Forums > Social Discussion > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible?
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
chemical attraction
1,097 posts
Location: Ilkeston, Derbyshire, England
Posted:
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
I am interested in everyones opinion as to whether they agree or
disagree with testing new drugs or products on animals before
they are released on to the market.If you do not agree how else
would you make sure they were safe and if you do agree please
tell me why...thanks
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Taking away the young is not playing god, many predators take the young... and as for breeding... well, are you saying that you dont support Zoo's breeding programs to help species out?
Taking away the young is not playing god, many predators take the young... and as for breeding... well, are you saying that you dont support Zoo's breeding programs to help species out?
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
zoo programmes are OK depending on how it is done i dont know a lot about it, so i dont knoew wiehter the kid stays with the mum or so on.
predators taking the young is different to humans bredding animals purely for experimentation, at least nature is random and is a well developed cycle whereas human breeding is just pure evil cos those babies and mums have no autonomy over their own lives, at least in the natural habitat there is chance.
zoo programmes are OK depending on how it is done i dont know a lot about it, so i dont knoew wiehter the kid stays with the mum or so on.
predators taking the young is different to humans bredding animals purely for experimentation, at least nature is random and is a well developed cycle whereas human breeding is just pure evil cos those babies and mums have no autonomy over their own lives, at least in the natural habitat there is chance.
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
GOLD Member
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
What a Bummer
3,224 posts
Location: Shatfield, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
Would you rather an animal was taken out of the wild and tested on? Or that animals were bred in captivity and tested? Surely those in captivity would not know life outside the cage... where as taking an animal from the wild would have its world taken away from it AND then tested on. I can see which is the greater kind of cruelty.
And as for "pure evil", surely testing on these animals with the intention to help the humans isn't 'pure' evil...
Would you rather an animal was taken out of the wild and tested on? Or that animals were bred in captivity and tested? Surely those in captivity would not know life outside the cage... where as taking an animal from the wild would have its world taken away from it AND then tested on. I can see which is the greater kind of cruelty.
And as for "pure evil", surely testing on these animals with the intention to help the humans isn't 'pure' evil...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
Apart from that, if you take an animal out of captivity, they have all kinds of illnesses that can spread in an animal house and affect other animals...
And knock-out animals (animals that don't produce certain proteins, and are used for example to see which proteins are involved in cancer) can't be bred in the wild.
From the point of view of a rat, I'm not sure how unhappy they are with being fed and being able to breed without the usual cost. Most humans seem to consciously choose that kind of life over hunting and gathering and living in tribes roaming the forests and plains...
Apart from that, if you take an animal out of captivity, they have all kinds of illnesses that can spread in an animal house and affect other animals...
And knock-out animals (animals that don't produce certain proteins, and are used for example to see which proteins are involved in cancer) can't be bred in the wild.
From the point of view of a rat, I'm not sure how unhappy they are with being fed and being able to breed without the usual cost. Most humans seem to consciously choose that kind of life over hunting and gathering and living in tribes roaming the forests and plains...
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
GOLD Member
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
addict
434 posts
Location: UK
Posted:
There are actually complex computer models called Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships - they basically look at the structure of a molecule, apply a set of rules and come up with alerts for possible toxicological endpoints. They are very much in their infancy and are very much used as a screening tool rather than a solid predictor of toxicity. That said they are constantly being developed, so who knows where they may lead
Motley
There are actually complex computer models called Quantitative Structure Activity Relationships - they basically look at the structure of a molecule, apply a set of rules and come up with alerts for possible toxicological endpoints. They are very much in their infancy and are very much used as a screening tool rather than a solid predictor of toxicity. That said they are constantly being developed, so who knows where they may lead
Motley
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
hmm i just mean that its a really sad life to just breed and breed, and be tested on, rather than run free and have a 'normal' life. i understand that it is a necissary evil, and i wouldnt ever think of taking animals out of the wild and testing, like you said what you dont know dont hurt you, but humans know this. its a dilemma inside me but i know grudgingly what the right one is if that makes sense.
hmm i just mean that its a really sad life to just breed and breed, and be tested on, rather than run free and have a 'normal' life. i understand that it is a necissary evil, and i wouldnt ever think of taking animals out of the wild and testing, like you said what you dont know dont hurt you, but humans know this. its a dilemma inside me but i know grudgingly what the right one is if that makes sense.
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Hell, they aren't even at accurate models of protein folding yet.
Written by: spiralx
Well seeing as how supercomputers are currently required to accurate model protein folding I think we're a loooong way off from a simulation we could be happy using.
Hell, they aren't even at accurate models of protein folding yet.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Ok, then put your money where your mouth is.
Either
1) sign up for drug trials or
2) NEVER take any pharmaceutical. Including aspirin.
It is the logical extension of opposing medical testing on animals.
Written by: Pyrolific
Animals are alive, sentient and feel pain. They do not supply consent for the torture, and no benefits are given to their families for their pain. I think drug and chem companies should pay humans to do their dirty work.
err feel free to hook into me, as long as its within the rules of the site
Ok, then put your money where your mouth is.
