|
|
Post by .Hunting:High:and:Low. on May 3, 2002 18:51:49 GMT -5
No, there is not yet a better method. But that should not stop me from disagreeing with the procedure.
No, it doesn't. But while you are disagreeing, you should also be finding a solution.
I said: This isn't about being fair.
Annie said: Then what is?
It is about benefitting humanity and helping people in the process.
I said: Sorry, but my family wins hands down.
Annie said: Hmm, so just you and your family?
LOL Yeah, sure. I would rather an animal die than a human being. Meaning my family, the neighbor's family down the street, or even yours. It hurts me to see animals in pain, but if it will save one family pain and suffering by having the medicine that they need, then so be it.
Aren't you being selfish?
Maybe, but it is also more practical than what you are saying.
As long as you and your family see some benefit in animal testing, you're approving for it to go ahead. Sorry, but unlike you, I don't like to rank lives.
Hmmm... So you're saying that if you had to save one human being in a burning building, in equal circumstances, and it was between me and your favorite relative, who would you pick? I assume it would be your relative. Ranking lives then, eh?
Also, I am approving it for humanity's sake. If we didn't test on anything, where would advances come form? Oh yes, at the sake of someone's life, meaning someone's family member. And quit acting holier than thou because I find animal testing a necessity. It is a difference of opinion. Doesn't mean yours is any better than mine.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on May 8, 2002 4:22:35 GMT -5
>>If I was dying of AIDS or cancer (along with millions of others), I would want a cure.<<
Some treatments for cancer can be tested on humans straight away safely too. And cures for AIDS can't be tested on animals, which is the main reason why we don't have a cure for it yet. So maybe we should start finding another way to test things, even if it was just to find a cure for AIDS... ?
>>And quit acting holier than thou because I find animal testing a necessity. It is a difference of opinion. Doesn't mean yours is any better than mine.<<
... or the other way around. Although personally I do think that my opinion is better, and I'm sure you do too, or you wouldn't have that opinion. I don't think animal testing is a necessity. We just need to find other methods, and partly we do have better methods, but don't use them.
Here's an example of what they do to test hairspray: they put the hairspray in the eyes of rabbits. They make sure they can't blink, and rabbits don't have 'tears' like we do, so nothing can get the spray out of their eyes. Some of the rabbits break their neck trying to escape the pain. Don't think that medicine testing is less cruel. Some animals are 'made' especially with human diseases in order to test things on them.
In WWII, some medicines were tested on Jews in concentration kamps. Of course this was horrible and they were treated very badly, so after WWII it was decided that this should never happen again. And I agree. But why should it be any better to test things on animals? They feel the same pain, they suffer just as much. They aren't treated any better than those Jews in WWII. Why do you think that we are worth so much more than animals?
~*Esther*~
|
|
|
|
Post by iNsAnE.cAnAdIaN on May 8, 2002 22:09:02 GMT -5
Thanks for replying everyone!
I have thought of a possible solution to this problem- but Im not too sure if it would actually work, so reply if you know better than me ( which is highly likely):
Well we all know that cloning is a big breakthrough occuring right now. Why couldnt we just clone certain organs, and use those for testing?
Now I know that cloning is done by detracting the DNA from one animal and impregnanting it's own egg with this information, but is there anyway that only a certain part could be "copied" and used?
I would appreciate feedback-I know that idea is probably completely screwed up.
|
|
|
|
Post by sunny.side.up on May 10, 2002 7:00:03 GMT -5
^ Well, they are far enough to create human skin and cells, that can be used to test things on. I don't think they can create organs yet, but they are pretty close. Unfortunately, a lot more money goes to research that includes animal testing than to research for alternative solutions... And even if a new test-method is found it doesn't have to be used instead of animal testing in a lot of countries, and it usually takes a long time before it's being used at all.  ~*Esther*~ |
|
|
|
Post by Beautiful.Disaster on Jun 20, 2002 2:41:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Jul 22, 2002 15:21:57 GMT -5
There are pretty strict regulations on care of animals in medical testing, and they get treated a lot better than human test subjects did during WWII. I'm generally against consumer product testing on animals, but I think that medical testing has it's place.
It's not perfect, it doesn't work for every disease, but there are some things that we couldn't do otherwise. Even if we get cloning perfected to the point of being able to grow individual tissues and organs, often scientists need to be able to deal with how something interacts with the whole system.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jul 24, 2002 9:26:27 GMT -5
If we could grow viable, functioning, living organs, that would cut out the need for testing. We could just transplant the new organ replacing the diseased one. Plus using home-grown organs for testing would open doors to prickly ethical problems.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrubby on Sept 1, 2002 22:05:38 GMT -5
Just because animals can't express their pain in human language, they DO feel it, just as badly as you would feel it if you had been set on fire or been cut into.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunShine on Sept 26, 2002 21:16:28 GMT -5
I am against animal testing because in my opinion we are all living things and we all have eyes, ears nails, etc, ect. We are no better then anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Sept 27, 2002 11:13:21 GMT -5
^^^ Most animals do NOT have eyes, ears, nails, etc. But whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shrubby on Sept 27, 2002 11:23:10 GMT -5
^^^ Most animals do NOT have eyes, ears, nails, etc. But whatever. I am fairly sure that dogs have eyes and ears and nails, as do cats, rabbits, mice, hamsters, bears, birds, and lizards...but since a few of them don't have all of these, it's okay to test on them? I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Sept 27, 2002 22:21:50 GMT -5
^^^ A FEW of them don't have all the same sensual organs that we have? The majority of them don't.
Not that I really care, but she made a statement that was very untrue. And I was simply correcting it.
And yes, it is ok to test on them. We wouldn't have come nearly as far in medicine and science if we had never tested on animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by SunShine on Oct 3, 2002 20:47:57 GMT -5
Maybe we don't have ALL those things, that is beside the point. I was just trying to prove a point. We are all living and in my opinion, probably not everyone elses, we all have souls and God created us all equally. He didn't make guinea pigs, rabbits, monkeys, and all other animals so that we humans could torture them to find ways to benefit US. I really don't believe that is what he wanted. I could understand eating meat though, because that is natural and is what we need to do in order to survive. Not particularly us humans, but other creatures. This is just my opinion though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Oct 7, 2002 10:20:40 GMT -5
^^^ Plants, bacteria, protists, and fungi are alive too, and I don't see anyone complaining about killing them. All life is not equal. Humans are the most intelligent form of life on the earth, so why shouldn't we use what we obtained through evolution?
|
|
|
|
Post by SunShine on Oct 7, 2002 11:18:46 GMT -5
People DO complain about plants being killed. Bacteria and fungi are different, because we don't purposely do discusting and painful things to them. What ever we do do, we can't help. And, we are meant to eat plants, bacteria and fungus. I don't have a problem eating meat, because that is what life is meant to do. It is testing that is wrong. Have you seen what they do to animals? My sis had to watch a little movie online for her phsycology class, and these people had a metal stick shoved in the ear of a rat and coming out the other ear. On the top of it's head they were drilling something its brain. It was all bloody. The rat was alive through the whole thing. And you support these kinds of experiments? In most cases, animal testing isn't even nessecary. There are other alternatives. Just because we are the most intellegent life on earth does that give us the right to completely ruin this earth and everything living here? I don't think so!
|
|
