Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Medical Testing on Animals


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 04:35 PM

Original title was "Animal Testing", but then I would have been too tempted to make an exam joke, and then would have been stuck with the logistical difficulty of making it workable on both sides of the Atlantic.
So I changed it.

Anyways, I study at the University of Nottingham, where we have a large medical research hospital, the QMC.
Once in a while, walking home, I'll see this lone guy standing out there on the other side of the road with a little placard saying "Stop Animal Testing Now", or some such thing.
I did actually have something of a minor confrontation with him the other day, when I shook my head and laughed as I walked past him and he called after me, but that's much of a muchness. I shocked my friend George, whom I was walking with... he'd never seen me angry before tongue.gif

Anywho, to summarise, I think that animal testing is a 100% necessary step in the development of new medicines, and people who spend waste their time protesting against it should be deprived of all medicines.
If they so much as take an aspirin, they're being profoundly hypocritical.

Discuss
/simon

#2 The Defier

The Defier
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 04:51 PM

You have to understand that people have different opinions on different things. An apple could look mighty pleasing to you, but halfway across the world, people could be calling it as some "forbidden fruit" that must be destroyed.

This is the same with Animal testing. You believe that it is a necessary step towards development and you may be true. Others believe that it is a form of abuse against animals that must be stopped.

Either way, you're both enclosing yourselves to your own ideas and opinions. Be open to other thoughts, try to understand what the other side is feeling.

That's why I believe the "animal testing" war will NEVER end. ALL PEOPLE IN GENERAL are just too unimaginative, they refuse to be open-minded, they refuse to be sensitive to others.

#3 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 04:54 PM

Testing medicine and etc. is necessary and I won't argue against it because, chances are, I've benefited from it. However testing cosmetics and strictly anything that isn't medical should be banned.

#4 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 04:56 PM

QUOTE (The Defier @ Mar 21 2008, 12:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
You have to understand that people have different opinions on different things. An apple could look mighty pleasing to you, but halfway across the world, people could be calling it as some "forbidden fruit" that must be destroyed.

This is the same with Animal testing. You believe that it is a necessary step towards development and you may be true. Others believe that it is a form of abuse against animals that must be stopped.

Either way, you're both enclosing yourselves to your own ideas and opinions. Be open to other thoughts, try to understand what the other side is feeling.

That's why I believe the "animal testing" war will NEVER end. ALL PEOPLE IN GENERAL are just too unimaginative, they refuse to be open-minded, they refuse to be sensitive to others.

There is no alternative.

Remember that all opinions are not equal.
And in this case, I'm right, and people who disagree are wrong.

QUOTE (FlashGM @ Mar 21 2008, 12:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Testing medicine and etc. is necessary and I won't argue against it because, chances are, I've benefited from it. However testing cosmetics and strictly anything that isn't medical should be banned.

I agree that cosmetics testing is stupid.
Non-medical scinetific testing can still be useful though, even if it's benefits aren't medical, so I won't agree with that.

#5 Oaken

Oaken
  • 7,298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 04:57 PM

What are the alternatives?

I can't think of any. Testing is essential....We can't test on humans....so what else can we do other than test on animals?

EDIT: damn you Joe *shakes fist* tongue.gif. You already made the point about there being no alternatives. Oh and cosmetics testing is rediculous. People don't have to wear make-up etc so it is therefore not essential.

Edited by Oaken, 20 March 2008 - 05:00 PM.


#6 The Defier

The Defier
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:02 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
There is no alternative.

Remember that all opinions are not equal.
And in this case, I'm right, and people who disagree are wrong.


I agree that cosmetics testing is stupid.
Non-medical scinetific testing can still be useful though, even if it's benefits aren't medical, so I won't agree with that.


Exactly what I was saying. You say you're right, but other people also think they're right.

You say cosmetics testing is stupid, but to others it's not.

What you value and what others value are totally different. What your principles are contradict with others' principles.