Either
1) sign up for drug trials or
2) NEVER take any pharmaceutical. Including aspirin.
It is the logical extension of opposing medical testing on animals.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Written by: Doc Lightning
Ok, then put your money where your mouth is.
Either
1) sign up for drug trials or
2) NEVER take any pharmaceutical. Including aspirin.
It is the logical extension of opposing medical testing on animals.
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: Lightning
To those who oppose all testing for drugs on animals, I ask you to please stand by your principles and refuse all medical therapy. Why? Every drug out there (And I mean EVERY drug out there) has been tested on animals. ..........
I think that it's acceptable for those who oppose animal testing to make use of medical therapy, for the following reasons: -
1. the reason all drugs have been tested on animals is because that is the way our culture does things. If animal testing was either banned, or reduced, then drugs would be tested using other methods (simulations, on humans etc).
Obviously those who oppose all, or some, animal testing, did not request, or agree to, all drugs being tested on animals; as they didn't request or bring about the current situation, I see no reason for them to deny themselves medical treatment.
2. For those who do want to push that point (that those who oppose testing should refuse treatment), I believe it would only be fair if alternatives were offered. this would either be drugs not tested on animals, or by establishing a cut-off date such that those who do oppose animal testing would not use any new drugs tested on animals after that date.
IMO, you need to offer alternatives; it's not fair to say 'you oppose testing therefore you can either take this (possibly) life saving drug (and be a hypocrite); or, you can go without treatment entirely.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Oh, but it is fair! None of these drugs would or could exist without animal research. It's impossible to do it without animals.
So if your theory is that animal research is fundamentally wrong, then the logical extension of this position is that it is unethical to consume anything developed by animal research or from which the institution of animal research profits.
It's incredibly fair!
Written by: OWD
it's not fair to say 'you oppose testing therefore you can either take this (possibly) life saving drug (and be a hypocrite); or, you can go without treatment entirely.
Oh, but it is fair! None of these drugs would or could exist without animal research. It's impossible to do it without animals.
So if your theory is that animal research is fundamentally wrong, then the logical extension of this position is that it is unethical to consume anything developed by animal research or from which the institution of animal research profits.
It's incredibly fair!
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
More from the 'archives' on this issue-
The point is that animal resters have a monopoly on the market- there are no alternatives for those who oppose it; other than illness/death by refusing treatment.
For examples of feasible alternatives that aren't too extreme-
More from the 'archives' on this issue-
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: LLiigghhttnniinngg
So if you are anti-animal research, if you truly want to stand by your convictions, you should avoid doctors at all costs.
What I'm saying is that lightnings suggestion- that those who oppose animal testing should refrain from life saving treatment (otherwise they're hypocrites)- is incorrect.
IMO, that would only be justified in a situation where a choice of drugs is available- some tested on animals, some not.
In that case, if one who opposes animal testing nevertheless uses the animal-tested alternative then there may, be grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
If the choice is the current one- which is to accept the product tested on animals or, die, then. IMO there are no grounds for accusations of hypocrisy.
I'll try to make this clearer using an analogy: -
In the UK, in many areas, all tap drinking water is fluoridated, supposedly on the grounds that it is the best way to prevent tooth decay amongst children. Those who disagree are either stuck with it, or have to spend large sums of money on bottled water, or move town.
Let's imagine a scenario where the fluoridation companies have been so successful in their marketing, that all drinking water, by law, is fluoridated (including bottled water).
In this world, those who oppose fluoridation are seen as deluded and dangerous, the alternatives they offer to fluoridated water are considered either impractical or inneffective (eg restricting sugar intake, using fluoridated tooth paste).
The vocal minority who oppose compulsory fluoridation are seen in much the same way. by the establishment, as those who propose alternatives to animal testing are in ours.
Let's imagine that a member of the medical establishment [we'll call him 'Thunder'
I think it's clear, in that scenario, that the accusation is nonsense.
-------------------------
To call anti-animal testers hypocrites, can only be justified if they have a real choice, and I don't believe that 'take this drug tested on animals, or die', is a real choice.
Now I fully appreciate that many here believe that putting drugs not tested on animals, onto the market, is not practical.
Please note that I'm not at all commenting (yet) on that issue; at this point I am simply trying to show that the 'hypocrite' accusation is invalid.
That applies regardless of whether the majority consider alternative (non-animal) testing to be practical or not.
The point is that animal resters have a monopoly on the market- there are no alternatives for those who oppose it; other than illness/death by refusing treatment.
For examples of feasible alternatives that aren't too extreme-
Written by: onewheeldave
But essentially, and I hope I'm not being presumptious with regard to those who oppose testing here, I would say the following: -
Firstly,let's acknowledge that there are degress of opposition to testing; Some would want all testing on animals stopped; others would want some of it stopped; others may simply want the thing I suggested, which is that drugs are made available which have not been tested on animals.
A fourth possibility may be a database of drugs that were tested on animals before a certain date; then those who oppose to some extent can choose, in a situation where they can have either a drug before that date, or a new drug- they can choose the former.
