Debate animal testing

I have now figured out someone is a little odd here.

Anyways. How many people are against animal cruelty?

Lab experiments, testing, and behavioral studies are animal cruelty. Or do some of you people just get mad when owners hit their pets with sticks? Or starving the poor pet?

To me animal cruelty is anything that upsets the natural order which an animal can live by such as injections, planed behavioral studies, nutritional studies, and etc...

What no one has the guts to debate me on the fact that humans are worse then Mother Nature?

Okay Neph I will prove it.

Someone said that nature can be cruel more then humans or “more so.” They are not at all right by this. On Animal Planet there is an animal cop show set in New York, USA (I think). It shows just a little bit of cruelty leaving a dog without food for weeks at time, **** fights, and more.

All the person has to do is open up a history book and see how cruel humans can be.

Another good point is the Holocaust. Thousands of Jewish people were killed, or studied on. There was a ton of experiments done on humans. The worst part was when after it was all said and done most of the information that we know about humans came from "human experiments" during the holocaust. It also gave us the biggest study on human twins.

Mother Nature is not just cruel. It can show us compassion giving us beautiful plants and other necessities we need to live on. Humans are injustice and cruel. We live by the standard of survival of the fittest. If you look in a newspaper you will see humans being crueler then Mother Nature. The hurricane named Isabella was claimed to kill 38 deaths and over 200,000 without power. They will all rebuild and morn all the love ones lost but they don’t have to seek vengeance (like when a human kills another). This is trivial to all the lives lost in war, the US terrorist attacks, the Holocaust, and mass murders.

With all these experiments being done it is leading that animal closer to extinction. And we soon will reek what we sow.

Rats are as Ark said like 90 percent or so compatibly with humans. Why not just pay the human to be tested on? I go for human testing. We can learn more about ourselves from ourselves.

 

Of course. I say test on the protesters, after all, they seem more than willing to help allieviate the suffering of animals... this is their way of doing it.



Edit: And Basher, here's the thing... Tens said NATURE on ANIMALS could be more cruel than us, if not moreso. Thing is, you kept giving human on human examples. If a species is endangered, nature doesn't set up a preserve for it, it has no endangered species list, it just has survival of the fittest which, like it or not, is reality. If you let a pet loose in the wild, it's toast. It's basically been a baby it's entire life, it isn't going to do too well.

Oh, and by the way, go protest machines used in farming. At least the animals we killed died for something useful, in this, the field animals killed just die, and I wouldn't be surprised if in larger numbers.

Another edit: And how are we going to get vengeance on a storm anyway? Nuke a cloud?


Yet another edit: wait, wait, how are we leading lab rats closer to extinction? They are bred specifically FOR the lab! We don't just find them in a field.

 

I kept on giving human reasons for being crueler. Why because I was debating the NATURE on ANIMALS can be or is more so crueler then us. With US being humans.

If humans didn't kill off animals would there be a need to preserve them?
No considering the theory of evolution would make them survive.

I would also like to point out that there are some animals that do get released into the wild and do survive. They are not always "toast."

These animals are bred to die by machines. Plus I refuse to strap myself to a killing machine. Plus the animals are killed quickly not slowly like some do in labs.

I said this. They will all rebuild and morn all the love ones lost but they don’t have to seek vengeance (like when a human kills another).

AKA someone who needs to learn how to read.

Some are bred for this but not all. And if they All were bred for this wouldn't there be a lot of inbreeding? And how did they get the first two rats for this?

As I said putting an animal to be tested on is animal cruelty. Isn't animal cruelty illegal in some of your countries? It is in the U.S. If it upsets the natural order in which an animal can live by then it should not be done. I am against animal testing for anything. I say use people that volunteer. We are the only ones that are a perfect match for our species.

For people who are for it. I would like you to think about what the poor animal has to go threw. Maybe some of you guys should see a real lab and see how harmful it is to animals. Just because is an animal and not a human being doesn’t make it right.

 

Yes, because we aren't always at fault.

Evolution is not a guarantee for survival at all.

The vast majority, on the other hand...

What!? These animals are born free! I fail to see how you can get angry when an animal really bred for the lab is killed in the lab, yet when an animal in the freedom of the wild is killed, his flesh being shredded and his skull crushed so you can have your oats that much faster, its ok.

