Animal Testing

Lou-Fische:

I just dont see why we test on animals.

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.

That's why.

Dujo:

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.

If we are so similar to chimps, then, why does that make it okay to test on them? To test on something that's so similar to us, but simply not us? You might as well test on the one that has the choice, surely.

Dujo:

Lou-Fische:

I just dont see why we test on animals.

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.

That's why.

Or simply because animals are seen of as inferior to humans, and are allowed to be used to our ways. Identical genes, or not.
Perhaps that's why, too.

pulmonary archery.:

If we are so similar to chimps, then, why does that make it okay to test on them? To test on something that's so similar to us, but simply not us?

Cause we value our lives more than we value theirs?

Don't tell me you'd have to think twice if you had to choose between killing a mice and killing a human being.

pulmonary archery.:

You might as well test on the one that has the choice, surely.

You can't kill someone even if they're OK with it. It's illegal.

pulmonary archery.:

If we are so similar to chimps, then, why does that make it okay to test on them? To test on something that's so similar to us, but simply not us? You might as well test on the one that has the choice, surely.

Because humans aren't equal to animals. We may be similar in our genes and such but that doesn't mean they're equal to us.
Even if we want to test on humans who have the choice no-one will accept to be tested on except for the money. Which won't be right since as Kurtni said before people can be manupilated into doing these tests where they won't be aware of the resulted side-effects.

So if we can't test on animals who can we test?
Don't tell me it's okay for you to crack open a human skull to examine it rather than open an animal's skull?

And we're giving ours
Do you honestly compare your mother's/brother's/father's life to your cat's?
Would you rather one of them be tested on istead of your -let's say- mouse?

(couple of posts above) Okay, I know this may seem really odd of me to say - but why not? I honestly don't understand in the slightest where it becomes okay, as you put it, to crack open an animals skull. It's still a living creature! It still has feelings! Just because we are humans, we shouldn't disregard other species below us. We take too much for granted, as a entire race. I don't agree with it.

Dujo:

pulmonary archery.:

If we are so similar to chimps, then, why does that make it okay to test on them? To test on something that's so similar to us, but simply not us?

Cause we value our lives more than we value theirs?
Don't tell me you'd have to think twice if you had to choose between killing a mice and killing a human being.

I hope I'd never have to come to that choice, because I could never live with myself if I intentionally killed any animal, human or other. So yes, I would think twice. If I was forced into killing something, I would refuse. Even If it was my life on the line.... so be it, I suppose. Seems extreme, but I'm just being honest.

Dujo:

You can't kill someone even if they're OK with it. It's illegal.

So then even if the animal was okay with it then , I believe it should be illegal. I'm sorry, but I completely see animals and humans as equals. As said above, we are just animals, but more evolved. We are so evolved we should know the difference between right and wrong. We should use the extra brains we have rather than ignoring them and being, quite often, primitive. If humans and animals are so different that one can be used and the other not, then we shouldn't we be a more civilized race and not resort to using those weaker than us, like animals do?

pulmonary archery.:

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.

But part of the reason you said you were against animal testing was because you believed there were other alternatives.... which you then said you knew nothing about. Seeing as how medical science keeps you alive, and we need animal testing for medical science, I don't see how you can be opposed to it without having double standards.

pulmonary archery.:

[size=80]
I'm making suggestions of what could be put in place of animal testing, not what happens right now.

Then why did you use what we do now as an example? That's misleading.

pulmonary archery.:

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

I think you need to study the genomes of the various animals used in testing because that statement is totally false. And once again, earlier you said you knew nothing about alternatives to animal testing, but now you're saying you know we don't need. You're only speculating, and the part of the information you're using to make these speculations isn't even true.

Lou-Fische:

My mother/brother.father would have a choice.
My mouse would not.

My question is would you equal their lives to your mouse's?
Even if they did have a choice, would they accept?
Not a single human being would.

pulmonary archery.:

(couple of posts above) Okay, I know this may seem really odd of me to say - but why not? I honestly don't understand in the slightest where it becomes okay, as you put it, to crack open an animals skull. It's still a living creature! It still has feelings! Just because we are humans, we shouldn't disregard other species below us. We take too much for granted, as a entire race. I don't agree with it.