(the reasoning behind that is for stuff like aspirin- the testings been done, the damage (to the animals) has been done, it's unfortunate (from the anti-s point of view) but they'd be far happier to take such a drug than some new painkiller which has involved more, and recent, animal testing.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Only because I oppose animal testing I have to refuse any medical pracice or medication?
Are you serious about this, Doc?
*shakes head in total confusion and irritation*
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143298583)
Only because I oppose animal testing I have to refuse any medical pracice or medication?
Are you serious about this, Doc?
*shakes head in total confusion and irritation*
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1143298583)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
I can kinda see where he is comming from,its kie saying your a vegetarian but eating fish like some people do.
but then again ti depends how passionate you are about savign the animals, if you absolutley effing hate it, and protest, and scream and cry about it, then yea you shouldnt go near hospitals cos you are reinforcing the need for the drugs which are tested on animals.
i oppose it, mainly becuase of the metods that it is done when it is inhumane and cruel, sometimes uneccesary.
I can kinda see where he is comming from,its kie saying your a vegetarian but eating fish like some people do.
but then again ti depends how passionate you are about savign the animals, if you absolutley effing hate it, and protest, and scream and cry about it, then yea you shouldnt go near hospitals cos you are reinforcing the need for the drugs which are tested on animals.
i oppose it, mainly becuase of the metods that it is done when it is inhumane and cruel, sometimes uneccesary.
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
It's like Vegans and vegetarians using normal condoms, did people know they contain animal products?
if you now need a source of vegan ones, google "condomi"
I know I posted this eslewhere but it@s kinda relevant here now too.
It's like Vegans and vegetarians using normal condoms, did people know they contain animal products?
if you now need a source of vegan ones, google "condomi"
I know I posted this eslewhere but it@s kinda relevant here now too.
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting 
about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Why is it that there are protests about animal testing labs but no protests about farms?
Conditions are often much worse and the animals usually suffer much more, all for the production of an inefficient luxery product.
Why is it that there are protests about animal testing labs but no protests about farms?
Conditions are often much worse and the animals usually suffer much more, all for the production of an inefficient luxery product.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I believe he is serious, Firetom. It is not unreasonable for Doc to ask those who are calling animal testing "immoral" to prove what they say they believe by their actions.
Allow me to press you a bit on the point you made, OWD. I think that Doc has raised a very good issue here.
Essentially, your quote from the archive seems to make the point that asking someone to choose between their convictions regarding animal testing and death is not a meaningful choice. I suggest that it is a meaningful choice, and that a failure to choose to avoid using a medical system that uses animal testing reflects the magnitude of the evil in the mind of the chooser.
It is proposed that killing animals is morally wrong. How wrong is it? A good way to measure the moral weight is by comparing it with other "evils." The choice between killing animals and death is the ultimate moral test, since it asks whether your moral convictions in this regard make you willing to make what many would consider to be the ultimate sacrifice: your life.
With animal testing, the lines are sometimes blurry. Can one object to the testing, but still use the drug after the testing is over since "it has already happened" and refraining from using the drug won't bring those animals back to life? This is the argument the Bush administration used to justify the use of stem cells that had already been taken from embryos. Stopping the use of the existing lines of stem cells wouldn't bring back the embryos that were killed to get them, so they reasoned that it would be ok to continue using them.
Another example would be medical experiments done on the Jews by Nazis. Would it be acceptable to use discoveries made from those experiments, or should we blot out what has been done since it was accomplished in an immoral way. My grandparents have inherited a barn that was built in part by slave labor. Should they use it? I may think that it is wrong to kill animals for food. May I eat an animal that has already been killed by someone else?
All of these ask a question regarding other persons actions in the past, and so do not directly measure the moral weight of those specific acts. To measure how "evil" we think animal testing is, we should work with simple, direct hypotheticals.
There is only a lack of a "feasible alternative" to the medical system if you consider "living the way people did before animal testing" to not be feasible. This may include sickness or death. Sickness and death are certainly feasible alternatives in my mind when presented with certain situations.
Let us pretend that I have a terminal illness, and that the only way I can cure myself is to kill someone (I have contracted vampirism). According to my moral beliefs, I will choose to die of the disease rather than commit murder. This is because I consider the murder of an innocent person to be so wrong that my own death from disease is a feasible alternative.
What if, in order to cure myself, I need only kill a cow? Some people believe that killing animals is nearly or actually as bad as killing humans. To them, I should again choose to suffer the disease rather than murder the cow. Others do not consider killing cows to be wrong at all, and would allow me the right to kill them merely to enjoy a cheeseburger.
Some fall in between, saying that killing animals is wrong, but it would be ok to do it in order to save a life. Other would say that it is ok to do it in order to save your health, even if the disease is not terminal. Would you kill a rat to cure your flu?
What if we found out that in order to cure AIDS all you have to do is eat a butterfly. Should we tell all the people suffering from AIDS to run out and eat the butterflies, or to have a stiff upper lip and make a will?