I should hope nobody seeks vengeance, they aren't going to get bloody far being pissed off at the weather! People are smart enough to know when they can't do anything.

I don't think the issue here is my reading skills.

Who on Earth said we started out with just two rats? We'd keep a wide genetic pool open, you know. I mean, like, BIG. Think hundreds of thousands, not TWO rats.

Edit: We probably get them from pet stores, do you know how hard it would be to get thousands of healthy rats in the wild?

Alright, get rid of your pets.

I say use people who protest, they clearly would do anything for their precious rats.

Have you seen a real lab? Not every experiment is some ungodly torture.


EDIT: My friend A.D. raises a good point. "Well, with all the lawsuit madness in this country right now, it's necessary to test a product/drug/whatever on animals first. Human testing should (and does) only happen after the animal testing has been completed."

Yeah, we'd all like to hope that anybody who signed up for testing would realize he is at fault, but then, history has shown us how blindingly stupid some people are.

And a secondary note, if we could get nonliving replacements that perform as well, I'd support it. It's not like I want to hurt these animals. It's unfortunate, but frankly necessary.

 

Wow! i had no idea their were topics like this on the board! I think you make some very good points Neph and although i personally am against Animal testing their is a points i would like to make for it.
First off, we've made many advances in medicine for various causes that have saved lives of countless people and if we had not tested it on animals, or if we weren't allowed to test on animals, we wouldn't test it on humans then we wouldn't have the cures/medicines we do for certain diseases/viruses.
And Basher, from what i've gathered from a couple of posts i think you need to respect other ppls decisions and beliefs and not generalize. i mean how would you feel if you were in their shoes and they called you an evil and vile person when you're not. Anyways that's my point.

 

I figured, since this was a hot topic, I'd go ahead and post this as a "primary source". Wow, don't get these too often, now, do you?

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/cerc/danoff-burg/invasion_bio/inv_spp_summ/Rattus_norvegicus.html

For those who want a summary:
The Norway Rat "has been selectively bred to create the albino lab rat used for research purposes. Some forms of this species are also kept as pets. To a smaller degree, they serve as decomposers in cities by reducing garbage and other food lying around." They're also "the greatest mammal pest of all time. Currently, an estimated 150-175 million Norway rats live in the United States causing millions in dollars in damage to crops and buildings each year. A U.S. Government report estimated that each individual rat annually damages $1 to $10 worth of food and other material, and contaminates 5 to 10 times more. Using their ever-growing incisors and strong jaws, these rats cause structural damage by burrowing underneath buildings and walkways and gnawing through walls, pipes, and electrical wires. These rats have even started fires by gnawing matches and have caused floods by tunneling through dams. They contaminate crops and food, and may also restrict plant growth by eating large amounts of seeds. More importantly, they transmit diseases directly by biting people and contaminating food, and indirectly by carrying lice and fleas. Historically, they have been vectors for bubonic plague, leptospirosis, typhus, spotted fever, tularemia, salmonella food poisoning, infectious jaundice, and other serious diseases."

Just thought it would help.

 

i think you all raise good points, Neph your one of the ones who make the most since to me( giveing more reason with the statments made)

normally thread i make get closed so i stoped makeing them lol im happy this one is working so well

i still stick with my thing i like rats neph but i don't want humans to test on me because ones my percious pet

and i've yet to see any thing from Sailor Kaiba ~cough~

 

Heh I like rats too, I used to have a pet rat named Ritz.

 

Athena, I hate to tell you this but I am evil, vile, and a lot more. It wouldn't bother me one tiny bit. I just cannot stand peoples points when they are not valued enough like mother nature is more so worse then humans.

This is a debate thread you have to debate something. Not just post how you feel.

“So, how do you’ll feel today? I feel right chipper now.”

