Animal Testing

18-10-2007 11:11pm

If animals wish to sit the Junior and Leaving Certificates, who am I to stop them?

biko · 18-10-2007 11:55pm

Against

I'm all for testing on animals for medical research, even to the point of LD50 tests. Without animal research we wouldn't now be using insulin and many other important drugs.

However, shampoos and makeup can be made without tests on animals.
When I buy shampoos I check it for "No animal tests" labels. It's a small way not to support unnecessary cruelty.

JohnnyStones · 19-10-2007 12:12am

Dudess wrote: »

You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait...
even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals

.

Where you hear that?
no they didn't!!:p

and why are you sticking up for nazi's anyway?

MooseJam · 19-10-2007 12:13am

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Hitler loved his doggy

JohnnyStones · 19-10-2007 12:17am

MooseJam wrote: »

Hitler loved his doggy

Yeah he loved it doggy style as well i believe:)

Outer Bongolia · 19-10-2007 12:35am

Against

ScumLord wrote: »

I seen a documentary years ago about a research chimp, I think he's name was bobo. It was raised to understand sign language in a nice research place where they didn't cut up animals it was more about researching chimp intelligence. That group lost it's funding and the chimp was sold onto a medical research place over the years he was infected with all sorts of stuff and then sold onto a traveling circus but because he was infected with hepC he couldn't mix with the other chimps. The saddest part was when the researcher that taught him sign language (was like a father to the chimp) came to visit him after 15 years. The chimp knew him and started signing straight away. When the researcher had to leave it was one of the saddest things I've ever seen on tv ever.

I think I saw that movie, was that the one with Steven Seagal? He had to break into the Russian compound to rescue the poor chimp but in his way was Rutger Hauer with a sub-machine gun? That was very sad alright.

I don't agree with Cosmetic testing because it involves causing unnecessary pain to an innocent animal in the interests of superficiality and vanity. However, speaking about Russia again, they often subject bears to very rigorous heat resistance tests. These tests are valuable in enlightening us about the effects of extreme temperatures on the physical and mental state. These tests also contribute to the local economy, as bets can be placed and T-shirts sold of the Bear walking over the hot coals. The footage can then be copyrighted and mass-produced for sale to international television markets and entertainment shows such as 'Animals do the silliest things' and 'When Bears attack'. Reminds me of a test they did in China about twenty years ago to test the connection between animal cerebral response times and tomatoes. 120 Panda bears were given a three week course explaining the danger of following a moving tomato and subjected to electro-shock tests which tried to make them understand that if they followed a rolling tomato down a flight of stairs then they would suffer and if they held back, they would be rewarded. The final stage of the test involved placing a Panda Bear at the top of a flight of stairs and rolling a tomato down the stairs. If the panda followed the tomato to the bottom then it would be punished with two hollow point bullets to the brain. From what I remember, out of the 120 Panda bears tested, 119 of them followed the tomato and were dispatched accordingly. 1 Panda followed the tomato but had a heart attack halfway down the stairs. Subsequent investigations established that this panda bear died from a massive heart attack caused by a high cholesterol diet. It turned out that the night watchman of the panda compound, Chung Si Heu, was particularly enamoured with this particular Panda and treated him to a full pack of sausages every night. This was a mistake, as panda bears are not capable of handling such high-fat food.

Anyway, I think that animal testing is valuable in the field of medical science.

Reku · 19-10-2007 8:26am

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Just to point out to all those who are praising animal testing in the cosmetics industry and how it lets you know you'll be safe: It doesn't, it only checks for short term issues, many cosmetics still result in a slow build up of toxins in and on the body. Even what type of deodorant you use can be tested for by checking Aluminium content of your hair, Aluminium is suspected to play a part in Alzheimers.

thelordofcheese · 19-10-2007 9:46am

Against

Dudess wrote: »

You would have fit right in in 30s Berlin. Oh wait... even the Nazis disagreed with cruelty to animals.

From Animal testing to Nazis in 44 posts.. is this a new record?

