Experimentation on Animals

[Demonhero]

Then it raises the argument of why human rights should apply for somebody who, metaphorically, spat on human rights by committing their crimes. I do sometimes wonder why murderers are given the right to life when they violated someone else's right to be honest; not to say I advocate the death penalty, just we shouldn't accept such ridiculous arguments.

Human rights, if considered conditional, cease to be rights. They are privileges at that point. Not that most of our rights can't be taken away by the government if its considered "justified" by the man up top, despite the main purpose of a democratic government being to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens. But I digress: I agree with using certain criminals in the stead of animal testing, such as consenting convicts who have life without parole sentences, or death row convicts whether they consent or not. But if you were to just select criminals for such testing based on the severity of their crimes, then you are negating the purpose of a "correctional facility."

Example of when I think animal testing is appropriate and necessary:

Suppose you come up with a new drug to cure leukemia. Lab tests and computer simulations all show it has great promise, but there is some indication that it might horribly damage the liver. You have a few choices here.

You can give it to a deathly ill person anyways, and hope that it doesn't mess up their liver to the point that they die of that instead.

You can give it to healthy person and hope you didn't just sign a death warrant for a perfectly healthy human being.

You can give it to a rabbit, who metabolizes and has liver function incredibly similar to human beings, and see what happens. If the damage shows up, you have the option to euthanize the animal to prevent unnecessary suffering, and now you know. If it doesn't cause liver damage, you can begin human trials.

I see this as a very reasonable approach. I do not believe that animals, as a rule, have less right to life than humans (which does not apply to my children, because as any parent knows, our children have more right to life than the whole human race put together lol). I do however note that an animal which is full-grown in 4-6 weeks and which can be gently put down if things go badly is a much better choice for first-run trials than an adult. Heck for no other reason than that it takes longer than 4-6 weeks to get a full-grown death-row prisoner replaced, if we want to be cold-blooded about it.

Human life has no higher value than any other creature. We may consider ourselves to be better, to be smarter, but all we've done is subjugate an entire planet and twist it with our whims.

Should we also expect the rest of the beings who inhabit this planet to jump in line, put themselves on the line, simply to benefit our lives? If it benefits humanity, then, as self-centered as the entire human race is, we should think to test it on humans first. I've read some of the summaries of a few scientific studies. And among a few of them, I found that they tested on animals, then proceeded to human testing after some work, and some adjustments. The human testing then did not proceed well, causing side effects not seen in any stage of the animal testing, so they had to go clear back to step one, and the human test subjects had to suffer the side effects.

Sure, such occurences would be rare, but you would think it logical to completely avoid the entire problem, wouldn't you? Even just the potential for such a problem would make me rethink testing it on something not human, were I a different person.

What it comes down to, is the human ego. We see ourselves as not being expendable in the name of science, but every other living thing is. At least in modern society. So long as such a belief holds, there will always be justification to test on so called lesser beings. The ones who were here before us, and will live long after.

[SunTzu123]

Animals are not equal to humans even if PETA tries to tell you they are. It is better to test on Animals then humans. We have made great advances because of testing on animals

[FoxyBunny]

I'm not saying animals are lesser beings. I am quite certain they are sure they are the superior ones, as my cat is quite good at reminding me. What I am saying is that humans value human life above all else, as it natural. I'm certain other animals feel the same about their own kind.

[Demonhero]

Animals are not equal to humans even if PETA tries to tell you they are. It is better to test on Animals then humans. We have made great advances because of testing on animals

Actually, yes, animals are equal to humans. A human is just an animal. The fact that we create things, have vocal cords and opposable thumbs, and have a staggering superiority complex will not change that.

I'm not saying animals are lesser beings. I am quite certain they are sure they are the superior ones, as my cat is quite good at reminding me. What I am saying is that humans value human life above all else, as it natural. I'm certain other animals feel the same about their own kind.

Certainly they do, but does that make it right to use animals in scientific experiments for the betterment of our kind? Its one thing to eat an animal. That is survival. Its another to make it substitute our kind when its what we're trying to improve/profit from/insert reason here.

[abracax]

I like animals more than I like humans most days. But I do believe that breeding mice, rabbits, pigs and other animals specifically for testing is perfectly fine. And if the day comes when they can clone humans and clones then get used for scientific testing of drugs and chemicals, so be it, I would be fine with that too.

Simply put, the animals in question are specifically bred with a defect or superior function within their DNA for specific testing. They are not taking animals out of the wild and endangering any species. If as I said, they were to clone humans and do the same thing I would be fine with that too.

Testing has saved far more lives, both animal and human in the long run than it has cost in the short term. Be a big picture person and view it by world wide outcome, and outcome over time. Don't view it as in "oh no those poor bunnies just got injected with a new vaccine that sends them into seizures". Because now they know that Vaccine is not safe for anyone or anything and need to adjust the levels of chemicals or possibly even remove a chemical until it works safely. During this testing phase maybe 100 rabbits are tested on, compared to saving how many lives, human and animal.

A new antibody was discovered by scientists in the U.S. recently. The antibody kills 90% of all strains of HIV. You can bet that animal testing will be used to further test this in forms of medication, vaccinations, and booster shots. HIV comes in many forms that effect different types of animals and there are many strains in humans too. So now using the "Big Picture" we can see how many house cats can possibly be vaccinated against feline HIV, farm animals, animals of the simian variety and yes humans too.

[Amandajg]

The real problem with animal testing is that many of the results do not apply to humans. One of the most famous examples when it comes to the dangers of animal experimentation would have to be the Thalidomide Tragedy of the 60s and 70s.

Thalidomide was a drug that came out of Germany and was previously considered to be safely tested on thousands and thousands of animals.

It was then marketed as a wonder drug; an amazing sedative for breastfeeding or pregnant mothers and it supposedly could cause no harm to either the mother or the child. Despite this apparent safety testing, tens of thousands of children whos mothers had used this drug were born with severe deformities.

This is but one small example of how animal testing has failed in the past. Many scientist believe today that animal testing is not necessary for the development of new drugs and cures and that the testing of drugs on animals is diverting funds from more worthwhile causes such as prevention.

[Holeypaladin]

I honestly don't understand why everyone is so adamantly opposed to testing on animals...

I'd kill a thousand animals testing products before I'd let a single human come to harm because hippies disapprove of animal testing.

That's... sort of a no brainer, far as I figure.

[Arathorn136]

It all depends the effects... and what can be achieved from it.

i love animals as well and always have. although if it came down to a case where a drug that was potentially life saving (cancer, AIDS, etc..) and could benefit millions of people, only then would i say yes. and if the effects were bad i really would hope that the people experimenting could somehow right it, and if not, then put the animal out of it's misery quickly and humanely.
although, to agree again, to do it for cosmetics or shampoo or soemthing, that is just stupid and cruel.

[imnothere]

We could just experiment on people in for life imprisonment, like paedophiles or rapists who are shunned from society.

interestingly this was the practice before animal testing. prisoners and orphans were the first line testers for new drugs. the polio vaccine was tested on orphans to see if it worked and was safe.
lucky for them it was.

[chaoticjoy1]

Morality fits with religion and what is good or bad. Whether this is good or bad is ones opinion. My opinion is probably, bad.