It sounds silly, but its not far from the truth. Doc can make a valid argument that sacrificing animals have, in the past, resulted in cures for people. It stands to reason that such sacrifices might cure people in the future. One can say it is not a feasible alternative to die rather than take advantage of animal testing that has occurred in the past. Doc might reply that it is not a feasible alternative to let people die in the future by not doing animal testing in the present.
Since we are dealing with drugs that have the potential to relieve suffer save lives, it is appropriate to ask those who are condemning it to be willing to accept the potential that they might suffer and die for their beliefs. If one truly wants a world where no drugs are ever tested on animals, one should be willing to personally accept the consequences.
Written by: FireTom
Only because I oppose animal testing I have to refuse any medical pracice or medication?
Are you serious about this, Doc?
*shakes head in total confusion and irritation*
I believe he is serious, Firetom. It is not unreasonable for Doc to ask those who are calling animal testing "immoral" to prove what they say they believe by their actions.
Allow me to press you a bit on the point you made, OWD. I think that Doc has raised a very good issue here.
Essentially, your quote from the archive seems to make the point that asking someone to choose between their convictions regarding animal testing and death is not a meaningful choice. I suggest that it is a meaningful choice, and that a failure to choose to avoid using a medical system that uses animal testing reflects the magnitude of the evil in the mind of the chooser.
It is proposed that killing animals is morally wrong. How wrong is it? A good way to measure the moral weight is by comparing it with other "evils." The choice between killing animals and death is the ultimate moral test, since it asks whether your moral convictions in this regard make you willing to make what many would consider to be the ultimate sacrifice: your life.
With animal testing, the lines are sometimes blurry. Can one object to the testing, but still use the drug after the testing is over since "it has already happened" and refraining from using the drug won't bring those animals back to life? This is the argument the Bush administration used to justify the use of stem cells that had already been taken from embryos. Stopping the use of the existing lines of stem cells wouldn't bring back the embryos that were killed to get them, so they reasoned that it would be ok to continue using them.
Another example would be medical experiments done on the Jews by Nazis. Would it be acceptable to use discoveries made from those experiments, or should we blot out what has been done since it was accomplished in an immoral way. My grandparents have inherited a barn that was built in part by slave labor. Should they use it? I may think that it is wrong to kill animals for food. May I eat an animal that has already been killed by someone else?
All of these ask a question regarding other persons actions in the past, and so do not directly measure the moral weight of those specific acts. To measure how "evil" we think animal testing is, we should work with simple, direct hypotheticals.
There is only a lack of a "feasible alternative" to the medical system if you consider "living the way people did before animal testing" to not be feasible. This may include sickness or death. Sickness and death are certainly feasible alternatives in my mind when presented with certain situations.
Let us pretend that I have a terminal illness, and that the only way I can cure myself is to kill someone (I have contracted vampirism). According to my moral beliefs, I will choose to die of the disease rather than commit murder. This is because I consider the murder of an innocent person to be so wrong that my own death from disease is a feasible alternative.
What if, in order to cure myself, I need only kill a cow? Some people believe that killing animals is nearly or actually as bad as killing humans. To them, I should again choose to suffer the disease rather than murder the cow. Others do not consider killing cows to be wrong at all, and would allow me the right to kill them merely to enjoy a cheeseburger.
Some fall in between, saying that killing animals is wrong, but it would be ok to do it in order to save a life. Other would say that it is ok to do it in order to save your health, even if the disease is not terminal. Would you kill a rat to cure your flu?
What if we found out that in order to cure AIDS all you have to do is eat a butterfly. Should we tell all the people suffering from AIDS to run out and eat the butterflies, or to have a stiff upper lip and make a will?
It sounds silly, but its not far from the truth. Doc can make a valid argument that sacrificing animals have, in the past, resulted in cures for people. It stands to reason that such sacrifices might cure people in the future. One can say it is not a feasible alternative to die rather than take advantage of animal testing that has occurred in the past. Doc might reply that it is not a feasible alternative to let people die in the future by not doing animal testing in the present.
Since we are dealing with drugs that have the potential to relieve suffer save lives, it is appropriate to ask those who are condemning it to be willing to accept the potential that they might suffer and die for their beliefs. If one truly wants a world where no drugs are ever tested on animals, one should be willing to personally accept the consequences.
Member
152 posts
Location: London, england
152 posts
Location: London, england
Posted:
So true, I never hear of protests to help out the thousands of farm animals being abused. I sure do see video's about it! Humans technically dont HAVE to eat meat, we dont need it anymore there is enough stuff in this world for us to eat in order to get our protein. Ive been veggie for 13 years and have no protein deficiency!
Written by: jeff(fake)
Why is it that there are protests about animal testing labs but no protests about farms?
Conditions are often much worse and the animals usually suffer much more, all for the production of an inefficient luxery product.
So true, I never hear of protests to help out the thousands of farm animals being abused. I sure do see video's about it! Humans technically dont HAVE to eat meat, we dont need it anymore there is enough stuff in this world for us to eat in order to get our protein. Ive been veggie for 13 years and have no protein deficiency!
Kiss me now, You're beatiful, For these days are truly the last.