The species just dies off for no reason then.:rollseyes: There are plenty of factors why animals become extinct. Here are several: inability to compete well with other species for food, infections and diseases, caught for domestic livestock (humans), poaching (humans), infertility and inbreeding problems, climatic conditions, alien animal introductions (humans are do animals just drop out of the sky), dam-building (humans), excessive water abstraction from small rivers (humans), habitat alterations or loss (humans), hunting (humans), pet trades (humans), cultivation of land and competition with livestock (humans fault), and used for medicines (humans). We may not be directly at fault for All the time but chances are that we are indirectly at fault. We can easily say we are to blame for everything like competing with other species for food is because of less land why humans took over, and etc…

Humans are plagues. We cause fatal and a wide spread destruction where ever we go. Unfortunately animals among other things are in our path of destruction. Or does the home you live in actually grow from a seed? Did you all forget that your town/city used to be covered in nature? Some of my town used to be part of a river bed. Human destoryed were we all live today.

Evolution is a slow change for the better with evolution it enhances the species. Unfortunately evolution forgot the big plague of human and other things that play a factor in an animal’s extinction. Evolution takes time unlike a bullet takes a few seconds.

First off there is a vast tests this animal has to go threw to be able to survive in the wild. Wild Life rehabilitation isn’t just fun and games. They are also tagged once released back into the wild if not tagged then at least checked on. Some don’t always survive why because of predators, wasn’t ready to be released, lack of food, lack of land, and etc…

I would like to point out that captivity could also kill off a species. Take the Miss Waldron's Red Colobus (Monkey) for example. It died off in captivity and was labeled extinct on September 12, 2000. It died in captivity because it was so sensitive to habitat alteration that scientists could not replicate its diet. There was also no success to breed this animal in captivity. The reason why it became endangered was because of loss of land which is because of humans. Let us chalk one up for our team. We killed off the Miss Waldron’s Red Colobus (monkey) go team! Yeah we bad and we know it and we showed it.

I am going to swing this back into the topic. Lab testing destroys species help bringing them closer to extinction then to animal wild life preserves to help bring out the species population form extinction. By the example we can tell it doesn’t always work. It is just not rats that is used for experiments monkeys, dogs, cats, and others are also used.

The animal being bred for captivity didn’t get a choice on how to live its life unlike the animal in the wild. Yes animals die in the wild but at least with the nature cycle other species can benefit from this NATURAL order.

I am glad we finally agree on something. But people do get mad at these natural occurrences. But it is liek spitting into the wind a bad idea.

Well it don’t matter it still is wrong. No matter where it came from it still ends up in this factor. The animal was born to live a life in its own natural order not in a cage.

Sadly I may have to. But getting rid of a domesticated animal is hardier then a wild animal. My cats always find their way home. Plus the natural order of cats, dogs, guinea pigs, and etc has changed. They have now been domesticated and can survive that way so it is a good natural order change. It would make a new natural order to in which they go by.

Putting a human in a cage is considered torture why should an animal be any different? It is just an animal technically so are we.

We also made advances in medicine, human biology, twin experiments, and others during the Holocaust when humans were the ones being tested on. This was labeled as cruel but yet the poor rat being injected with the AIDS virus (or any other disease/virus) just doesn’t make the cut. Testing on humans is done, BTW. My opinion it is the better way to do things. We are the perfect match to our species. We should just start breeding humans for labs. Oh wait that would be cruel.

I was kind of wondering something too if we do mess around with a species to much (like with the Monkey) it could die off. Could there be a species that is linked to us (humans) that once it dies off make humans slowly become extinct no matter what we do to try to revive our species? Dinosaurs died off and they were the most powerful animal at the time.

 

Like it or not, theres no need to be rude.

Lets look at cheetahs. They ended up becoming overspecialized to the point where running fast is about all they can do, and actually inbred. At this point, their genetic pool is an extremely shallow one and a very large number are born with massive birth defects. Cheetahs are on their way out. It sure as hell isn't my fault this happened though.

Anyway,

As someone who has debated quite a few creationists, I bloody well realize that evolution is a slow change. BUT IT IS NOT A GUARANTEE FOR SURVIVAL. If the animal cant adapt, well, goodbye animal. In case you forget how you said it was a survival guarantee...

I -know- that, thats why I said a large number wouldn't be doing too well. Heck, look, we even have to baby them and check them! (tagging them)

You're still misjudging. See, we intentionally breed these lab animals. We aren't using rare animals which won't breed in captivity.

Yeah, because we have an EXTREME shortage of rats, cats and dogs in the world. And regarding monkeys, I've already stated I don't support testing on the sentient animals unless its for psychological/sociological studies, which aren't painful.

