Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Animal Testing

  • 17-10-2007 11:32pm
    #1
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    In general, are you for or against animal testing? I'm in the middle of some fairly heated debates about this at the minute.

    From where I'm standing, millions upon millions of people have been saved by the medical breakthroughs made possible by animal testing, so its worth experimenting upon and then killing however many rats/monkeys.

    What's your view? Do you weigh an animals life above a humans?

    Let the debate commence.

    Animal testing - For or Against? 113 votes

    For
    0%
    Against
    64%
    c0rk3rsuper_furryBottle_of_SmokeAngryBadgerRabiesWackerStargalBlistermanGuy:IncognitoeirebhoySean^DCT4andrewBig Earsmise_me_feinthelordofcheeseHydroquinoneCathyMoranolaolaPadraig MorTerry 73 votes
    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    35%
    impChad ghostaltwandapretty-in-pinkcormiecenter15logicSuaimhneachUser45701RekuPurpleFistMixermeekaGlowingTar.AldarionNightwishtallusxzantiroberta cEndurance ManMawg 40 votes


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    Basq
    Registered Users Posts: 43,774 ✭✭✭✭Basq


    Heh.. the thread title reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote:

    "I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers"

    Stephen Fry is a legend... a man who has gotten wiser and funnier as he's gotten older. Just watch QI.

    Have no real opinion on the actual topic.. but probably cos i'm not too knowledgable on it. I could say i'm against it just for the sake of it but i truly don't know if the pros outweight the cons.


  • #3
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    I'd say one pro would be all the people that are alive today because they were either saved by antibiotics, or their parents were.


  • #4
    MayMay
    Closed Accounts Posts: 848 ✭✭✭MayMay


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!


  • #5
    Oriel
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,154 ✭✭✭Oriel


    basquille wrote: »
    Heh.. the thread title reminds me of a Stephen Fry quote:

    "I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers"

    I was going to post that exact quote. I couldn't agree more about him.


  • #6
    humbert
    Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Against
    MayMay wrote: »
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!

    I'd agree with that. Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,039 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    humbert wrote: »
    Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.

    Speak for yourself.


  • #8
    junkyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,579 ✭✭✭junkyard


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    I'm against it, as far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat and shouldn't subject any animal to suffering. There are plenty humans out there that, if you paid them enough, you could do all the testing you'll ever need.


  • #9
    Sonnenblumen
    Registered Users Posts: 5,834 ✭✭✭Sonnenblumen


    junkyard wrote: »
    I'm against it, as far as I'm concerned we're all in the same boat and shouldn't subject any animal to suffering. There are plenty humans out there that, if you paid them enough, you could do all the testing you'll ever need.


    Yeah, lets start with the ones with the small brains.


  • #10
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,039 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Sonnenblumen wrote: »
    Yeah, lets start with the ones with the small brains.

    Animals have small brains, lets start with them.


  • #11
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,646 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Despite advances in other types of testing it's still essential for medical tests.

    Non-essential for cosmetics especially eye tests and LD50 tests.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    I said animal testing in general, you have to weigh the cosmetic tests against the medical tests.

    Personally I'm against cosmetic testing, but if it's all or nothing then I'm voting for all.


  • #13
    Nala
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭Nala


    For animal medicines: yes, but only if the animal has a decent standard of life.

    For cosmetics: absolutely not.


  • #14
    leninbenjamin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,983 ✭✭✭leninbenjamin


    i'm not against as long as there are certain conditions attached. sure don't other species "toy" with other animals in their learning how to hunt activities. i just think we should treat them better while they are alive, don't keep a monkey in a 3x3x3feet enclosure all it's life.

    Edit: on second thought, my original post could be badly misconstrued.


  • #15
    Creature
    Registered Users Posts: 3,005 ✭✭✭Creature


    Pharmaceutical - Yes it's a necessary evil.

    Cosmetics - Hell no.


  • #16
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Yes! It's one of the perks of being the dominant species on the planet :cool:


  • #17
    ryanairzer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 149 ✭✭ryanairzer


    My brain says yes but my heart "How could you a bunny wabbit? YOU MONSTER!!!"

    Bunny wabbits. :(

    Maybe only the ugly animals should be used??


  • #18
    arbeitsscheuer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,391 ✭✭✭arbeitsscheuer


    Creature wrote: »
    Pharmaceutical - Yes it's a necessary evil.

    Cosmetics - Hell no.
    This reflects my sentiments also.

    BBC2 reflected on this moral dilemma of animal rights v medical progress in their documentary called "Monkeys, Rats and Me: Animal Testing". Think it aired sometime last year.

    Just did a search on it, here's a linkyMonkeys, Rats and Me


  • #19
    Senna
    Registered Users Posts: 8,800 ✭✭✭Senna


    humbert wrote: »
    Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.

    http://graphics.stanford.edu/~erang/Album/Other_Album/monkey_makeup.jpg

    I dont know, seen worse out on a Saturday night.


  • #20
    Jesus Wept
    Registered Users Posts: 25,243 ✭✭✭✭Jesus Wept


    humbert wrote: »
    I'd agree with that. Nobody wants to see a monkey all dolled up with makeup.
    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Speak for yourself.

    I'd hit it.