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It''s a bit different from the fish thing.
A better example to reflect the POV I'm expressing above would be to imagine a world where, due to govt regulations, all available food had fish (or other animal) in the ingredients.
We can imagine that some of the population may very much disagree this, protest against it and oppose it.
However, it would not be hypocritical for the protesters to still eat the food- given that it's essential for survival and that, in that scenario, there are no alternative non-animal containing foods.
Written by: buzzingtalk
I can kinda see where he is comming from,its kie saying your a vegetarian but eating fish like some people do.
but then again ti depends how passionate you are about savign the animals, if you absolutley effing hate it, and protest, and scream and cry about it, then yea you shouldnt go near hospitals cos you are reinforcing the need for the drugs which are tested on animals.
i oppose it, mainly becuase of the metods that it is done when it is inhumane and cruel, sometimes uneccesary.
It''s a bit different from the fish thing.
A better example to reflect the POV I'm expressing above would be to imagine a world where, due to govt regulations, all available food had fish (or other animal) in the ingredients.
We can imagine that some of the population may very much disagree this, protest against it and oppose it.
However, it would not be hypocritical for the protesters to still eat the food- given that it's essential for survival and that, in that scenario, there are no alternative non-animal containing foods.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
But even if you say that is the case, then people who protest against animal testing should still forego any medication that is not essential to their survival.
But even if you say that is the case, then people who protest against animal testing should still forego any medication that is not essential to their survival.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
See I dunno what Doc really thinks and all that we do is interpretation right now...
However, I believe that the suffering of animals for our survival is wrong, may it be testing of drugs, or "mass production" of meat...
I do acknowledge that as a human being I have - to a certain extent - depend on food for survival... as do some people depend on drugs to stay alive...
Just because plants can't scream it doesn't mean that they do not have a consciousness. And all this crap like animals have no soul and fish don't feel pain... tell it to your hands...
Many organisms depend on others for survival - whether I like it or not, I have to do the same... there are rumors of people who feed on water, air and sunlight... but sadly I am not that far evoluted (yet).
Pretending to be a "vegetarian" and still eat fish or poultry - that is what I call hippocratic... But not someone who takes medication, eats meat AND protests against the conditions under which the animals are held in order to improve their condition...
What the bleep do I know?
We are facing a world where chicken are fed with meat, cows are fed with their own kind... this is completely against nature and the deriving deseases are an indicator that something definately has to change... soon! To "fight" for this is righteous and no contradiction IMHO...
Yes you may say in the end it's the same - but I tell you it is not! Take it or leave it, but I feel that a lifetime in captivity, under artificial light fed steroids and oestrogen and antibiotics in order to stay healthy for 3 years and then get killed in a machinery is not right. Having to suffer severely so others can use eyeliner, or other beauty products is WRONG.
Having to suffer due to another species survival is also not right, but at leat this "serves" a "higher" purpose...
And if we have to, at least we should try to reduce and minimise suffering... We are by far the most dominating species on the planet with the power to destroy it completely...
With great power comes great responsibility... [/rant]
See I dunno what Doc really thinks and all that we do is interpretation right now...
However, I believe that the suffering of animals for our survival is wrong, may it be testing of drugs, or "mass production" of meat...
I do acknowledge that as a human being I have - to a certain extent - depend on food for survival... as do some people depend on drugs to stay alive...
Just because plants can't scream it doesn't mean that they do not have a consciousness. And all this crap like animals have no soul and fish don't feel pain... tell it to your hands...
Many organisms depend on others for survival - whether I like it or not, I have to do the same... there are rumors of people who feed on water, air and sunlight... but sadly I am not that far evoluted (yet).
Pretending to be a "vegetarian" and still eat fish or poultry - that is what I call hippocratic... But not someone who takes medication, eats meat AND protests against the conditions under which the animals are held in order to improve their condition...
What the bleep do I know?
We are facing a world where chicken are fed with meat, cows are fed with their own kind... this is completely against nature and the deriving deseases are an indicator that something definately has to change... soon! To "fight" for this is righteous and no contradiction IMHO...
Yes you may say in the end it's the same - but I tell you it is not! Take it or leave it, but I feel that a lifetime in captivity, under artificial light fed steroids and oestrogen and antibiotics in order to stay healthy for 3 years and then get killed in a machinery is not right. Having to suffer severely so others can use eyeliner, or other beauty products is WRONG.
Having to suffer due to another species survival is also not right, but at leat this "serves" a "higher" purpose...
And if we have to, at least we should try to reduce and minimise suffering... We are by far the most dominating species on the planet with the power to destroy it completely...
With great power comes great responsibility... [/rant]
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
You're conflating two diffferent issues here, vegetarianism and animal testing. They are separate issues, and you can hold separate views on them...
Written by: FireTom
We are facing a world where chicken are fed with meat, cows are fed with their own kind... this is completely against nature and the deriving deseases are an indicator that something definately has to change... soon! To "fight" for this is righteous and no contradiction IMHO...
