments? (Can involve removing parts of the brain to see how something works without it, sleep deprivation/social learning - can be a range of things)
Well, I don't see dissecting an animal's brain as necessary, but simple behavioral experiments, Pavlov's Bell, sleep deprivation, social learning. I don't see a problem with. We're simply learning more of how things work then harming anything thing.Yeah except that we are learning at the expense of an animals pain and suffering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 4:16 pm
marshjazz Necessary? No it's not. It isn't necessary to choose a human life over that of an animal. We have no more right to exist than that animals does. Yeah, those cognitive thinking skill are also wasted on alot of us. Cognitive thinking skills do not give us more right to exist. Those diseases were created for a reason. That reason being: to kill us. Survival of the fittist/healthyist. So it's alright to pump and animal full of a drug and let it go through all the pain to cure a human because they can't file lawsuits. Well maybe they should. Those diseases can also kill animals, not just humans. Its no different testing them than it us to find a cure if it can also cure them. Besides, can you really think of a human who would willingly volunteer to be tested on with possible cures knowing there was every possibility they'd die in the process. Even if they were dying from a disease, you can bet that they'd want to spend more time living than being experimented on. Animals who are being tested on are preforming an incredible act of selflessness by finding cures for us and in turn themselves (even if they don't know it). marshjazz Yeah except that we are learning at the expense of an animals pain and suffering. Human beings participate in those studies too, not just animals. We learn more about animals and ourselves in the pursuit of knowledge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 7:08 pm
I do not think anything should be tested on animals mostly due to the fact that the animals cannot give consent to the tests (just like how they cannot consent to humans having sex with them, which I also think is wrong.)
If people want to test new drugs they should hire other humans to test them. They should have an application stating the purpose of the drug and a waiver listing all the possible side effects that could happen to them (including the possibility of death) and have them sign the waiver so that makes the company with the new drug not responsible for any of the side effects (to prevent lawsuits) and they should pay them a salary for testing the drugs.
See people can consent to such things and are willing to do it for reasonable pay. There is no need to test on animals if humans are willing to risk themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 04, 2007 9:26 pm
Hikari Aijuntani marshjazz Necessary? No it's not. It isn't necessary to choose a human life over that of an animal. We have no more right to exist than that animals does. Yeah, those cognitive thinking skill are also wasted on alot of us. Cognitive thinking skills do not give us more right to exist. Those diseases were created for a reason. That reason being: to kill us. Survival of the fittist/healthyist. So it's alright to pump and animal full of a drug and let it go through all the pain to cure a human because they can't file lawsuits. Well maybe they should. Those diseases can also kill animals, not just humans. Its no different testing them than it us to find a cure if it can also cure them. Besides, can you really think of a human who would willingly volunteer to be tested on with possible cures knowing there was every possibility they'd die in the process. Even if they were dying from a disease, you can bet that they'd want to spend more time living than being experimented on. Animals who are being tested on are preforming an incredible act of selflessness by finding cures for us and in turn themselves (even if they don't know it). And if no one consents to the tests (like the animals who don't consent) then everyone with that disease can die. There is a cure for that disease right there. An act of selflessness which they didn't consent to. Which doesn't make it selfless it makes it slavery. Your saying that animals should be forced to be selfless so humans can be selfish? And why exactly do humans deserve life so much more than an animal? Quote: marshjazz Yeah except that we are learning at the expense of an animals pain and suffering. Human beings participate in those studies too, not just animals. We learn more about animals and ourselves in the pursuit of knowledge. Yes, but once again. The animals never gave consent. And since the knowledge is going to humans not the other animals, they aren't gaining anything from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 09, 2007 5:05 pm
marshjazz And if no one consents to the tests (like the animals who don't consent) then everyone with that disease can die. There is a cure for that disease right there. That's right. Let's just kill of the entire population of ANY living being, human and animal alike. Then we'll all die and no one will have to worry about anything medical because no one will be around to be bothered with it. stare Scientific testing allows us the ability to widen our knowledge of certain medical events so we can learn how to prevent or cure them. If an animal has to die or go through the medical problem before cured to do so, I see no problem with that. We're coming up with ways to cure them as well; its all for the greater good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:17 pm
Hikari Aijuntani marshjazz And if no one consents to the tests (like the animals who don't consent) then everyone with that disease can die. There is a cure for that disease right there. That's right. Let's just kill of the entire population of ANY living being, human and animal alike. Then we'll all die and no one will have to worry about anything medical because no one will be around to be bothered with it. stare Scientific testing allows us the ability to widen our knowledge of certain medical events so we can learn how to prevent or cure them. If an animal has to die or go through the medical problem before cured to do so, I see no problem with that. We're coming up with ways to cure them as well; its all for the greater good. We have the scientific know-how that the human population would not die off if we don't find a cure for some diseases. I'm not saying that animal testing done in the past was wrong, we had nothing better, but it is wrong to continue doing it. We have enough technology now that it isn't needed. Explain to me how injecting an animal with a disease that humans get and forcing them to endure often painful tests helps the animal? If we go around saying we are doing something for the "greater good" then it would be fine if I went around shotting everyone with AIDS. Each one who died would be one less AIDS infected that could give the disease to more. Hey, it's for the greater good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 10, 2007 10:08 pm
I'm sure it's been said, by here is what I think:
Animals have no ability to make an educated decision about whether or not the testing is something they WANT. I find this to be problematic.
On the other hand, animal testing has impacted the medical world in so many ways.. we might not be where we are today without it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 11, 2007 3:36 am
Hikari Aijuntani Animals who are being tested on are preforming an incredible act of selflessness by finding cures for us and in turn themselves (even if they don't know it). They're forced to do this. They have no say in what's happening to them. You can't say their doing a 'great act of selflessness' if they're not doing it intentionally. Animals feel pain just as we do. Physically and emotionally. We know physically because they 'cry' and show signs of being hurt. And emotionally should just be common knowledge. My dog cries when we leave her alone for awhile, and my kitten cried whenever we left him alone for a second. Some animals even seem to enter a depression when a child or family memeber, or even just friend, is taken away from them. They know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
