Testing on Animals

I never said we couldn't use anesthetics on them. Assuming that the anesthetic would corrupt the study by introducing a variable into what should be a "control" situation. Nothing semantic about it... and what's with people calling people names by proxy, lately?

And I'm not talking about ordinary criminals... I'm talking about *child molesters*... most criminals still have souls.

As far as mistakes in the judgement of the crimes... that's a fault that lays in a different system entirely.

And I'm not extreme. Your views and mine are bent in opposite directions, mine to the protection and aid of the society and the victems of these monsters. Yours to the very monsters I want to see removed, one way or another, from the society I seek to protect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

And I'm not extreme. Your views and mine are bent in opposite directions, mine to the protection and aid of the society and the victems of these monsters. Yours to the very monsters I want to see removed, one way or another, from the society I seek to protect.

---

Maligning me is proving your point. It's obvious everyone who doesn't support you is supporting child molestation, right? :rolleyes2

Yeah, if I said what was on my mind right now I wouldn't just be banned from EoEO. So I'm just going to put you on ignore.

Testing on animals for medical purposes is fine with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Maligning me is proving your point. It's obvious everyone who doesn't support you is supporting child molestation, right?

---

Nope and nope. I wasn't maligning you in the first place, and never implied (at least, didn't mean to imply) such a thing. And those who disagree aren't necessarily (there's always NAMBLA) supporting child molestation. But they're not doing enough to end it, either, as far as I'm concerned.

I eat them, why not inject them with cancers?

It sounds cruel, but I eat animals. I thank GOD for the food on my plate. Th people whom harvested it, and the animals and plants whom provided it. Either way, life breeds destruction. :ife is simply a balance of these things. Now I don;t see why everyone hates death so much, but I guess if it buys some of us a few years of life, it would be ok. It is important to be greatful and respect the cycles of life, but in the end, we have domain over animals.

Bipper

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

I eat them, why not inject them with cancers?

It sounds cruel, but I eat animals. I thank GOD for the food on my plate. Th people whom harvested it, and the animals and plants whom provided it. Either way, life breeds destruction. :ife is simply a balance of these things. Now I don;t see why everyone hates death so much, but I guess if it buys some of us a few years of life, it would be ok. It is important to be greatful and respect the cycles of life, but in the end, we have domain over animals.

Bipper

---

What he said, only in my case, a Goddess.

I don't see how medical testing is much worse than eating meat, or using animals for fur/leather, or even for various domestic uses. Once you cross the threshhold from "this animal is a living being" to "this animal is now a tool for me to use as I see fit" you've already crossed that line no matter the way you use the animal as a tool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Interesting how many people who, while they don't believe in animal testing, DO eat meat.

---

i dont believe in animal testing and i dont eat meat, happy? :choc:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZeZipster

Interesting how many people who, while they don't believe in animal testing, DO eat meat.

---

i dont believe in animal testing and i dont eat meat, happy? :choc:

---

strangley no. You prolly eat plants, which are just as much alive, and do react to pain. The difference never was enough to me.

What my prespective (and prehaps you can agree to this) on animal eating/testing/using is simply that while we should benifit what we can from those creatures we have domain over, we should always respect life. When you eat a meal, give thanks (praying to GOD or your god or to the gaia form or w/e). I beleive that killing for trophies or trivial reasons is a major disrespect to life. Medical testing for benifit of humans and other animals would constitute as a use of life in my opinion.


Bipper

Quote:

---

I still think we'd be better off testing on child molesters. Give THEM cancer and see how it works.

---

Works for me. But then, I'm known to be a vindictive b*tch.

Quote:

---

As for animal testing, I'm opposed to it. NOT because of the animals. Seriously... they're rats... not only that, they're genetically defective inbred lab-rats that'd never survive in the wild.

However, animal testing is *notoriously* unreliable. They delayed the production of medical penicillin for over a year, because it did strange things in rabbits. They accidentally allowed a drug that causes birth-defects to be used on humans. It was related to another drug we KNEW caused that problem, but this one didn't affect animals (unlike the first). So we thought it was safe. Oops.

Animal testing, for chemical medicine, is more dangerous than it's worth. As for surgical techniques... it's still hit-or-miss, but it does seem to yield enough results.

---

You just stole my whole argument. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

strangley no. You prolly eat plants, which are just as much alive, and do react to pain. The difference never was enough to me.

What my prespective (and prehaps you can agree to this) on animal eating/testing/using is simply that while we should benifit what we can from those creatures we have domain over, we should always respect life. When you eat a meal, give thanks (praying to GOD or your god or to the gaia form or w/e). I beleive that killing for trophies or trivial reasons is a major disrespect to life. Medical testing for benifit of humans and other animals would constitute as a use of life in my opinion.


Bipper

---

Actually, plants aren't 'just as much alive'- they have no central nervous system, no brain, and are no self-conscious, let alone sentient. They don't react to pain like animals do- it is simply another stimulus, if that.
I agree that some testing is acceptable, but you have to be careful- what is the testing, and what is it for? If it's for bad stuff, like chemical weapons, then NO WAY. And even legal testing should be monitered extremely quickly. And clever animals like dolphins and apes and stuff shouldb't be used.

I do animal testing, a lot of it in my course. I'm studying to become a Vet Tech. It's necessary. Period. No one would like to go in for a surgery and have the doctor go "Right, well, this is my first time doing anything but reading books... Let's hope for the best!"

The good of medical animal testing outways the bad. I don't approve of all of it, mind you. Some of the research done seems like its just to see what happens.

I think animals should only be tested upon for medical reasons. After all, they are just animals - we eat them, kill them, make fashion items out of them, and sometimes just hunt them for good fun. I'm not one to stand for needless cruelty though (i.e, smearing lip-stick on a mouse's eyes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bipper

strangley no. You prolly eat plants, which are just as much alive, and do react to pain. The difference never was enough to me.

What my prespective (and prehaps you can agree to this) on animal eating/testing/using is simply that while we should benifit what we can from those creatures we have domain over, we should always respect life. When you eat a meal, give thanks (praying to GOD or your god or to the gaia form or w/e). I beleive that killing for trophies or trivial reasons is a major disrespect to life. Medical testing for benifit of humans and other animals would constitute as a use of life in my opinion.


Bipper

---

Actually, plants aren't 'just as much alive'- they have no central nervous system, no brain, and are no self-conscious, let alone sentient. They don't react to pain like animals do- it is simply another stimulus, if that.
I agree that some testing is acceptable, but you have to be careful- what is the testing, and what is it for? If it's for bad stuff, like chemical weapons, then NO WAY. And even legal testing should be monitered extremely quickly. And clever animals like dolphins and apes and stuff shouldb't be used.

---

I agree with you that it is hard to imagine a plant feeling pain. Let me jsut say this, a plant does not want to die. A plant does have negative stimulace to physical damage, and will react in a defensive way. They also know pleasure, as the know what is good for them. They will grow towards sunlight. Assiating these very human feelings with plants is a streach, as they are very different from humans. I just think its asanine to say that animals have feelings, but plants can't. It seems like a scapegoat for a vegetarian to justify there cause. Pretty much the only innocent food you can eat, is fruit, when you think about it. (at least that is all I came up with, but :D )

Bipper

no vaccine ever created has not been tested on animals. polio, tb, smallpox, mmr, etc all used animal testing to gurantee success. seroxat though was tested on animals and so was that arithitis one that turned out to kill people.

so a bit of both is needed.

and if i can chomp on it and wear it why can't it i prod it with needles?