Yes you may say in the end it's the same - but I tell you it is not! Take it or leave it, but I feel that a lifetime in captivity, under artificial light fed steroids and oestrogen and antibiotics in order to stay healthy for 3 years and then get killed in a machinery is not right. Having to suffer severely so others can use eyeliner, or other beauty products is WRONG.
Having to suffer due to another species survival is also not right, but at leat this "serves" a "higher" purpose...
And if we have to, at least we should try to reduce and minimise suffering... We are by far the most dominating species on the planet with the power to destroy it completely...
With great power comes great responsibility... [/rant]
You're conflating two diffferent issues here, vegetarianism and animal testing. They are separate issues, and you can hold separate views on them...
"Moo," said the happy cow.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
I for one do.
I for one do.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
Anyone who knows me in real life would tell you I'm the last person to take pharms. Sure if my arm was broken I might want some anaesthetic while they set it (and dont tell me they had to do animal testing to learn how to set human arms) I might take Asprin (which is based on willow bark - a remedy thats goes back a long way - well before pharm companies) if I had a headache that was stopping me going to work - but that never happens to me *shrugs*
The pure form of Doc's argument is;
Either accept and dont complain or reject completely and gain the right to complain.
Sorry mate - but thats a bit simplistic and stops any kind of progress. Just cuz things are done wrong doesnt mean they have to go on for ever like they are.
Lets use another example as illustration;
You dont like the way your country's government is running things so either accept it and shutup or leave the country and gain the right to complain?
I also think its blatantly wrong to suggest that if someone takes a moral stand they need to live 100% within the principle they have stood for. There are very very few people who would be able to take on ANY moral stance and uphold it forever with no lapse. The only realistic way to gain ground on moral issues is to make efforts in that direction either giant leaps if possible but baby steps will still get there. This type of argument completely undermines the baby steps method.
People are healthier these days because of clean water, good nutrition and good sewerage(sp?) treatment.
Written by: spiralx
But even if you say that is the case, then people who protest against animal testing should still forego any medication that is not essential to their survival.
Anyone who knows me in real life would tell you I'm the last person to take pharms. Sure if my arm was broken I might want some anaesthetic while they set it (and dont tell me they had to do animal testing to learn how to set human arms
) I might take Asprin (which is based on willow bark - a remedy thats goes back a long way - well before pharm companies) if I had a headache that was stopping me going to work - but that never happens to me *shrugs* The pure form of Doc's argument is;
Either accept and dont complain or reject completely and gain the right to complain.
Sorry mate - but thats a bit simplistic and stops any kind of progress. Just cuz things are done wrong doesnt mean they have to go on for ever like they are.
Lets use another example as illustration;
You dont like the way your country's government is running things so either accept it and shutup or leave the country and gain the right to complain?
I also think its blatantly wrong to suggest that if someone takes a moral stand they need to live 100% within the principle they have stood for. There are very very few people who would be able to take on ANY moral stance and uphold it forever with no lapse. The only realistic way to gain ground on moral issues is to make efforts in that direction either giant leaps if possible but baby steps will still get there. This type of argument completely undermines the baby steps method.
People are healthier these days because of clean water, good nutrition and good sewerage(sp?) treatment.
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Acetylsalicylic acid is produced chemicaly since the natural version found in willow bark, salicylic acid causes stomache cramps (so much for the goodness of nature). It hasn't been based on willow bark for a long time. You're also kidding yourself if you believe that it has never been tested on animals.
There is currently no ethical alternative to animal testing. If you believe that it should never be done but continue to use animal tested products than this is hypocracy. There is no ethical alternative way that we could test drugs being made available, so they would not exist if not for animal testing. If you view it as a neccasary evil for your surival that you would prefer didn't exist, then I agree with you in full.
And for the record, yes - bone setting has been tested on animals from time immemorial.
Written by: Pyrolific
I might take Asprin (which is based on willow bark - a remedy thats goes back a long way - well before pharm companies) if I had a headache that was stopping me going to work - but that never happens to me *shrugs*
Acetylsalicylic acid is produced chemicaly since the natural version found in willow bark, salicylic acid causes stomache cramps (so much for the goodness of nature). It hasn't been based on willow bark for a long time. You're also kidding yourself if you believe that it has never been tested on animals.
There is currently no ethical alternative to animal testing. If you believe that it should never be done but continue to use animal tested products than this is hypocracy. There is no ethical alternative way that we could test drugs being made available, so they would not exist if not for animal testing. If you view it as a neccasary evil for your surival that you would prefer didn't exist, then I agree with you in full.
And for the record, yes - bone setting has been tested on animals from time immemorial.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
3,289 posts
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
I think the difference in compound from the natural to the synthetic is probly more likely to be so the company in question can patent it...after all you cant patent naturally occuring chems. Stick another group on there and say its better for you, and nobody's none the wiser - I could say that you are kidding yourself, however I think its a bit rude to say such things without some kind of conclusive evidence hey?
I think it would be perfectly ethical for informed adults to have drugs tested on them with potentially fatal consequences - after all, thats whats happenning already!? People put their life on the line all the time for money - look at the soldiers in iraq, or deep sea divers. As for toxicity, etc etc - you can always test that on humans - as long as you start with a very low dose of the compound.