"Here you go, little animal! Nature! You don't get meals at designated times every day, you won't be warm, and theres a good chance you'll have your body ripped apart while you sleep in a field. But don't worry, at least you aren't contributing to scientific progress and helping others with your sacrifice."

Nope, we bred 'em for life in a cage, believe it or not. If we never had animal testing, the test animals would have never even been born.

Thats like saying if I taught you absolutely zero skills for society, and kept you in my basement, but feed you and play with you every now and then, that'd be a good natural change because you survive.

Hooray for sentience!

If you think the suffering a rat goes through is bad, I invite you to go to a hospital and meet people going through chemo treatments to try to help them with their cancer.


For those who oppose animal testing, how do you distinguish between killing lab animals to test cures and killing animals as disease vectors? Is it wrong to test drugs on a couple hundred lab rats bred specifically for the purpose, but OK to massacre rats in the thousands in order to contain an outbreak of bubonic plague? What about spraying mosquitoes to kill West Nile? Every day, somewhere in the world, thousands of animals are killed in order to prevent them from spreading disease into the human population. Is that OK? Or should we follow the logic of the 'no testing' argument, and allow them to live, at the expense of the people who will die of the diseases they carry?

As for the argument that humans should be tested, well, they always are. Animal tests are the first stage, feasibility tests. No cure will ever get gov't approval without thorough testing on human subjects, so we are going under the needle just like the animals.

There is an inconsistency to the idea that some animals should be protected in some situations, but others are fair game. Also, if one can argue equivalence between a human life and that of a lab rat, shouldn't the argument extend all the way down the food chain? Should we be concerned for any insect we might squash on the sidewalk?

Any path humans follow will lead to death. Death of test animals, death of food, death of pests. If we choose squeamishness, then the deaths of other humans. Take us out of the equation, and they'll all still die. To pretend that death isn't going to be a part of any choice we make is a fantasy. The question is, what standards do we choose? Who dies, and why? Personally, I'm comfortable with the idea of sacrificing any number of lab rats if it will result in a cure for cancer. Performing skin sensitivity tests on rabbits for cosmetics companies? No.

 

actualy ppl with an illness that cant be cured should become the test subjects.. or be ask if they would become test subjects so that they may help others down the road be cured..

and is testing on animals realy all the different from breeding cows to eat..??

KaMe

 

True. My Grandpa actually did this. Still there is a need for large numbers of test subjects, and there may be an issue with whether or not its feasible. Animals are feasibility tests, hence the necessity. Plus, animal testing makes it easier to get government approval for human tests.

Not a bit.

 

- theres an over abundance of people and animals around but we have chosen to test on animals, i think in the medical range we would be completely hopless and or helpless without them.

 

What I do is what I do. Just because YOU go and get yourself unbanned doesn't mean you can mod/edit/say anything you want. What do you want me to say? Your debate is a pointless piece of trash and as no real evidence behind it aka it sucked.

"The biggest problem is loss of habitat -- that people have taken up so much of the land," Laurie Marker-Kraus, director of the Cheetah Conservation Fund. This is a quote from a CNN report. Plus also other predators that take the cheetahs kills because cheetahs are not built for fighting.

As far as the genetic pool goes as the cheetahs numbers dwell so does the gene pool. Cheetahs have lack of genetic diversity which means hardily any or none different breeds. It is not just them being fast or their "genetic pool" that is killing them off. Humans are a big factor. I also will point out to you, Neph, that we all are a part of that race.

The definition to evolution is A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. Evolution is a guarantee for survival. We (humans) survived didn't we? Evolution makes things better no matter what. It is just so slow that most people forget that evolution is a guarantee but loss of habitat and etc kill the animal off before evolution can make them survive again.

We really don't have to tag them or baby them as you put it. Humans become emotionally attached to them. Neph if you don't believe me watch a show that sets animals free. Humans cry over this and want to check on them.

How am I misjudging? Is this the ANIMAL TESTING thread? It is so it involves ALL testing done on animals not just the ones breed for testing. Humans do test endangered animals. See example with monkey. The word scientist should be as clear as day. Is it my fault your so simple minded to understand that? Oh wait that is mean to say. I am sorry that you didn't have all the information, Neph. YES I am mocking here.