Tar.Aldarion · 19-10-2007 1:27pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Against, I don't hold another animals life to be of any less value than yours. If I was in favour of animal testing I would be in favour of testing you.

I love how so many of you are against animal testing for cosmetics etc and, of course, use them without a second thought.

aidan24326 · 19-10-2007 1:28pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

bleg wrote: »

it's pretty much a no brainer, do you want to put the lives of human beings at risk to test a highly experimental compound, people with friends and family who care deeply about them. on the other hand do you want to test it on animals without a consciousness?

as i say, no brainer. anybody who thinks otherwise should put themselves forward for testing, that would strengthen up the gene pool.

Perhaps the no-brainer here is your good self. Animals without a consciessness you say, really? Maybe you'd like to define consciousness for us. Whether or not an animal is 'conscious' in the same way as us in not the issue, what matters is said animal's capacity to suffer. That many animals used in labs around the world can and do suffer severe physical pain and mental distress is a fact, often for non-essential cosmetics and household chemicals.

Adult chimps are known to have cognitive and emotional capacity not dissimilair to a young child. Thankfully use of chimps is banned in the EU but the US military still use them in research labs. Is it then ok to experiment on a young human? If not why not? Where do we draw the line, at dogs, mice, rats?

Those who consider our torture of animals as acceptable due to us being the dominant species might want to reconsider that attitude. What if we weren't? What if some advanced aliens needed a bunch of lab rats and deciced that we humans would fit the bill? Those who dismiss the suffering of animals should then be first in line to volunteer themselves as lab specimens. I'm not saying there should be absolutely no testing done, but we can take measures to minimise any suffering involved, which doesn't happen in alot of places. Even in medical research some of the animal testing that goes on is of questionable value.

Padraig Mor · 19-10-2007 1:35pm

Against

danielle_door wrote: »

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.

Completely untrue. As is most of the crap spouted by the 'animal rights' crowd.

In Ireland, you need to receive special permission if you are NOT going to anaesthetise an animal for an experiment. You also need separate permission AGAIN if you going to let the animal wake up from anaesthesia after a procedure (i.e. not euthanase it while it's still asleep).

MOH · 19-10-2007 1:39pm

What we need is zombies. Zombie testing FTW

ambro25 · 19-10-2007 1:45pm

Against

MOH, won't be long until you incur the wrath of HAFU for that post

nyarlothothep · 19-10-2007 1:48pm

Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.

Dudess · 19-10-2007 1:49pm

Brilliant! Admins, a Zombie forum if you please!

Tar.Aldarion · 19-10-2007 1:54pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.

How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

Nature Boy · 19-10-2007 2:00pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

I'm completely against it. I don't think we should abuse animals for whatever reason we want. If we're so intelligent, why do we rely on animals so heavily?
I'm sure we could come up with more humane ways of testing, but we won't because using animals is a far easier option. Shame.

ambro25 · 19-10-2007 2:01pm

Against

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

How is it practical and benficial to humanity?

Were your partents vegetarians?
Your grand-parents?
Your great grand-parents?
Etc, etc...

Slaughterhouses and the like (supply chain) have only evolved so that man could dedicate more time to harnessing eletricity, the atom, land on the Moon etc. Not much chance of those happening when you've got to go hunting for your daily meal :cool:

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

That'll be another "private pensions" scandal/fiasco in the offing, then

Dudess · 19-10-2007 2:04pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.

Cue abuse from the non-PC "real men" of Boards... Well the ones who haven't been banned anyway...

nyarlothothep · 19-10-2007 2:10pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

In terms of developing new medicines and treatments for illnesses and understanding more about nature.

ambro25 · 19-10-2007 2:14pm

Against

Nature Boy wrote:

I'm sure we could come up with more humane ways of testing, but we won't because using animals is a far easier option. Shame.

In the grand scheme of things, testing isn't concerned with "humane" - testing is concerned with cost and reliability of results. Least cost = least number of animals required, cheapest animal variety available for the purpose at hand.

So long as animal testing is cheaper and/or the results thereof more reliable, then that's what is done.

