Animal Testing

Postby **Marina** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:22 pm

Everyone always talks about animal cruelty being bad, yet over 100 million animals are harmed or killed in the US alone every year for the sake of animal testing. Although scientists have discovered methods of breeding cell cultures that could potentially replace animal testing in the future, they're still not authentic enough to simulate the effects of a substance coming in contact with a real animal.

What is your opinion on animal testing? Is it necessary for science to advance or is it just cruel torturing and killing of animals? Discuss.

Streetzero · Postby **Streetzero** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:32 pm

It's not fun, but it's a necessary evil for our own advancement. I'd rather not potentially kill our own kind for testing purposes.

Postby **Marina** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:36 pm

Also an interesting thought:

If in a country there still is death penalty, wouldn't it make more sense to use the criminals who are sentenced to die anyways for testing instead of innocent animals?

aero · Postby **aero** » Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:49 pm

It's necessary but not really necessarily a necessary evil. The animals, in general, are never actually harmed but that depends on what's being tested. If it's people getting upset over testing hair products, just get over it. At the end of the day it's a monkey with a perm. If your gripe is with medical testing, then that's more of a reasonable concern to an extent. Due to animal testing we have a better understand of the anatomy and physiology of the animals we test, so they aren't subjected to any unintentionally harmful stuff.

Marina wrote:If in a country there still is death penalty, wouldn't it make more sense to use the criminals who are sentenced to die anyways for testing instead of innocent animals?

It would have to be voluntary, and whatever is being tested should be humane. Like we shouldn't test stuff that causes a slow and agonizing death. Perhaps instead this could be used to test better ways of lethal injection than we have now to solve the problem of their current negative externalities.

lighthouse64 · Postby **lighthouse64** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 1:38 pm

Animal testing seems kinda mean, but I guess we test on them because we're basically paranoid of what could happen to human subjects.

Postby **Marina** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 4:48 pm

lighthouse64 wrote:Animal testing seems kinda mean, but I guess we test on them because we're basically paranoid of what could happen to human subjects.

Yeah, but if you think about it, isn't it a bit cowardly for humans to test things out on other species because they don't want to hurt their own kind?

FallingSnow · Postby **FallingSnow** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 6:58 pm

Marina wrote:
lighthouse64 wrote:Animal testing seems kinda mean, but I guess we test on them because we're basically paranoid of what could happen to human subjects.
Yeah, but if you think about it, isn't it a bit cowardly for humans to test things out on other species because they don't want to hurt their own kind?

Species used in labs are often simpler biologically with fewer variables that could be present in humans and affect results. Using a simpler form of life to test on can produce more reliable and clear theories, reasoning, and resulting conclusions.

Postby **Shadow Yoshi** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:07 pm

I believe that we were given dominance over animals for any purpose that does not unnecessarily harm them. Any cause that unnecessarily harms animals is unjust, and any cause dedicated to eliminating our dominance over them is unreasonable.

MistakesWereMade · Postby **MistakesWereMade** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:13 pm

I'm going to put it this way, there's 3 options:

a) We do scientific test on inferior specimen, such as lab rats and such, which reproduce almost 10x more children per pregnancy (and quicker) and also have 10x less the lifespan/memory span of a human.
b) We directly do the tests on human subjects, which could end up to ruining the rest of the subject's (relatively long)'s lifespan.
c) We do nothing and science gets slowed the fuck down

I don't really find animal testing cruel, since it's done with the purpose of helping people. In my eyes, cruelty means doing something hurtful on purpose without any possitive things coming out of them.

YouTube · Postby **bossedit8** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:23 pm

It might be cruel for abusing animals like that but if the whole testing values are there for good results in general especially at the end then it should be a way to go but if it's actually ended off terribly then that's for sure horrible. Those peoples these days...

CopyLeft · Postby **CopyLeft** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 7:40 pm

True that it is cruel, but we do not have much else to experiment on. "Marina" said that it should be done on criminals who are about to receive the death penalty. That should be done for human experiments. Obvious Science 101: Animals are structured differently than humans. So I say that we still do experiments on animals still. Although, if an animal is endangered or is dangerously close to extinct, I say that they shall roam free, or raised in captivity. Just my thoughts.

PersonNamedUser · Postby **PersonNamedUser** » Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:05 pm

I think that people shouldn't need to test make-up and stuff to see if its safe.

And testing products on animals is cruel.

Radishl · Postby **Radishl** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:27 pm

Marina wrote:
lighthouse64 wrote:Animal testing seems kinda mean, but I guess we test on them because we're basically paranoid of what could happen to human subjects.
Yeah, but if you think about it, isn't it a bit cowardly for humans to test things out on other species because they don't want to hurt their own kind?

That's an utterly idiotic statement.

Yea, wanting to sustain the human populace is cowardice.

Mable · Postby **Mable** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 4:36 pm

Humans totally should test on other humans.. but no thats not allowed but testing on animals is, bc nobody gives a shit about them anyway. No wonder so many dogs and etc get killed, abused and etc.

Oh yeah let's test on animals for science shit. Let's not test on humans for science shit.

Radishl · Postby **Radishl** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:15 pm

Sinem wrote:Humans totally should test on other humans.. but no thats not allowed but testing on animals is, bc nobody gives a shit about them anyway. No wonder so many dogs and etc get killed, abused and etc.

Oh yeah let's test on animals for science shit. Let's not test on humans for science shit.

What's better, testing on a tiny tiny lab rat or testing on your brother.

You decide.

Or not test on anything = no tech to save your dying father.

Infact if you're to use that logic why not eat Humans instead, so many cows and chickens get killed ect ..

P.S killing a human is still killing a living being.

MistakesWereMade · Postby **MistakesWereMade** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:47 pm

Sinem wrote:Humans totally should test on other humans.. but no thats not allowed but testing on animals is, bc nobody gives a shit about them anyway. No wonder so many dogs and etc get killed, abused and etc.

Oh yeah let's test on animals for science shit. Let's not test on humans for science shit.

ya i'm sure a fucking rat's life is as important as a human's life

Mable · Postby **Mable** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 5:49 pm

Wow you guys totally don't get it.

Radishl · Postby **Radishl** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:02 pm

Sinem wrote:Wow you guys totally don't get it.

I don't think you get what you're saying.

Postby **Shadow Yoshi** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 7:18 pm

Radishl, please quit it with your tone. You're being really mean and it needs to stop.

aero · Postby **aero** » Sun Jun 28, 2015 11:02 pm

Idk Sinem isn't really helping out here. "You just don't get it" isn't an argument anyhow.

Sinem, you act like nobody gives a shit about animals but in actuality people take every precaution to do so. The reason why human testing comes last is because, humans are the top priority in being kept alive and well. Humans have thoughts, feelings, etc. while animals don't have the same niche as us on earth. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be dignified and respected, it just means they have a different role.