Let's say you value life, therefore making medicine testing important to you. But let's say, some random girl values her beauty, therefore making cosmetics testing important to her.

If you look at it from an omniscient or neutral point of view, nobody is really right. Everybody just thinks they're right.

Edited by The Defier, 20 March 2008 - 05:02 PM.


#7 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:03 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 05:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I agree that cosmetics testing is stupid.
Non-medical scinetific testing can still be useful though, even if it's benefits aren't medical, so I won't agree with that.

Give me an example or two, maybe I wasn't thinking of all the possibilities.

#8 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:08 PM

QUOTE (The Defier @ Mar 21 2008, 01:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Exactly what I was saying. You say you're right, but other people also think they're right.

You say cosmetics testing is stupid, but to others it's not.

What you value and what others value are totally different. What your principles are contradict with others' principles.

Let's say you value life, therefore making medicine testing important to you. But let's say, some random girl values her beauty, therefore making cosmetics testing important to her.

If you look at it from an omniscient point of view, nobody is really right. Everybody just thinks they're right.

Nobody is really right? That's a crowd-pleasing piece of woo-woo bollocks if ever I heard it.
Other people think they're right. I am right. Objectively and absolutely.

What people value has no effect on the truth.

I notice you're not taking a position in the debate. From that, I presume you disagree with me, but have nothing with which to support your opinion.
A wise decision.

QUOTE (FlashGM @ Mar 21 2008, 01:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Give me an example or two, maybe I wasn't thinking of all the possibilities.

How about testing birds to understand how their migratory navigation systems work, to improve our own navigation systems?
Also, studying the behaviour of wild populations of animals, in order to help their captive cousins breed, eg restoring panda populations in China.

#9 Nine

Nine
  • 472 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:09 PM

QUOTE (Oaken @ Mar 20 2008, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I can't think of any. Testing is essential....We can't test on humans....so what else can we do other than test on animals?


Yeeeah, why not test on humans? Oh, because it's inhumane? The only difference between humans and animals is that humans have a choice whether or not they are tested on because they can simply say "No, I don't want to" or "Yes, I don't mind volunteering."

You might have guessed that I'm against animal testing. I actually was unaware that it was still around until not that long ago. I think maybe in my own little fluffy world, I didn't want to find out that animal testin was still around. Same situation when I learned there were still ethnic supremists still around. I'm actually really sensitive to such things.

Anyways, I don't believe that make-up and such should be tested on animals period but as far as science goes, I'm not so sure. Yes, I realize it's the only option that we havesince not many humans are so self-sacrificing unless they're desperate to be cured of something but I just don't know. I wish there were other ways but there's nothing I can do to make it stop, really.

I have many ideas about humans status above other animals but it's too much to type out and not all of my ideas can be expressed. The ideas that I can't express I try once in a while to explain but it just never comes out whole. Or something.

#10 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:11 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
How about testing birds to understand how their migratory navigation systems work, to improve our own navigation systems?
Also, studying the behaviour of wild populations of animals, in order to help their captive cousins breed, eg restoring panda populations in China.

Well as long as they don't hurt or kill the animals I'm ok with it. smile.gif

#11 The Defier

The Defier
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:12 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 06:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nobody is really right? That's a crowd-pleasing piece of woo-woo bollocks if ever I heard it.
Other people think they're right. I am right. Objectively and absolutely.

What people value has no effect on the truth.

I notice you're not taking a position in the debate. From that, I presume you disagree with me, but have nothing with which to support your opinion.
A wise decision.


How about testing birds to understand how their migratory navigation systems work, to improve our own navigation systems?
Also, studying the behaviour of wild populations of animals, in order to help their captive cousins breed, eg restoring panda populations in China.



I don't take a position in the debate because then I might... well, actually I would give in to being biased and enclosing myself to my thoughts and my thoughts alone.

But don't pick a fight with me man! biggrin.gif Just sharing my take...