Not a shortage at all but a disease could lessen their species or breed. There are less pure breeds then mutts for cats, dogs, and etc. So any psychological/sociological studies are okay? Let me stick you a cage to be poked at, prodded at, hooked up to machines, and etc and see how you like it. It is not painful at all but the shock therapy has really improved the animals’ problem. Oh in second thought nah you may like it to much. I was meant to be free so are animals.

Damn straight. At least the animal will be free and live on his/her own. Again cage reason here.

Ah NO. It would be just like saying that is there was never needed a species to take over and become the superior species (top of the food chain, god wannabes) then humans would have never been born.

And yet I wouldn’t be free to make my own choices.

Glad you agree.

I did know someone with cancer and they did die. But I bet you that they loved the life they lived and wouldn’t change a thing about the life they lived. Plus **** happens.

Consider one thing how did we know this animal caused that? Ask yourself that and then answer. Humans hardily have all their information correct. Are is killing off a litter of pets okay because ONE has rabies?

As far as killing animals for food goes. It is wrong but I like my meat. I am actually thinking of becoming a vegetarian but I have no time to do this in otherwise I would have by now.

 

This has nothing to do with my unbanning. Maybe you should re-read the debate forum rules.

Thats right, and because they've become overspecialized, they can't adapt to the new living arrangements. Just one more example of evolution screwing a race over.

Humans are not felines. I don't know how you think a cheetah and I am of the same race. Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm basically saying that they don't have enough diversity in their gene pool to allow for change, and that is whats killing them: the lack of adaptive ability.

Oh no, really?

No, it isn't. It's a process which is merciless, and if you can't keep up with it, you're in big trouble.

Yes, due to our ability to adapt and compensate for our myriad weaknesses.

For that particular environment, but if you "over-evolve" (that is, over-specialize), then you're in big trouble. Think of it this way. A screwdriver is better than a rock if you want to fix something, right? Well, most screwdrivers have only one head and are good for just one screw. But the screwdriver which can change its head to suit the screw is going to sell better.

Loss of habitat is a factor in evolution. Evolution is not a loving mother, it is not a guarantee for survival, it is simply adaptation.

Enough with the ad hominem attacks, Basher. In case you didn't bloody well notice, I also stated I'm against testing on endagered/sentient animals. I'm not the one here lacking info.

Do you have any idea what I mean by psychological/sociological studies at all?

In a recent study, scientists taught monkeys how to exchange chits for food, basically teaching the concept of currency. THEN, they found that when they paid one monkey more for the same task, the monkeys that got paid less got angry and would actually quit their jobs. No shock therapy there.

I would rather sacrifice myself for the benefit of others than die a meaningless death.

You misunderstand again. Basically, if we never needed those lab rats, we would never have gotten those animals and had them breed and such, and that offspring would never have been born. Its causality.

Just pointing out a flaw in your argument. A pet isn't free to make its own choices either.

Do you even know what sentience is?

What about people who -dont- want to die? What the families of those people? What about the whimpering children begging for mercy? What about all those taken meaninglessly before their time?

Way to dodge the question. And I find the concept of "well we don't know if that animal is the cause of the disease, so lets just let ourselves get infected" to be rather disturbing. Now answer me. Is it ok to wipe out mosquitos in city areas to prevent outbreaks of West Nile?

I see your mercy stops when it becomes less convenient or more pleasurable for you.

 

wow basher calm down
i'd hate to be your enemy

i can kinda see this thread being closed soon (hopeflly not ~crys~)
its been going good so far, lets try not to make it go down hill from here.


^-^ thanks to Ark my worries are over^_^

 

I'm not closing it, and I doubt Bloodberry will either.

That said, I'm all for animal testing in medical cases. There are studies we've done on rats in a year that would have taken 500 years or more to test on humans, just due to life span differences.

Cosmetics testing annoys me, however. It doesn't really benefit anyone, just harms some animals.

- Ark

 

There's not enough humans willing to be tested on, and animals are quite plentiful. Anyways, think how it would be if there were laws against testing on animals, and there weren't enough people to test on. There would hardly be any new products that don't read "WARNING Has not been tested" and those who buy them don't know what might to happen to them.