Animal Testing

Kurtni Von Teese:

CaliginousXReality:

Something as simple as washing our hands can prevent us from getting sick.

Sorry to say, but washing your hands does not prevent you from getting cancer. Washing your hands won't prevent a heart attack. Washing your hands doesn't stop high blood pressure. Washing your hands keeps germs off, but germs are not the only thing that makes you sick and regardless of how excellent your hygeine is, you're still going to get sick. Especially when it comes to little kids, they're gross and they share germs and they get sick, it happens, it's part of life. Are you saying we should deny kids medical care because they forgot to wash their hands?

CaliginousXReality:

And the whole cancer/other severe disease issue, there's a such thing as survival of the fittest

Thats a fairly hypocritical thing to say, don't you think? Seeing as how you have benefited from medication in your life.

That's why we have immune systems, to fight things on our own. Especially kids. Their immune system is so strong, that I highly doubt they even need medication. And I never said washing our hands would prevent heart issues. But, there are other ways we can take care of ourselves, like eating healthier, that would cut back on that problem. The world thinks we need to rely on medication, when our bodies already have what we need. And, I wasn't saying washing our hands would prevent cancer. But, seeing as how the number of people with cancer is increasing over time, we're doing SOMETHING to cause it on our own.

And, I never said I wasn't being hypocritical. I know I am. But, in my past I was forced to take medication. I gladly would've fought through it on my own, but society feels the need to shove things down your throat to get money.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

now when science is so advanced, you would think there would be other ways to work out what chemicals are going harm someone.

Examples.....

pulmonary archery.:

And if youre that deperate, find humans who are willing to be tested on. I'm sure there are some out there. If they die, its their own fault for consenting to it. Animals can't give consent for us to destroy their bodies.

You can't honestly think that would work. People with lower incomes would be manipulated into taking part in studies without knowing the full effect that it could have on them; they more than likely wouldn't even know what they're consenting to. Human lives are not disposeable.

Animals aren't even GIVEN that chance to concent, knowledge of what they're getting into or not. And, since when are human lives more valuable than animals? Since you support animal testing, one would think you'd show a little respect for the things that are getting harmed for your well being. You think that testing on humans wouldn't work...(although, I agree with you there. Testing on anything just kinda bothers me, no matter what's being tested on.) Are you ignoring the fact that humans are animals too?

CaliginousXReality:

And, since when are human lives more valuable than animals?

Are you serious?

CaliginousXReality:

And, since when are human lives more valuable than animals?

Your a human and your questioning whether your life is more valuable than an animals? Would you want to have things drilled into your heads, chemicals forced down your throat, and other things done to you for the well being of animals? I highly doubt you'd say yes. Plus the endangered species out there that the human race is protecting from extinction, they wouldn't be here if it weren't for humans.

I'm not completely for or against animal testing. I don't like cosmetic testing but if it's for medicines, I'm not going to protest it. Certain things we need tested on animals instead of humans. As for animals being here before we were, technically we are mammals, which does mean we are animals.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

now when science is so advanced, you would think there would be other ways to work out what chemicals are going harm someone.

Examples.....

I don't know, it was a suggestion. I'm no scientist. But you can even dissect animals on the computer now, right? Surely in this day and age we know enough about the constructions of chemicals that we would be able to work out what its effects on something would be.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

And if youre that desperate, find humans who are willing to be tested on. I'm sure there are some out there. If they die, its their own fault for consenting to it. Animals can't give consent for us to destroy their bodies.

You can't honestly think that would work. People with lower incomes would be manipulated into taking part in studies without knowing the full effect that it could have on them; they more than likely wouldn't even know what they're consenting to. Human lives are not disposeable.

Human lives are not disposable? But it's their choice we're talking about. If they want to make their life disposable, it should be free will of them to do so. If they want to risk their life in the name of science, let them.
I find it wrong that someone should think animals lives are disposable. They're not just on this planet to be used by us, you know.

And I never said people would be manipulated, because that obviously wouldn't be how it would work. They wouldn't be forced into risking their life, they would volunteer. It's been done before. The trouble is that you only hear about it in the media when something goes wrong, which leaves people not wanting to participate.

Bleed The Dream:

Plus the endangered species out there that the human race is protecting from extinction, they wouldn't be here if it weren't for humans.

A lot of them wouldnt be endangered if it wasn't for humans hunting in the first place them, either.

I'm against animal testing if it's done for cosmetics and the like, but other than that I don't mind. But I do think that they could treat the animals that are taken in for testing better than they are now.

Dujo:

CaliginousXReality:

And, since when are human lives more valuable than animals?

Are you serious?

Didn't you once say humans are really no different than animals?
So if you said that, which I'm pretty sure you did...how can two things which are the same have different value?
Like...how can you say that humans animals are the same, but then think that human life is more valuable than animal life?
I don't get the reasoning.

mali:

how can two things which are the same have different value?

Aluminium and gold are both metals, aren't they...?

CaliginousXReality:

That's why we have immune systems, to fight things on our own. Especially kids. Their immune system is so strong, that I highly doubt they even need medication. And I never said washing our hands would prevent heart issues. But, there are other ways we can take care of ourselves, like eating healthier, that would cut back on that problem. The world thinks we need to rely on medication, when our bodies already have what we need. And, I wasn't saying washing our hands would prevent cancer. But, seeing as how the number of people with cancer is increasing over time, we're doing SOMETHING to cause it on our own.

