Anyone here against tests on animals that cause them to suffer?

I am very fond of animals. In fact, I eat nothing else.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This forum is a quagmire for me. I had to take a course in Vertebrate Anatomy where we dissected an Amphioxus lamprey (like an eel), a shark, and a cat. When it came to dissecting the cat and opening up its heart, I refused, as was then expelled from the school indirectly, but in my opinion directly, because of that.

If one believes in god or a soul then the heart is the center and seat of the soul. It is the center of an animal's life! I will not regret what I refused to do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I've never heard of this either. And I am supposed to be in this business. I would like to know of course what you are referring too.

Googling isn't really helping.
I get this for instance but that is not quite the same as you were saying.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/06/060628234304.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sam, what are you hoping to achieve with the animal tests you carry out?
I'm not attacking you, it's just that the general public seem to give medical testing the nod, even when they don't have the slightest clue what is meant by medical research or the aims of the researchers that carry it out.

 

LOL, you're joking right?

 

For those of you interested in the alternatives to animal testing:

http://www.curedisease.net/index.shtml

 

I'm in nutrition and my animal studies look at the effects of nutrients on energy metabolism with an aim to understanding how food is utilised/stored for energy, whether these nutrients have differing effects in different tissues and what are the factors that determine how food is utilised for energy. The ultimate aim of these studies is to look at the metabolism of these nutrients in terms of diseases where these nutrients are a consideration. e.g. obesity, diabetes. cancer, etc. We generally use cell studies to develop a theory, then apply the specific objectives to an animal model to ascertain the differences in a whole body model, since nutrients do not act in isolation and cell models are inadequate for the purpose.

 

I don't support animal testing. Animals have nervous systems just like us. And they experience pain. But I don't think there's a better alternative. I say test it on humans. Pay them handsomely, and make them aware of the potential risk before they volunteer.

 

So is there anyone who eats meat and is against animal testing?

Personally, I don't see why we should treat animals any better than they treat each other.

As James said, we're no greater than them.

 

We don't treat animals any better than they treat each other, that's the point. We treat them like products for our use.

 

We may not be greater than other animals but we do differ from all others in unique ways. For instance, we have the unique ability to develop moral systems and draw conclusions on the basis of them.

I eat meat. It's morally indefensible, I'm sorry, but it just tastes so good. On the other hand, I'm against unnecessary animal cruelty (yes, yes, I know). And on the other hand (I have 3), I support animal testing on a case-by-case basis, where there's no alternative to it and where the benefits to countless humans outweigh the suffering caused to a finite number of animals. Also, as soon as alternative research methods become available we should adopt them where it's practical to do so, since the thought of hurting little bunnies isn't very nice and makes me squirm.

Feel free to pick the above to pieces and highlight my considerable moral confusion in these matters. I wish I could proceed with the certainty of all you animal evangelists and get over my addiction to eating dead pigs on bread.

 

Let's test stuff on africans instead.

Or at least only ugly crap animals.

 

The drug companies are alreaady using africans as guinea pigs, and last year 4 people in the uk were used in such tests, all becoming critical in hours after taking the test drugs.

I believe all drug tests or anything else should not be tested on animals, only convicted terroists deserve to be used for testing, at last they can do something to further mankind rather than kill mankind, which seems to be there only life goal.

 

Hmmm what about unconvicted terrorists?

america for example.

 

As I recall, that drug was tested on animals with no side effects. However interaction with the human body specifically, led to those near fatal results.

 

Thank you for your response, it's always interesting to hear from those on the other side of the fence, as it were, that have first hand experience in the subject matter.

 

Very funny.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Did you spot that "or"?

 

Been there done that! Segregationists such as yourself should know the history of Afiricans being exploited by drug companies.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes i am, its completely unethical, we can all agree that to use, manipulate, and coerce for our own selfish ends is a pretty poor way to lead a life, so it really doesnt make much sense atall that people should create a social loophole whereby you *can* use, coerce and manipulate as long as its not human and as long as its for the 'greater good'.
If you examine the rhetoric involved in animal research youre looking at the same lines of justification as states that have enacted genocide on a race/people.
I find theres offen a heavy tone of 'de-humanisation' or prehaps 'de-animalisation' (to use a more appropriate term) involved in animal testing, case in point one of the earlier posters refered to the animal she was testing on as an 'animal model'. Its not even a living creature anymore, its a thing, it, simulation etc.