Animal Testing

[CrimsonsDecayingRose]

Wow. i have so much to reply to.
First off, i don't believe in ANY kind of animal testing. Which is why i watch what i use, and refuse to take ANY medications.
I understand where you are coming from the medical standpoint; however, animals are completly different from humans. Chocolate will kill a dog or cat. If we tested it out on them, we would never have had it.
Animals and humans are two completly different species. We are almost nothing alike. We share more genes with a banana than a rodent. Do you see scientists testing on bananas?
Second, there are several 'accidents' where a product was deemed safe through animal testing. When humans used it, it turned on disastorous.

Quote:

TGN1412 was created to treat leukemia, and was tested on animals. Results from monkeys led to the belief that it was safe for humans. When humans used it though, they had serious organ failure.

Quote:

Thalidomide was deemed “totally safe” when it was tested on 8 different animal species (including dogs & cats) when released in the late 19950’s. It was a drug for pregnant woman with morning sickness. By the mid 60’s, an estimated 10,000 children were born with defects.

Quote:

The painkiller Vioxx was tested on animals and presumed safe. When released in 1999, the risk of heart attack and stroke increased with those who took it. The FDA estimates 88,000-139,000 people had heart attacks linked to it. The drug was deemed unsafe and was pulled from stores in 2004.

One animal can breathe arsenic and survive without major damage; does that mean it's safe for us?

Animal testing is nore more predictable than flipping a coin. There are over hundreds of substitute products to use: donations, synthetic skins, computer analysis, et cetera.


Okay, personally i am for prisoners being tested on. In the US, we give our prisoners the best care. They have dental care, health care, and several privelages. When they commited their crime, they should have given up all their rights. Not obtained more.

I believe if people want all the major diseases and such (AIDS, HIV, cancer) they should test it on theirselves. Stop being scared of a needle; the animal was forced to do it.
Animals have no voice. They *need* a voice.
And it doesn't matte whether the animal was plucked out of the wild, or was breed. If i was either or, i wouldn't want chemicals forced into my body. I wouldn't want to be crammed into a cage. I would want to live a normal, happy life. And die of NATURAL causes.  

[Azusanga]

u nd i

The thing I don't understand is why they don't use humans. Plenty of people would volunteer to get tested, I know it would cost to pay them, but our biologies are different to animals, how can we ever be certain that products are safe on humans when they have been tested on ferrets?

They do use humans- just not first. Humans have similar organs to different species and they test them for failures. Then people can sign up to test the products themselves. It's a voluntary process (key word), and the people are thuroughly tested for things such as diabetes, aids, organ failures, whatever so we don't mingle pre-existing with developed after use of product.  

[Short Melancholic]

I'm against it.
Do you know what they do in animal testing? One of the tests is sticking a needle in the animals eye, injecting the product, and seeing what happens. Another is shaving them and putting a cream or other product. It's not good for them. They don't walk away just fine. They don't have nice lives.
What drives me crazy is how there are practically NO products that weren't tested on animals (that aren't insanely expensive) around.The only thing I have found is Tom of Maines deodarant. Other wise, I just look for stuff that says it wasn't tested and hope they're telling the truth.  

[Official Gothic Chick]

Angel Nicholson

Sugared Rainbow

Its crual,they can easily use humans but noo we "need" them,we have "too many" animals or summin so they decide to do tests on them.They have feelings to!

It's not that we have too many animals. They breed rats and mice for these tests. The animals are being bred specifically for the tests. They're not just plucked out of the wild as some sort of population control.

Theoretically speaking, what if a group of prostitutes and bums were mated by a company and their children bred only for testing, like the rats and mice, would you say the same thing? It's not like they'd be plucking healthy children from their homes, they'd be breeding them specifially for testing, which you said is fine with mice and rats.  

[Official Gothic Chick]

Using animals for testing is like using infants. They can't speak up and they don't know what's going on and how it will effect them. If these scientists were to use babies not animals, what would the people who agree with animal testing say?  

[yukisuzu9]

Official Gothic Chick

Angel Nicholson

Sugared Rainbow

Its crual,they can easily use humans but noo we "need" them,we have "too many" animals or summin so they decide to do tests on them.They have feelings to!

It's not that we have too many animals. They breed rats and mice for these tests. The animals are being bred specifically for the tests. They're not just plucked out of the wild as some sort of population control.

Theoretically speaking, what if a group of prostitutes and bums were mated by a company and their children bred only for testing, like the rats and mice, would you say the same thing? It's not like they'd be plucking healthy children from their homes, they'd be breeding them specifially for testing, which you said is fine with mice and rats.

I agree, I don't see any difference in breeding the animals for that purpose, or why that would make any difference. It's still an animal, and still deserves rights.