As and when someone invents appropriate non-animal testing methods for this-that-the other compound, which is at least as expensive and at least as reliable, then animal testing for that particular compound stops - because it's not that easy to handle, feed, house, experiment on, etc a live or anaestetized animal.

Not being cynical for the sake of it, just common-sensical.

Were I to be really cynical, then I'd say
* stop catching & shipping monkeys, because of the carbon footprint
* start using lifers/paedophiles/etc., human testing surely yields better results faster :evil smiley:

Dudess · 19-10-2007 2:28pm

Actually that's a good point. Why doesn't Boards provide an evil smiley?

faceman · 19-10-2007 4:41pm

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Like eating animals its not 100% ethically correct but its practical and benefits humanity. If there were another efficient way I'd be for it.

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

How is it practical and benficial to humanity?
It is actually a hugely wasteful process. Much moreso than a society that doesn't need mass slaughterhouses to survive. I am much hapopier eating my fake meat and being vegetarian.
I can also get cheaper health insurance for being a vegetarian now. There si a discount given in some companies. :-)

is what way is eating meat unethical? I wouldnt call it unethical, but i would suggest that some of the practises for raising and slaughtering animals for consumption as unethical.

Eoin · 19-10-2007 4:58pm

How would you test pet food if it was banned?

Anyhow, here's an article about transparant frogs being produced, so they don't have to be killed to look at their internal organs.

RandolphEsq · 19-10-2007 5:23pm

Against

2 things;
-The reason people feel bad about animal testing is because they have this idea that it is a poor defenseless animal and it is unfair to put it through such ''abuse''. They think the animal thinks and feels the way we as humans do. It's human compassion.
-Animal testing isn't done because scientists love hurting animals. It is done because it is more practical than using humans as animal lives are obviously not as highly regarded as human lives. However, if someone DOES take some sort of pleasure from watching an animal in pain, then there is something mentally wrong with that person and they shouldn't be allowed test on animals.

Nature Boy · 19-10-2007 5:52pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

faceman · 19-10-2007 6:44pm

Nature Boy wrote: »

Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

Thats an unrealistic proposition.

we hardly set off to Mars to find specimens to test the latest fragrance of lynx on now in fairness

Reku · 19-10-2007 7:25pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

faceman wrote: »

Thats an unrealistic proposition.

we hardly set off to Mars to find specimens to test the latest fragrance of lynx on now in fairness

But we're not exactly capable of intergalactic travel, as we became better able to travel we expanded out the animals we felt we had the right to hunt, kill, eat, trap, kidnap and shove into a zoo, etc... who's to say a well travelled intergalactic race would not also adopt a similar view on us inferior creatures?

MooseJam · 19-10-2007 7:28pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

I for one welcome our new intergalactic overlords

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 19-10-2007 7:33pm

Nature Boy wrote: »

Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

no, but what would we able to do about it *shrug*
I'm sure the rabbits and mice don't like their lot either, but that's the way the world is. In a cage, stuck with needles.. or eaten by a fox.

Capt'n Midnight · 19-10-2007 7:40pm

Nature Boy wrote: »

Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

No way that would happen.
At not until we've sold them all the peoples in the developing world.

Dudess · 19-10-2007 9:07pm

BrightEyes wrote: »

The reason people feel bad about animal testing is because they have this idea that it is a poor defenseless animal and it is unfair to put it through such ''abuse''.

And? Is that not true?

They think the animal thinks and feels the way we as humans do.

Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
What is your point?

Terry · 19-10-2007 9:19pm

Against

Dudess wrote: »

And? Is that not true?

Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
What is your point?

They're food.

Are tigers bad for eating zebras?

Dudess · 19-10-2007 9:36pm

I don't get ya, Terry. This is about animal testing. BrightEyes was explaining the reasons why humans get upset by it as if these reasons are incorrect. I was just asking him how they could be incorrect.

Terry · 19-10-2007 9:44pm

Against

I'm off the clock.
You don't have to get me.