And, I never said I wasn't being hypocritical. I know I am. But, in my past I was forced to take medication. I gladly would've fought through it on my own, but society feels the need to shove things down your throat to get money.

Do you understand how your immune system develops? You are not born with antibodies for every illness out there. When you get sick, your body identifies pathogens and then your immune system can help you. It would be highly inaccurate for you to act like kids have a highly developed immune system when they don't. Not to mention that some disorders are genetic and there is nothing you can do to prevent them.

CaliginousXReality:

I gladly would've fought through it on my own.

I have trouble taking you seriously. If you had cancer, you would get chemotherapy. If you needed surgery, you'd get it. Until you're in a situation like that it's easy for you to say you'd "fight through it on your own." Problem with that is, you can't "fight" through everything. There are certain illnesses and disorders you would not survive without medical help. Perhaps we just have a very different value for the human life, but I think people deserve medical attention and humane treatment.

CaliginousXReality:

And, I never said I wasn't being hypocritical. I know I am.

Well, at least you're honest.

pulmonary archery.:

I don't know, it was a suggestion. I'm no scientist.

If you don't know and you're uninformed, then how could you have formed an opinion on animal testing?

pulmonary archery.:

And I never said people would be manipulated, because that obviously wouldn't be how it would work.

Except for the fact that it already is working like that.

pulmonary archery.:

It's been done before. [/size]

The medications tested on humans now in the ideal conditions you're referring to have been tested on animals previously, so we know they're safe for human trial. Thats totally different than making humans the first test subject.

I really don't think that people would be speaking up against this if they were in a situation where they actually need medicine that was previously tested on animals or one of their close beloved ones was in a situation like that.
I think testing for medical research is okay but for things such as make-up is utterly unneeded.

Also, I really can't grasp how you say animals aren't given the choice to be tested on. What do you want them to do? Say yes or no? They're animals

Even though testing may harm animals there is the collective benefit inflicted on us as a result. Testing on humans won't solve it since humans are animals as it's previously said so testing them evidently isn't the answer

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

I don't know, it was a suggestion. I'm no scientist.

If you don't know and you're uninformed, then how could you have formed an opinion on animal testing?

I've formed an opinion because I'm against anything that involves killing animals, under the concept that their lives are 'disposable' as you said before. The morals and values that I personally have tell me that it is wrong.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

And I never said people would be manipulated, because that obviously wouldn't be how it would work.

Except for the fact that it already is working like that.

I'm making suggestions of what could be put in place of animal testing, not what happens right now.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

It's been done before.

The medications tested on humans now in the ideal conditions you're referring to have been tested on animals previously, so we know they're safe for human trial. Thats totally different than making humans the first test subject.

That doesn't change the fact that it could still be done. Animals and humans have, for the most part, different genetic make ups. It just seems so pointless to me to test on an animal first, when it could have a different effect on a human. Its an unnecessary step that could be cut out, leaving scientists to see the direct effect it has upon humans.

heartswell:

Also, I really can't grasp how you say animals aren't given the choice to be tested on. What do you want them to do? Say yes or no? They're animals

I think people aren't suggesting you ask an animal. They're implying that you shouldn't test on something that doesn't have the ability to give an opinion. It would be like grave digging for body parts, or whatever they do, being fine because the dead body can't argue back. "What do you want them to do? Say yes or no? They're dead"

pulmonary archery.:

Animals and humans have, for the most part, different genetic make ups.

Where did you get that from?

Dujo:

pulmonary archery.:

Animals and humans have, for the most part, different genetic make ups.

Where did you get that from?

Haha. Not sure. But I mean if you give a cat an asprin or something, its probably more likely to kill it than anything else. And aren't you not supposed to give dogs chocolate (might be another animal) because it's not good for them? Just little things like that. It makes the difference between humans and animals, which must be somewhere in the genes and what theyre made of.

Man, I'm getting grilled on this XD

^ Chocolate is considered a toxin for dogs which is different than testing an asprin on a cat.
Besides scientists test on animals that have a similar immune system to humans; they don't pick any random animal.

pulmonary archery.:

heartswell:

Also, I really can't grasp how you say animals aren't given the choice to be tested on. What do you want them to do? Say yes or no? They're animals

I think people aren't suggesting you ask an animal. They're implying that you shouldn't test on something that doesn't have the ability to give an opinion. It would be like grave digging for body parts, or whatever they do, being fine because the dead body can't argue back. "What do you want them to do? Say yes or no? They're dead"

So what do you expect scientest to do? Test on human beings firstly just 'cause they have the option of accepting?
And dead bodies differ from animals to be honest.

pulmonary archery.:

It makes the difference between humans and animals, which must be somewhere in the genes and what theyre made of.

Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

We're very similar. That's why we can use animals to test products made for humans.

Lou-Fische:

The same between us and rats is 1%.

http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2002/12/56723

Quote

Researchers said more than 90 percent of genes associated with disease are identical in humans and mice, underscoring the tremendous value of the mouse in laboratory experiments.