Animal Testing

TheMothAssassin · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 1:17 pm

If only to spice this forum up and make myself appear smart, I think we should have some intellectual discussion.

The issue: Should nonhuman animals be used for experimentation such as medical testing?

Arguments and facts favoring experimenting on animals:
* Human testing risks human lives.
* Less than 1% of animals killed by humans are used in research.
* 22% of biomedical research uses animals but that part is indispensible.
* Many important breakthroughs have been made through animal testing, including kidney transplants and using lithium for treating manic depression.
* Animals are easier and cheaper to get as subjects than humans.
* These animals are just going to die anyway. At least it should be for a cause (creepybacon).

Arguments and facts against experimenting on animals:
* Animals often have different reactions to treatments than humans. Some products that proved harmless to animals were very harmful to humans, and vice-versa. Examples include thalidimide, which does not affect animals but causes severe birth defects in humans; and Tylenol, which is hamless to most humans but lethal to cats.
* Since 1900, life expectancy has increased more due to improvements in sanitation and the quality of life than medical research.
* Animal experimentation is costly and wasteful.
* Animal experimentation is cruel.

The Rulez:
* Anyone who flames another user will be the subject of an experiment on the effects of burning marshmallows on human flesh.
* Understand that people's opinions vary. If you disagree then be respectful and polite when stating your counterargument.
* No spamming or any of that.

Adbot · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 1:17 pm

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 1:32 pm

Animal testing is perfectly fine. We should do what instead? Let them free? Guess what. There going to die out there and chances are it wont be a pleasent death. At least this way there deaths are for a cause.

Anyone wants to help stop animal testing? Volunteer yourselfs, they wont need to use animals then. Oh not willing to go that far? Then you obviously don't care that much.

thief18954 · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 1:44 pm

Does it matter if we test on animals? Good point to bring up.

We shouldn't be using them any way we see fit, as in we shouldn't be using them for testing such as cosmetics or any of that sort, that really grinds my gears. Medical, that's a different story. If an animal's sick, and we don't know what the disease is, I think we should be allowed to test. However, if it's to test diseases humans have, they should test it on humans, not the wildlife. What are we going to learn about diseases and medical products through monkeys and pigs? To learn about humans and the effects from products, you test HUMANS!! We won't learn the symptoms of a product until we actually use it on a person, we won't get anywhere testing it on a cow or something.

So, for all those scientists and politicians who are never going to read this, keep your cosmetics and Nyquil off the animals. We can't just kill off animals in such a cruel manner, that destroys eco-systems of habitats. Animals are as important as humans, killing an animal is the same as killing a human, just don't test on animals. It's just down-right wrong.

trekkie · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 1:57 pm

no i think it is wrong but testing on rats is fine. who likes rats anyway

Volte · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 3:18 pm

Mice's DNA is 95% similar to ours, well according to my Biology teacher. So they make good test subjects, meaning most medicins have the same effect on both humans and mice. I don't have a problem morally with using animals as it could save a human's life, and to me Humans > animals

Robbie · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 4:01 pm

Rats or human.....

I think rats can die

Adbot · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 4:01 pm

Pooba49 · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 5:11 pm

Quote:

no i think it is wrong but testing on rats is fine. who likes rats anyway

You make a good point, It really depends on the animal they're using as the test subject.

trekkie · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 5:16 pm

yeah i dont think we should test it on monkeys or other more intelligent animals but then lab rats were breed for testing so

TheMothAssassin · **Posted:** December 1st, 2005, 5:32 pm

Not to mention that they're vermin! We domesticated cats for the purpose of killing rats and mice.

Brad · **Posted:** December 2nd, 2005, 2:22 am

I'm not against it, the way protesters react and the things they do to family's who work for corporations who test on animals is unacceptable, there was a story of a family who worked for a large firm that tested on animals, and they where targeted by animal rights protesters who dug up their grandmothers body, and as far as i know, it still hasn't been returned. sickening.

Sarion · **Posted:** December 2nd, 2005, 8:04 am

I don't like it but if not the mice monkeys, etc. Then who? But i do agree it all does depend on the animal.

Crysala · **Posted:** December 2nd, 2005, 10:57 am

I dont agree with certain aspects of it. This is almost the same as not eating certain foods because of how its manufactured. I dont buy products that have been tested on animals. If the product is for human consumers then humans should test it. Animals have feelings too. It is NOT under any circumstances acceptable to treat animals inferor to humans. How would you like to have things that make you sick and die introduced unwillingly to your system?

I do however think that things that could potentially kill humans when tested should be first trialed on something like a rat. But theres always the thing that animals shouldnt be tested on so its hard to say.

This is a tough issue, nice thread TheMothAssassin