I am. I'm cool with stuff that doesn't make them suffer though. Animals are living beings, and even though we're "greater" than animals, we still owe it to them to not test on them, because we've been stealing their homes for centuries. If people want their makeup so badly, they can test it on themselves. As far as medical testing goes, it's fine, to a degree. I disagree with inducing cancer and other diseases in animals on purpose, they're even given it from birth. This is in no way natural at all and if anyone did that to a dog or cat, they would be arrested for animal cruelty. And no, I'm not some AR nutjob, although I am a bit of a misanthrope(not to the point of hating humanity, just disgusted with how we've overrun the earth and treat animals so callously)so maybe that's why I feel this way.
Anyone here against tests on animals that cause them to suffer?
- Thread starter Lucidfox
- Start date
do you have any alternatives?
it's one thing to say you are against something, quite another to come up with viable solutions.
you mentioned cancer research, what or who do you suggest we test on?
another human being perhaps? that would be fine if we got enough volunteers.
i assume that one of the problems with human testing would be in knowing a persons genetic makeup and medical history. with lab animals those two unknowns are not present.
as far as animal testing goes i am against research for the sake of research, the 'what if' scenario. animal testing should be done with clear cut goals.
it's one thing to say you are against something, quite another to come up with viable solutions.
you mentioned cancer research, what or who do you suggest we test on?
another human being perhaps? that would be fine if we got enough volunteers.
i assume that one of the problems with human testing would be in knowing a persons genetic makeup and medical history. with lab animals those two unknowns are not present.
as far as animal testing goes i am against research for the sake of research, the 'what if' scenario. animal testing should be done with clear cut goals.
Animal testing has a place in modern medicine, such as finding treatments and cures for diseases. Testing shampoos and soaps is, in my opinion, a bit excessive and pointless considering the cruelty.
I support animal testing, because, as said earlier, it's preferable to human testing, and, despite what many radical animal rights activists have implied, animal testing isn't like a medieval torture room.
You might want to check out this site: http://www.pro-test.org.uk/
You might want to check out this site: http://www.pro-test.org.uk/
Ok, so I guess they don't suffer as much as I thought but a lot of lab animals are still given diseases from birth. I know it's for research but wouldn't they still suffer a lot? People suffer greatly from some of those diseases so I assume that animals would too. And it's a lingering suffering that lasts throughout their short lives.
Lucidfox said:
My work involves a lot of animal testing. I don't know if you are aware of this but there are strict rules and regulations which need to be followed when using animals: the minimum number of animals, the least amount of suffering, proper justification for each and every technique used, the surgical techniques to be performed etc. Housing feed and health of the animals is monitored on a daily basis. We need training for every aspect from animal handling to anesthesia and tissue harvesting. We use techniques which are focused on getting results with the least amount of discomfort and pain to the animals.
That said pain and suffering is sometimes unavoidable; but we do our best to keep it minimal.
let's not make the medical and scientific communities look like barbarians.
what are you saying here lucysnow, that scientist test on animals because they are sadistic? the short answer is that there are no other viable alternatives.
maybe sometime in the future they will be able to engineer an organism on demand that has no feelings and no conciousness.
what are you saying here lucysnow, that scientist test on animals because they are sadistic? the short answer is that there are no other viable alternatives.
maybe sometime in the future they will be able to engineer an organism on demand that has no feelings and no conciousness.
I never said they test because they're sadistic, if you bothered to read my posts carefully you'd see that I said "I know it's for research". And there is a viable alternative, just stop testing on animals. We are fine with what we know now, as a matter of fact, we're many times better off than before research started, I'll admit that. But who are we to make animals suffer for our benefit? When will the day come when we no longer have to use animals? One year? Ten years? One hundred years? Maybe we'll never find an alternative. Not saying it's impossible, just saying for all we know it could be at best, a long ways off.
Lucidfox:
You might like to look at the following thread, where animal rights are discussed quite extensively:
[thread]53226[/thread]
Just one comment...
In what respect do you think we're "greater" than animals? That we can inflict suffering on them, and there's nothing they can do about it? Does that make humans "great"? I'd say that protecting the weak and innocent when you have the power to dominate them makes you "great" - not exploiting other beings just because you can.
It seems to me that you're on the side of right and good, though. Don't apologise for that.
You might like to look at the following thread, where animal rights are discussed quite extensively:
[thread]53226[/thread]
Just one comment...
In what respect do you think we're "greater" than animals? That we can inflict suffering on them, and there's nothing they can do about it? Does that make humans "great"? I'd say that protecting the weak and innocent when you have the power to dominate them makes you "great" - not exploiting other beings just because you can.