    :eek:


  • #21
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Was near one of those debates a few weeks ago in a javahouse near a university campus. One of the anti-testing advocates was eating a Big Mac while he drank his java. He also had a leather belt on, and parts of his trainers were made of leather. I was biting my lip trying not to say something about the cow that was raised for his beef, belt and shoes (And before someone pounces and calls me a vegie, I just finished eating my beef kung pow and chicken with mushrooms fast food and loved every bite). Grrrrrrr!


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    TPD
    Registered Users Posts: 7,814 ✭✭✭TPD


    Against
    Blue_Lagoon wrote: »
    Was near one of those debates a few weeks ago in a javahouse near a university campus. One of the anti-testing advocates was eating a Big Mac while he drank his java. He also had a leather belt on, and parts of his trainers were made of leather. I was biting my lip trying not to say something about the cow that was raised for his beef, belt and shoes (And before someone pounces and calls me a vegie, I just finished eating my beef kung pow and chicken with mushrooms fast food and loved every bite). Grrrrrrr!

    There was probably more than one cow in his burger and shoes.


  • #23
    Reku
    Registered Users Posts: 3,766 ✭✭✭Reku


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    Personally I'd actually be against it as:
    1. testing of cosmetics, perfumes and stuff such as viagra are not saving lives in a worthy sense, only in that people who CHOOSE to use them won't die.
    2. human testing is still required as there is no animal that is a perfect match in biochemistry to humans
    3. since human testing will be required regardless they could use this for all testing, the only reason that they don't is that the extra safety required for such tests would slow things down compared to doing as much of the testing as possible on animals, this is the real reason for animal testing, simple return on investment. The quicker they can get their product approved and on the shelves the quicker they can start earning from it and the more time they have before the patent on drug runs out and they have to tweak it just to keep people buying it as opposed to the cheaper but equally effective knock-off of it.


  • #24
    Burning Eclipse
    Registered Users Posts: 2,943 ✭✭✭Burning Eclipse


    Against
    TPD wrote: »
    Personally I'm against cosmetic testing, but if it's all or nothing then I'm voting for all.

    Sums up my thoughts on the matter perfectly.

    Crazy thing in, I think it was Cambridge... possibly Oxford, recently. The university was building a lab where testing on animals was going to be carried out. Obviously being a university it was for medical purposes, but the animal rights activists were sending death-threats to the builders... Sort of a twisted view on the value of human life.

    "Your building a place where animals may be hurt, I'm going to murder you for it"


  • #25
    Black Swan
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,218 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    farohar wrote: »
    Personally I'd actually be against it as:
    1. testing of cosmetics,
    Our current culture pressures women to use makeup. Glad I don't need much! But there does need to be some kind of testing, if not animal. There have been contaminants found in some imports that can be very harmful to one's overall health (not just the skin or looks).


  • #26
    oneeyedsnake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 175 ✭✭oneeyedsnake


    Against
    Senna wrote: »
    http://graphics.stanford.edu/~erang/Album/Other_Album/monkey_makeup.jpg

    I dont know, seen worse out on a Saturday night.

    So have I,it was your ma!


  • #27
    Prefect_1998
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭Prefect_1998


    all i want to know is, whats vivisection, see some pretty disturbing images, someone explain why it is needed today?


    thanks
    danielle


  • #28
    Prefect_1998
    Registered Users Posts: 951 ✭✭✭Prefect_1998


    Vivisection is experimentation on living animals.

    Rats, mice, frogs, cats, dogs, monkeys and many others are used for vivisection. Some animals are bred especially for laboratories, others are trapped in the wild. In some countries stolen pets and strays are used. As well as its use in 'pure' research, vivisection is used in developing new surgical procedures, testing new drugs, conducting psychological experiments, and in toxicity testing of innumerable household, cosmetic, agricultural and other products. Live animals are also used in testing weapons, in space research, in vehicle safety testing and for many other purposes.

    Often vivisection is very painful, both physically and mentally. Animals are locked away, often alone, in cages awaiting their turn to be poisoned, burned, blinded, injured, mutilated, starved, force-fed, sent mad, irradiated, given cancer, infected with diseases, turned into drug addicts and subjected to all kinds of painful procedures, often ending in death. Every hour 20,000 animals die in the world's laboratories.

    In Ireland, experiments, including painful ones, are allowed under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876, administered by the Department of Health. Most animal experiments are done without anaesthetic. In Ireland and some other countries, the law requires that, in experiments involving surgery the animal must be anaesthetised but in most of these cases the animal is allowed to recover for observation, and there can be severe suffering at this stage. In Ireland, the UK and some other countries the law imposes some minimal restrictions on animal experiments but these can be easily circumvented. Experiments still cause appalling suffering and distress. In many countries there are no restrictions whatever, and anyone can do anything at all to animals in a laboratory.


  • #29
    Mr. Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 9,798 ✭✭✭Mr. Incognito


    Against
    Why ask the question if you're going to answer it? I think this thread has been infiltrated by an animal activist- Run, here comes the moral stick beating!


  • #30
    Terry
    Registered Users Posts: 26,061 ✭✭✭✭Terry


    Against
    Ok. I'm going to step in here now and state that AH will not be used as a platform for animal rights activists.
    If you want ot fight the good fight, then use Humanities.

    Yes. I do see the irony in the name.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Orlee
    Registered Users Posts: 1,274 ✭✭✭Orlee


    Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon
    MayMay wrote: »
    Whatever about testing for medical reasons, what about testing for cosmetics? Now that's wrong!

    Agreed


Advertisement