Testing on Animals
ive just watched a news report where rats were paralysed and then given special drugs to make them better. I have a pet rat myself and am also a great believer in animal rights. SO is it about time we stopped testing on animals or could it still benifit us?
OMFG! Not the rats! Not the rats! Why the rats... How could they hurt rats... -sob-
I think some, limited testing could be justified, as long as it doesn't involve hurting the animals. For example, rather than deliberately giving mice or rats cancer, just use animals that have already got cancer. If they're going to die, it might be worth trying to save them. As long as it's not painful.
But not for cosmetics. Under no circumstances, ever. That's just plain sick!
Just use animals that already have cancer? That is hard to find.
I could care less if they kill a billion rats a year for their testing. Rats and mice suck. I kill them at home by practically ripping their head off or starving them to death...or poision. Why is this so much worse?
EDIT: Where is the PC Facist for this thread
I value my life more than an animal. Human attachments to animals are fine, but if it were my life over an animal, it would be mine
I still think we'd be better off testing on child molesters. Give THEM cancer and see how it works.
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're sick. Wishing cancer on anyone, even child molesters, the lowest of the low, is just sick. CAncer sucks. It's not something you can just say 'Let's give it to this guy!' Cancer really sucks.Originally Posted by udsuna
Rats and mice don't suck. Poeople who kill them then laugh about it suck. Animal cruelty is not funny.
Animal Testing is cruel. The animals didn't ASK to be tested on. As far as I go, test products and minor things on human guinea pigs (you know, the ones who actually volunteer for it, for money) and ONLY test cures for AIDS and cancer on animals, because that's understandable important, but even then, it is cruel. But like udsuna said, our bodies are unlike rats and other animals. Rats can produce Vitamin C but we can't, for example. It's unreliable.
I'm a starch believer in punishing those who commit crimes of animal cruelty very harshly, and I think the punishments for unnecessary Animal Testing (hopefully, almost ALL animal testing) should be punished harshly too. Any person who smears lipstick on living rat's eyes or crap like that should have the same thing done to them, in my opinion. Poor animals.
Child molesters are people too, whats more they can be rehabilitated and turned back into responsible members of society, so i dont think giving them cancer would be a good thing as it's just plain mean
I think animal testing is okay when it is done for medical purposes...
However, testing on animals to make a profit off of some product should be illegal and punishable by some ridiculously strict penalty, which would include a fine of over a million dollars and jail time. If you have to test on animals to make a profit, you can just smurfing lose money.
The first half of the statement is a matter of opinion about the definition of "human". They sure as hell don't fit mine, except on a biological level.
The second half, is a guarenteed falsehood. You can't reverse their "illness", such as it is, and you can't stop them from doing it again, without making it physically impossible. (Keeping them in a cell for life, or mutilating them until they can't engage in sex, or even desire it).
And I never said to do it out of cruelty. Do it for the same reason you do it to animals: medical knowlege.
The fact that you even consider such a thing hints that you want this done for more than just medical knowledge.
Nice assumption. Technically correct, but not for the reasons you imply. I do admit some desire for reasons other than the medicine, but it's all purely empirical and the benefit of society. The advantages of human testing should be appearant, for anyone who studies medicine's developement in history, and it guarentees that the children are protected forever from those we catch.... unfortunately we do have to catch them.
If anything, one could also hope it might scare them into giving themselves over to castration before they carry out the desire to molest a child. I'm too much a cynic to expect that to happen very often, but one can hope. And if they don't molest a child, they wouldn't need to be punished.
Also, I have this belief that punishment should fit the crime. And since this crime is worse than death.... it's not really like even the death penalty is enough. I don't think that this medical science run would be enough to balance the books, but it DOES create valuable social services.
And as an added, final, benefit. We don't have to test on animals.
Interesting how many people who, while they don't believe in animal testing, DO eat meat. I'll admit, it is pretty messed up when they do it for cosmetics, that's stuff they can do on humans. But for cancer and lethal diseases that could save human lives, I'm inclined to believe it's justified. Threads like this makes me want to be a vegan...
Udsuna... I hope someday you'll dignify that the principle of "an eye for an eye" died with Babylonia. It's isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. Do you seriously want our government to start promoting a form of torture? Do you know how huge of a step in the wrong direction that'd be?
Actually, it's not torture unless it's done for the purposes of causing pain. That's like comparing surgery to mutilation. All pain will be purely incidental... not avoided, but not deliberately sought out.
And I think we've went WAY too far enough into what you seem to think is the "right" direction. When the most heinous crimes in the world are treated by just a few years in prison, and then another few in a very-loosely-and-easily-circumvented treatment program (with a less than 3% success rate).... sorry, that's just too far gone. It might be a step in the "wrong" direction... but it might be enough, barely, to counter the top-heaviness of the other.
I really hate stupid semantic games. Okay, udsuna, next time you hear about a doctor not giving their patients any anesthetic (which I'm presuming they wouldn't give the convicts you've mentioned) while performing surgery, be sure to bring up the fact that the pain may've been purely incidental... not avoided but not sought out. I'm sure that'd make it perfectly justified.
What happens in case of a mistrial? Don't you think it's a bit more alarming that our goverment tortured, possibly killed, and possibly dissected some one who was innocent as opposed to just killing someone? That's not right at all, and hearing that this happened wouldn't exactly instill good morals or faith in our goverment or in our youth.
You're an extremist. Instead of fixing our current problem, which would be the aforementioned very-loosely-and-easily-circumvented treatment program you think we should use convicts as lab rats?
Posting Permissions