It seems to me that you're on the side of right and good, though. Don't apologise for that.
Lucidfox said:
What's the viable alternative to testing on animals?
What about cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, AIDS, cystic fibrosis, multiple sclerosis, and malaria?
It may help to take a look at the benefits of animal testing.
Benefits of animal testing :
Vaccines:
Humans:
Diptheria
Hepatitis
Lyme Disease
Measles
Polio
Rabies
Rubella
Tetanus
Whooping Cough
Animals
Anthrax
Blue Tongue in Sheep
Brucelossis in Cattle
Distemper in Dogs and Cats
Equine Encephalitis
Equine Rhino Virus
Equine Influenza
Feline Leukemia
Hog Cholera
Infectious Hepatitis in Dogs
Lyme Disease
Newcastle Disease in Poultry
Parvo Virus in Dogs
Pneumonia Complex in Cats
Potomac Horse Fever
Rabies
Tetanus
Treatment
Humans
Allergies
Anesthesia
Antibiotics
Artificial Joint Replacement
Birth Defects
Cancer
Childhood Poisonings
Diabetes
Emphysema
High Blood Pressure
Kidney Disease
Malaria
Organ Transplants
Stroke
Animals
Antibiotics
Artificial Joints for Dogs
Blood Transfusions
Cataracts
Glaucoma
Kidney Transplants
Lameness in Horses
Pet Cancer
Orthopedic Surgery
Vitamin Deficiency Diseases
Parasites
Giardiasis
Heartworm
Hookworm
External Parasites
Leptospirosis
Current Research:
Humans
AIDS
Allergies
Alzheimer's Disease
Birth Defects
Blindness
Burns
Cancer
Diarrhea in Infants
Diabetes
Emphysema
Epilepsy
Glaucoma
Heart Disease
Huntingdon's Disease
Multiple Sclerosis
Muscular Dystrophy
New Drug Development
Nutrition
Open Heart Surgery
Parkinson's Disease
Spinal Cord Injury
Tooth and Gum Disease
Animals
Allergies
Artificial Insemination
Improved Pain Killers
Embryo Transfer Techniques
Inherited Diseases
Pet Food Nutrition
Tooth and Gum Disease
to samcdkey:
Thanks for your long list. I returned from the denist today so I scaned your list to see if you mention that some human teeth were grown in rabbit's (I think) mouth recently by some stem-cell researchers. I would like to think that someday old people can get new teeth, truely their own. Keep up the good work.
Thanks for your long list. I returned from the denist today so I scaned your list to see if you mention that some human teeth were grown in rabbit's (I think) mouth recently by some stem-cell researchers. I would like to think that someday old people can get new teeth, truely their own. Keep up the good work.
I had greater in quotation marks, because the common attitude I see online is that we're greater. I am kinda a misanthrope myself, I think us overpopulating and damaging our planet is the major problem, if the world was left to the animals it would last a lot longer. Not saying I hate humanity, just saying the planet doesn't need us and would do a lot better without us damaging it. As for the other post, haven't most of those things been cured? And I don't care what potential cures we could come up with, I am still against any research that puts animals in great pain. I know they lack intelligence, but they can still feel pain just like we do. Nothing anyone can say would ever convince me that that is anything but wrong, but I AM glad that efforts have been taken to drastically reduce the suffering that lab animals go through, and hopefully, we'll some day find alternatives that work just as good.
my guess would be the followingJames R said:
1. we don't hunt each other for food
2. we don't have sex in front of god and everybody
3. we take a shit in private
4. we don't go around sniffing each others asses
5. we don't lick our own genitals
6. we don't eat our afterbirth
and that's just for starters
Animals generally don't hunt their own species for food, either. We kill other animals for food all the time, of course.
Not in front of God? Can we hide from God, then?
Also, does this just mean we're prudish?
Same comment.
No, but we go around ogling each other, which is the same thing.
Most of us can't manage that easily.
Is eating the afterbirth a bad thing? Why?
For that matter, is sniffing asses a bad thing? Or having sex in public? Or licking your genitals? Why?
See, the thing is, leopold, you don't need to eat placenta for health reasons. You have plenty of alternative food available. But the fact that you personally wouldn't enjoy eating a placenta doesn't make it wrong to eat one. I think you're confusing your personal preferences with what is "better" or "worse". It's not an automatic given than just because you do it, it must be "better" or make you "greater" than somebody or something which does things differently.