And it's not a crowd-pleasing woo woo whatchamacallit. If anything, it's an insult to both sides' egoes. wink.gif

#12 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:16 PM

QUOTE (Nine @ Mar 21 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeeeah, why not test on humans? Oh, because it's inhumane? The only difference between humans and animals is that humans have a choice whether or not they are tested on because they can simply say "No, I don't want to" or "Yes, I don't mind volunteering."

You might have guessed that I'm against animal testing. I actually was unaware that it was still around until not that long ago. I think maybe in my own little fluffy world, I didn't want to find out that animal testin was still around. Same situation when I learned there were still ethnic supremists still around. I'm actually really sensitive to such things.

Anyways, I don't believe that make-up and such should be tested on animals period but as far as science goes, I'm not so sure. Yes, I realize it's the only option that we havesince not many humans are so self-sacrificing unless they're desperate to be cured of something but I just don't know. I wish there were other ways but there's nothing I can do to make it stop, really.

I have many ideas about humans status above other animals but it's too much to type out and not all of my ideas can be expressed. The ideas that I can't express I try once in a while to explain but it just never comes out whole. Or something.

You are correct in that elevating the status of human life above other animals is vain and arrogant, but then again, the whole purpose of the research is to save human life in the first place. Potentially sacrificing human life to attain that goal, whilst there is an alternative, seems somewhat self defeating.
Another advantage animal testing has over human testing is repeatability. Animals that have a shorter generational length than humans can be obtained in greater numbers.
Animals also require less living space and less food. Animals have a fully controllable lifestyle, whereas humans do not.

#13 Oaken

Oaken
  • 7,298 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:16 PM

QUOTE (Nine @ Mar 21 2008, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Yeeeah, why not test on humans? Oh, because it's inhumane? The only difference between humans and animals is that humans have a choice whether or not they are tested on because they can simply say "No, I don't want to" or "Yes, I don't mind volunteering."

You might have guessed that I'm against animal testing. I actually was unaware that it was still around until not that long ago. I think maybe in my own little fluffy world, I didn't want to find out that animal testin was still around. Same situation when I learned there were still ethnic supremists still around. I'm actually really sensitive to such things.

Anyways, I don't believe that make-up and such should be tested on animals period but as far as science goes, I'm not so sure. Yes, I realize it's the only option that we havesince not many humans are so self-sacrificing unless they're desperate to be cured of something but I just don't know. I wish there were other ways but there's nothing I can do to make it stop, really.

I have many ideas about humans status above other animals but it's too much to type out and not all of my ideas can be expressed. The ideas that I can't express I try once in a while to explain but it just never comes out whole. Or something.


It is more often than not cosmetics testing on animals that you see being protested about. Scientific testing is more socially accepted I think.

What people need to remember is that if there was an alternative then animal testing would not take place. Most testing happens on rats and the like....they are bread specifically for testing so it is not as though they are plucked from the wild. They don't know any different. To me this is the same as humans breeding cows just to eat them....you don't here as many complaints about that though.

Whilst I do think it is necessary, I wish there was an alternative.

#14 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:18 PM

QUOTE (The Defier @ Mar 21 2008, 01:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I don't take a position in the debate because then I might... well, actually I would give in to being biased and enclosing myself to my thoughts and my thoughts alone.

But don't pick a fight with me man! biggrin.gif Just sharing my take...

And it's not a crowd-pleasing woo woo whatchamacallit. If anything, it's an insult to both sides' egoes. wink.gif

Oh noes! You might have an opinion? Disaster...

What's the point in participating if all you're going to argue for is middle-ground?

#15 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:21 PM

I wouldn't say testing on animals for any reason was absolutely necessary since humans have gotten by fine for thousands of years without having to test anything on animals (other than weapons of course) but since we seem obsessed with making more people live longer it's required for that purpose.

Things would be so much simpler if we just accepted that humans are only built to live for so long...