I think the difference in compound from the natural to the synthetic is probly more likely to be so the company in question can patent it...after all you cant patent naturally occuring chems. Stick another group on there and say its better for you, and nobody's none the wiser - I could say that you are kidding yourself, however I think its a bit rude to say such things without some kind of conclusive evidence hey?
I think it would be perfectly ethical for informed adults to have drugs tested on them with potentially fatal consequences - after all, thats whats happenning already!? People put their life on the line all the time for money - look at the soldiers in iraq, or deep sea divers. As for toxicity, etc etc - you can always test that on humans - as long as you start with a very low dose of the compound.
--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Who here thinks that had the chickens evolved to be like us, they would do human testing for their drugs?
See, chickens are evil, bring on the battery farming, stop the fowl takeover bid, bring down the coop!
Who here thinks that had the chickens evolved to be like us, they would do human testing for their drugs?
See, chickens are evil, bring on the battery farming, stop the fowl takeover bid, bring down the coop!
To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
The mechanisms and actions of how salicylic acid caused stomach cramps is well understood in the medical world. The patent on aspirin ran out a long time ago, yet it is still made instead of salicylic acid.
Personally I think it's something other than rude to go about making up stories about 'evil pharm companies' so things fit my world view better in the face of conclusive evidence otherwise.
Have you volunteered yet?
Written by: Pyrolific
I think the difference in compound from the natural to the synthetic is probly more likely to be so the company in question can patent it...after all you cant patent naturally occuring chems. Stick another group on there and say its better for you, and nobody's none the wiser - I could say that you are kidding yourself, however I think its a bit rude to say such things without some kind of conclusive evidence hey?
The mechanisms and actions of how salicylic acid caused stomach cramps is well understood in the medical world. The patent on aspirin ran out a long time ago, yet it is still made instead of salicylic acid.
Personally I think it's something other than rude to go about making up stories about 'evil pharm companies' so things fit my world view better in the face of conclusive evidence otherwise.
Written by: pyrolific
I think it would be perfectly ethical for informed adults to have drugs tested on them with potentially fatal consequences - after all, thats whats happenning already!? People put their life on the line all the time for money - look at the soldiers in iraq, or deep sea divers. As for toxicity, etc etc - you can always test that on humans - as long as you start with a very low dose of the compound.
Have you volunteered yet?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
had her carpal tunnel surgery already thanks v much
4,145 posts
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland (UK)
Posted:
I agree with Doc. Most people who oppose animal testing say there are alternatives available, just not legalised. A popular argument is that anything can be cured with things found in nature, in the Rain forest etc.
There's nothing stopping you to go into nature, prepare all kinds of extracts from plants and take them trying to cure cancer, MS, Alzheimers or a heart disease. You'd probably even find enough sick volunteers to try it. And probably a tv station to sponsor you, make a programme out of it and give you a "scientist" like the "you are what you eat" woman to comment on it...
Of course, unless you test the stuff properly first, there's no way to tell if (apart from short-term effects) it'll make you have cancer or be infertile a few years, or decades, later, so you might be really really lucky and end up with a wonderful medicine for, let's say, menstrual cramps, just to find 25 years later that 70% of the women who took it have developed liver cancer.
But then you'd be willing to take that risk because you oppose animal testing...
Seriously though, if some protesters would put their efforts into saving variety of plants in the rainforest and possible analysing the plants for medical use I'd have much more respect for them than I do for their digging up grannies from cemeteries, threatening people, making up leaflets and generally moaning without doing something constructive.
I agree with Doc. Most people who oppose animal testing say there are alternatives available, just not legalised. A popular argument is that anything can be cured with things found in nature, in the Rain forest etc.
There's nothing stopping you to go into nature, prepare all kinds of extracts from plants and take them trying to cure cancer, MS, Alzheimers or a heart disease. You'd probably even find enough sick volunteers to try it. And probably a tv station to sponsor you, make a programme out of it and give you a "scientist" like the "you are what you eat" woman to comment on it...
Of course, unless you test the stuff properly first, there's no way to tell if (apart from short-term effects) it'll make you have cancer or be infertile a few years, or decades, later, so you might be really really lucky and end up with a wonderful medicine for, let's say, menstrual cramps, just to find 25 years later that 70% of the women who took it have developed liver cancer.
But then you'd be willing to take that risk because you oppose animal testing...
Seriously though, if some protesters would put their efforts into saving variety of plants in the rainforest and possible analysing the plants for medical use I'd have much more respect for them than I do for their digging up grannies from cemeteries, threatening people, making up leaflets and generally moaning without doing something constructive.
"vices are like genitals - most are ugly to behold, and yet we find that our own are dear to us."