Scoobydoobydoo · 19-10-2007 9:51pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

I am against animal testing, especially in situations where it's not vital, such as with cosmetics. Whatever about saving human lives, feeding rabbits lipstick in the name of vanity is abhorrent.

nyarlothothep · 19-10-2007 10:02pm

faceman wrote: »

is what way is eating meat unethical? I wouldnt call it unethical, but i would suggest that some of the practises for raising and slaughtering animals for consumption as unethical.

Well, when you can eat vegetables why put a living creature through the experience of death and take its life against its will so you can enjoy eating it? Its not nice for the animal but its not a terrible crime, its, as I said, not perfectly ethical from our moral standpoint.

pretty-in-pink · 19-10-2007 10:55pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Againnst, there are to many differences between us, its cruel and wrong. Same goes for blood "sports". Gets my blood boiling

faceman · 20-10-2007 12:19am

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Well, when you can eat vegetables why put a living creature through the experience of death and take its life against its will so you can enjoy eating it? Its not nice for the animal but its not a terrible crime, its, as I said, not perfectly ethical from our moral standpoint.

You havent really explained why its unethical. is it because we are taking the life of another living creature for our own consumption.

If thats the case, well you should eat anything vegetables included. The Jane Muslims can explain it better than me especially at this hour of night!!!

Dudess · 20-10-2007 12:27am

Oh yeah, they're the dudes who wear masks to prevent them from breathing in and then "killing" air-borne micro-organisms. And they don't wash in case they harm or kill micro-organisms in the water. Isn't it "Jain"?
Even I, Boards' very own "PC loon", think that's crazy...

nyarlothothep · 20-10-2007 1:01am

faceman wrote: »

You havent really explained why its unethical. is it because we are taking the life of another living creature for our own consumption.

If thats the case, well you should eat anything vegetables included. The Jane Muslims can explain it better than me especially at this hour of night!!!

Animals have sentience to an extent

Dave! · 20-10-2007 1:20am

pretty-in-pink wrote: »

Againnst, there are to many differences between us, its cruel and wrong. Same goes for blood "sports". Gets my blood boiling

What do you mean by blood sports? I'm assuming hunting, no...?

Dudess · 20-10-2007 1:26am

Yeah, and coursing.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 20-10-2007 12:16pm

chicken fighting ftw
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Jack_chicken.jpg/200px-Jack_chicken.jpg

RandolphEsq · 20-10-2007 12:46pm

Against

Dudess wrote: »

And? Is that not true?

Animals feel pain and fear. They feel frustration and boredom from being locked in a tiny space all day every day. Some animals, like dogs and chimps, feel sadness.
What is your point?

-I wouldn't call it a ''poor,defenseless,animal''; that is what you would say about a human who was being tested. Again it is about convincing yourself the animal is NOT a human and therefore cannot be regarded the same way. This does not,however, excuse cruelty to animals.

-Animals only go as far as feeling, they never think about the feelings they're experiencing and say to themselves ''I'd rather not be here''.

Dudess · 20-10-2007 1:21pm

But testing/being kept in a confined space severely traumatises the animals and they often descend into madness.

thelordofcheese · 20-10-2007 1:22pm

Against

MooseJam wrote: »

I for one welcome our new intergalactic overlords

our new, pleasant smelling, overlords.

Tigger · 20-10-2007 1:28pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Terry wrote: »

They're food.

Are tigers bad for eating zebras?

tigers are bad just sleeping

but they are a beautiful defination of purpose

i think we should test stuff on criminals but its not gonna happen

<waits for nampy pamby liberals to start on him>

Tigger · 20-10-2007 1:29pm

Only if its an Atari Jaguar being tested upon

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

No way that would happen.
At not until we've sold them all the peoples in the developing world.

when i rule the world you should apply for a govt job

bleg · 20-10-2007 4:10pm

Against

Nature Boy wrote: »

Say an alien race come to earth. They are far more intelligent than us, far more powerful and far more wealthy. They wish to test their perfumes, toilet cleaner, medice etc on us because it cost effective and our lives are "less regarded", would you accept your fate?

i'd tell them that here's a lab rat, it has the same basic biochemical make up as myself, use it.

you however, since you're against animal testing would have to put yourself forward.

Animal Testing

Comments