#16 The Defier

The Defier
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 06:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh noes! You might have an opinion? Disaster...

What's the point in participating if all you're going to argue for is middle-ground?


Lol, to make it clear to insipid beings of society that they should be open to others' notions.

In the first place, I wasn't really participating, was I? I didn't give an opinion on the topic... I gave an opinion on human behavior regarding this topic and many others.

Edited by The Defier, 20 March 2008 - 05:23 PM.


#17 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:28 PM

QUOTE (Laser Wave @ Mar 21 2008, 01:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I wouldn't say testing on animals for any reason was absolutely necessary since humans have gotten by fine for thousands of years without having to test anything on animals (other than weapons of course) but since we seem obsessed with making more people live longer it's required for that purpose.

Things would be so much simpler if we just accepted that humans are only built to live for so long...

True enough.
But then most of us, including myself, would already be dead, and that's no fun for us now, is it? tongue.gif

QUOTE (The Defier @ Mar 21 2008, 01:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Lol, to make it clear to insipid beings of society that they should be open to others' notions.

In the first place, I wasn't really participating, was I? I didn't give an opinion on the topic... I gave an opinion on human behavior regarding this topic and many others.

Posting =/= participating in your world?
Interesting...

And I'll be happy to be open to others' notions when they have something of value to contribute.
However, until they offer a valid alternative to animal testing, that simply isn't the case.

#18 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:29 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 21 2008, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
True enough.
But then most of us, including myself, would already be dead, and that's no fun for us now, is it? tongue.gif


It would be better for the planet and almost every other species if we were though. tongue.gif We're so selfish on both a macro and a micro level...

#19 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Laser Wave @ Mar 21 2008, 01:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It would be better for the planet and almost every other species if we were though. tongue.gif We're so selfish on both a macro and a micro level...

Indeed.
But hey, shit happens.

The planet wouldn't care if all the humans on Earth disappeared overnight. It'd be back to business as usual the next morning.

#20 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:35 PM

QUOTE (Josh @ Mar 21 2008, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well hell we came from the animals so we're all equal right?

Tell that to a lion.

#21 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25,516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:35 PM

QUOTE (Josh @ Mar 21 2008, 01:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Well hell we came from the animals so we're all equal right?


All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

(we didn't come from the animals, we still are animals...)

Edited by Laser Wave, 20 March 2008 - 05:35 PM.


#22 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:39 PM

QUOTE (Laser Wave @ Mar 20 2008, 06:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

(we didn't come from the animals, we still are animals...)

Animal Farm was an awesome book. But it's theme is a political allegory tongue.gif So true about the "we're animals" part, figuratively and physically.

#23 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:40 PM

QUOTE (Josh @ Mar 21 2008, 01:38 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Of course we came from them. I didn't say we are not animals, I said we evolved from then so technically we came from them. Meaning we are no longer them so we must have came from them. Don't know how else to explain it xD Sure we're dominate, but we still have the same basic history and that's how some people view it tongue.gif



Obviously Darwin's law still applies here wink.gif

People with a Key Stage One understanding of evolutionary biology, perhaps...

#24 The Defier

The Defier
  • 612 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 05:41 PM

QUOTE (Sunscorch @ Mar 20 2008, 06:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
True enough.
But then most of us, including myself, would already be dead, and that's no fun for us now, is it? tongue.gif


Posting =/= participating in your world?
Interesting...

And I'll be happy to be open to others' notions when they have something of value to contribute.
However, until they offer a valid alternative to animal testing, that simply isn't the case.



Posting = participating in your world? What? Lol... You lost me there...

Anyways, we can't have a perfect world so like I said, the war will always be there biggrin.gif.

#25 Twilight

Twilight
  • 429 posts

Posted 20 March 2008 - 07:31 PM

Well, it should be allowed if helping humans. We're "hurting animals" but we're causing global warming and everything is dying. So why the hell not?


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users