(G.W. Dahlquist)
Owner of Dragosani's left half
SILVER Member
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
big and good and broken
7,330 posts
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay, United Kingdom
Posted:
taking drugs that you disapprove of the development of is contradictory.
using the vegitarian analogy, its like saying:
"i'm a vegitarian on the basis that i refuse to kill animals for my food. however, if someone kills an animal for me, though i'll express a want for an alternative, until they provide that alternative, i will not seek out one of my own and will eat the meat."
why is it the obligation of someone who supports animal testing to provide the alternative?!
besides, as has been pointed out in this thread, there are alternatives - it is your choice if you wish to ignore them because it supports your argument:
the true moral standpoint for those opposing animal testing would be to refuse any treatment that was developed using animal testing and only accept treatments developed by alternative methods like those above.
the baby steps method would involve research into which drugs took the longest to get through the animal testing stage of their development and boycotting the use of these treatments specifically, highlighting why these are the worst culprits.
the very minimum expression of this moral choice would be to only accept treatments that were developed prior to your birth (i.e. all those in existance before you could express an opinion).
taking advantage of all the modern drug developments whilst openly criticising the people who and methods by which they are developed can only serve to project an air of hypocrisy.
cole. x
taking drugs that you disapprove of the development of is contradictory.
using the vegitarian analogy, its like saying:
"i'm a vegitarian on the basis that i refuse to kill animals for my food. however, if someone kills an animal for me, though i'll express a want for an alternative, until they provide that alternative, i will not seek out one of my own and will eat the meat."
Written by: onewheeldave
I think that it's acceptable for those who oppose animal testing to make use of medical therapy, for the following reasons: -
1. the reason all drugs have been tested on animals is because that is the way our culture does things. If animal testing was either banned, or reduced, then drugs would be tested using other methods (simulations, on humans etc).
Obviously those who oppose all, or some, animal testing, did not request, or agree to, all drugs being tested on animals; as they didn't request or bring about the current situation, I see no reason for them to deny themselves medical treatment.
2. For those who do want to push that point (that those who oppose testing should refuse treatment), I believe it would only be fair if alternatives were offered. this would either be drugs not tested on animals, or by establishing a cut-off date such that those who do oppose animal testing would not use any new drugs tested on animals after that date.
IMO, you need to offer alternatives; it's not fair to say 'you oppose testing therefore you can either take this (possibly) life saving drug (and be a hypocrite); or, you can go without treatment entirely.
why is it the obligation of someone who supports animal testing to provide the alternative?!
besides, as has been pointed out in this thread, there are alternatives - it is your choice if you wish to ignore them because it supports your argument:
Written by: jo_rhymes
Here's some good news for all of us who love our animals but love our fellow human too
Artificial Hip - the inventor, John Charnley, refused to experiment on animals. The hip which he developed is still regarded as the 'gold standard' by orthopaedic surgeons.
Childhood (acute) Leukaemia drug - the first effective drugs for childhood leukaemia were introduced in the 1940s, through study on patients. They were not tested on animal leukaemias until after they were shown to be useful in people. Methotrexate, one of those drugs, is still important in the treatment of childhood leukaemia and other cancers.
Asthma drug - sodium cromoglycate (Intal) is used to prevent asthma. It was discovered by a doctor who had little faith in animal experiments. He was allergic to guinea pigs so he exposed himself to them to induce asthma attacks, against which he tested over 600 new drugs.
More examples of medical progress without the use of animals:
Anaesthetics - introduction of chloroform, ether, nitrous oxide, and cocaine.
Asepsis - understanding of sterile techniques in surgery.
Blood - understanding of the blood groups and Rhesus factor.
Circulation - understanding of how the blood circulates around the body.
Drugs - introduction of beta blockers for blood pressure; digitalis for heart failure; morphine as a pain killer; nitrite drugs for angina; quinine for malaria; salicylic acid, the active ingredient of aspirin.
Epidemiology - discovery of the link between cancer and smoking; the causes of heart disease; and the causes of many other diseases.
Hormones - identification and purification of insulin for diabetes.
Surgical procedures - removal of the appendix; removal of bladder stones; Brock's technique for blue baby surgery and mitral stenosis; repair of cardiac aneurysm; removal of cataracts; removal of gall stones; repair of inguinal hernia; removal of the ovaries for tumours.
the true moral standpoint for those opposing animal testing would be to refuse any treatment that was developed using animal testing and only accept treatments developed by alternative methods like those above.
the baby steps method would involve research into which drugs took the longest to get through the animal testing stage of their development and boycotting the use of these treatments specifically, highlighting why these are the worst culprits.
the very minimum expression of this moral choice would be to only accept treatments that were developed prior to your birth (i.e. all those in existance before you could express an opinion).
taking advantage of all the modern drug developments whilst openly criticising the people who and methods by which they are developed can only serve to project an air of hypocrisy.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
SILVER Member
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
old hand
722 posts
Location: United Kingdom
Posted:
Birgit, GO GIRL!
mucho respecto babe! XXX
Birgit, GO GIRL!
mucho respecto babe! XXX To you who has been accessing my online accounts, changing my login details, locations and posting about me, realise, you are not worth revenge, you are not worth my attention, you are nothing, and that is all you ever will be.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [testing animal * acceptible] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Is Testing on Animals Acceptible? [305 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com