Because humans are actually doing this to prevent the loss of human lives.
We aren't disregarding them, it's just the circle of life. Humans are naturally above animals.
And this can mean the loss of 10 animals in the favor of 100 humans living. would you rather people die just so animals can live and eventually die from possibly the same disease they could help preventing?

Honestly, no. But still, it's all in the collective benefit of humans.

And you're basically not displaying them as equal. Who says humans can take care of themselves all the time? They can't.
A pet can take good care of itself. Just see the street cats and stray dogs.They're doing well on their own

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

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.

But part of the reason you said you were against animal testing was because you believed there were other alternatives.... which you then said you knew nothing about. Seeing as how medical science keeps you alive, and we need animal testing for medical science, I don't see how you can be opposed to it without having double standards.

I can have more than one reason to base my opposition on. The main heart of it is that I oppose killing and I don't believe in human/animal inequality - just because I don't directly know alternatives doesnt mean anything. I obviously just thought too highly of the scientific world and assumed that there were some decent means of testing out there that didnt involve animals, for example again, the online dissections.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

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

Then why did you use what we do now as an example? That's misleading.

I can't remember exactly what I said, but I wasn't aware I stated experiments that we do now explicitly, saying 'this is what we do'. I don't understand why I was misleading if I was making suggestions?

And for the speculations on genes; there have now been two opposite sides of that argument in this thread with links- one that says they are very similar, and one that says theyre different. In regards to them, I don't know which to believe anymore.

pulmonary archery.:

And for the speculations on genes; there have now been two opposite sides of that argument in this thread with links- one that says they are very similar, and one that says theyre different. In regards to them, I don't know which to believe anymore.[/size]

You should probably pick the one that has "tarot" as one of the main sections of the site

pulmonary archery.:

I can have more than one reason to base my opposition on. The main heart of it is that I oppose killing and I don't believe in human/animal inequality - just because I don't directly know alternatives doesnt mean anything. I obviously just thought too highly of the scientific world and assumed that there were some decent means of testing out there that didnt involve animals, for example again, the online dissections.

So are you going to stop taking medication, and quit eating meat or foods protected with pesticides? What do you think we should do with all the people depending on the medical research made possible with animal testing?

pulmonary archery.:

I can't remember exactly what I said, but I wasn't aware I stated experiments that we do now explicitly, saying 'this is what we do'. I don't understand why I was misleading if I was making suggestions?

I'l refresh your memory (to the last page...)

pulmonary archery.:

they would volunteer. It's been done before.

First you said it was done before... then you said it was something new to replace what we do. What did you mean?

pulmonary archery.:

And for the speculations on genes; there have now been two opposite sides of that argument in this thread with links- one that says they are very similar, and one that says theyre different. In regards to them, I don't know which to believe anymore.[/size]

If you're talking about that it offers no sources for any of its statistics. And animal research already has lead to medical advancements, it's produced some of the medications you have probably taken yourself, so it obviously is useful.

Heartswell.:

Because humans are actually doing this to prevent the loss of human lives.
We aren't disregarding them, it's just the circle of life. Humans are naturally above animals.
And this can mean the loss of 10 animals in the favor of 100 humans living. would you rather people die just so animals can live and eventually die from possibly the same disease they could help preventing?

But the 'circle of life' isn't science based - it's nature.

And you cant say its just the loss 10 animals in favor of 100 humans so easily. The figures of animals being killed is astounding.
Preventing the loss of humans via killing millions of animals doesnt go down well with me. Sorry.

Kurtni Von Teese:

pulmonary archery.:

they would volunteer. It's been done before.

First you said it was done before... then you said it was something new to replace what we do. What did you mean?

Oh I see. Well, it has been done before. Humans have volunteered to be tested on before. That was the point I was making.
As to something new, someone (might have been you, if youve noticed im forgetful) mentioned that animals are tested on first - and then humans. Thats what I proposed could be replaced.


Edit to your first quote: And I don't eat meat, and only have medication when I'm really ill and my mum forces me to. When I'm older and have more freedom of lifestyle, I plan to cut out anything that harms animals. Right now, I'm not in a position to do that.