 

[Femme Autobot Crescendo]

Ladies, it appears you aren't aware of what you're saying.

-There are regulations to keep people from abusing the animals.
-Governments control the animals used, the pain that's inflicted on them(they anesthize them) and what they're used for.
-Test animals are euthanized. HUMANELY. Therefore they're in no pain upon death.

@CrimsonDecayingRose

You probably didn't intend for this, but your post(near the end) sounds like

'Well, who cares about the person who gets cancer or Aids, they're just going to have to deal with it themselves.'  

[Femme Autobot Crescendo]

Also, it's not everywhere. In fact, based on my small research, it seems the only one having trouble with animal testing regulations is the US.

Also, consider the animals normally used for testing.

-Fruit Flies
-Mice
-Frogs
-Rabbits
-Nematodes
-Dogs/Cats(Dogs used to be used for space travel.)[Cats usually get the worst, for some reason]
-Primates[Rarely.]

I'm not completely for it, actually. What I'm saying is that it's not as evil as it sounds, and it's actually carefully regulated and it does save human lives.

As a veterinarian wannabe, I have to say that abuse of animal testing makes me incredibly mad.  

[Official Gothic Chick]

Femme Autobot Crescendo

Ladies, it appears you aren't aware of what you're saying.

-There are regulations to keep people from abusing the animals.
-Governments control the animals used, the pain that's inflicted on them(they anesthize them) and what they're used for.
-Test animals are euthanized. HUMANELY. Therefore they're in no pain upon death.

@CrimsonDecayingRose

You probably didn't intend for this, but your post(near the end) sounds like

'Well, who cares about the person who gets cancer or Aids, they're just going to have to deal with it themselves.'

Are you able to prove to me that they feel no pain? Could they possibly not be able to express oain because of the drugs that could make it hard for them to use their limbs? Also, if it were HUMANE why would it be happening anyway? It could be humane the same way with people.
AND if you're wondering why I keep comparing people to animals, I do it because, no offense, I was raised a Mormon and I learned that you don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you and that includes animals in my thinking.

Also, my own little touch that has little to do with the topic but with waht you said, the government also allowed off shore drilling in a HIGH RISK area which led to the major oil spill.  

[Official Gothic Chick]

Femme Autobot Crescendo

Also, it's not everywhere. In fact, based on my small research, it seems the only one having trouble with animal testing regulations is the US.

Also, consider the animals normally used for testing.

-Fruit Flies
-Mice
-Frogs
-Rabbits
-Nematodes
-Dogs/Cats(Dogs used to be used for space travel.)[Cats usually get the worst, for some reason]
-Primates[Rarely.]

I'm not completely for it, actually. What I'm saying is that it's not as evil as it sounds, and it's actually carefully regulated and it does save human lives.

As a veterinarian wannabe, I have to say that abuse of animal testing makes me incredibly mad.

( I have nothing to say about fruit flies )
1. Rabbits, Cats, and Dogs are the animals mostly protected by the animal neglect and abuse laws and I don't see why the government is an exeption to this law - even if they're using it for science.
2. I have to ask, because you're a veterinarian wannabe, would you be fine if a pet owner, who didn't work for a company but was able to create an experimental human vaccine, tested it on his animal while using anesthetics, and it died? Would you still believe that it was done humanely so it was ok? Or do your sympathies only lie with the major companies who do it daily?
3. Even if it's rare, how is it humane to take the life a=of a primates, whose self is similar to that of a human?  

[Femme Autobot Crescendo]

It seems that the point of my rebuttal was largely unseen. I will restate it.
We are not here to converse about the government, human error, or biological disasters. Off-topic.

What I am trying to say is that you're not giving humanity a chance. Humans have come a long way from the days where we chased Woolly Mammoths. Therefore, unless you have irrefutable proof of these alleged misuses of the animal testing, then I am inclined to stick with my own opinion.

While animals do die, their sacrifices aren't in vain. Knowledge from such experiments comes to benefit mankind.

Emotionally, I am opposed to all forms of it. In an attempt to use the left side of my brain, however, I must admit that the medical applications can very well benefit all forms of life.

I do not affiliate my sympathies with anonymous companies. I merely want to clarify that it has evolved to become more humane.  

[AstridMiriam]

It's awful what they are doing to the animals these days.
My little sister is a vegetarian and she likes to save animals and supports Peta2.
It's just so awful to see animals get neglected by people even the ducks, chickens, and many more.

 

[Latrans]

I'm very much in favor of animal testing.

That doesn't mean I'm in favor of all animal testing, but we have learned so much of value with it, and there is a lot left to learn.

I'd be out of a job without it, too. surprised