Is it ok? - Animal Testing

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Moody, Apr 2, 2016.

  1. The inventors should test it on themselves or their kids.

    I'm weird. I'm a "do not resuscitate" guy. I feel like nature needs to be allowed to take its course. If a drug is that dangerous, maybe humans weren't meant to have it
  2. On second thought, this brings up another interesting topic for another thread, but should we develop drugs to increase life expectancy?

    People are born with all sorts of deformities and disabilities and we spend so much time and resources keeping them alive. Sometimes those people can reproduce.

    This is like negative evolution. Those people would have died without modern medicine, but now they're able to contribute to the human gene pool when a couple hundred years ago they would have just died.

    I don't agree with that. I think if you have a strong shellfish allergy or peanut allergy or were born with a disability that requires you to take a bunch of medicine and treatments just to stay alive, maybe that's bad for humanity.

    I'm sure plenty of people will say I'm an awful person for saying that, but it's how I feel.
  3. I think of it this way. We as humans are a far superior organism than any other organism in the world. For that reason, things like mice and rabbits are expendable for the sake of discovery. Those lab mice are bred solely to be tested on. THEY ARE EXPENDABLE. You might say, "you're terrible for saying that." Well, I don't see a problem with using nature as a resource. We are the dominant species on this earth and we aren't detracting from the ecosystem in any way by doing this kind of research.
  4. Very interesting concept. I've never thought about it in terms of negative contributions to society's gene pool. Hmmmmmm

  5. What makes an animals life more valuable than a humans life?

    I do understand you feel bad for animals and so on, but people test these things for the human species. I would rather, a few lab rats die than a human.
  6. What makes a human life more valuable than an animal's?

    The worst part about animal testing is you can't even use the meat for food because it's literally poisoned.

    If you could at least eat the meat afterward then maybe I could see it as pitentially useful. But I suppose that the meat just gets thrown out or incinerated. What a waste of life and food!
  7. Yes it's ok. Animals were put on this earth to eat and to test on.
  8. Support
  9. Because we are more intelligent and more evolved that means it is ok for us to "play God" with the lives of other creatures we have monstrously decided are not worthy of normal life?
  10. This one time my cat decided a squirrel was not worthty of normal life so he killed it and left it on my driveway. It was pretty rad because I've never seen a cat kill a squirrel before.
  11. Did the squirrel hide your nuts? If so, your cat just have been avenging your honor
  12. NO!! animal testing is disgusting and I will always think, paedophiles should be the ones getting tester. Absolute joke
  13. No, that is a complete misconseption of what drug testing would be on animals.

    The type of drug testing on animals would be for things like neuro stem cell transplants that could potentially paralyse or kill the recipient.

    Only early experiements on rats have been done in this field so far but show very promising results.

    Animal testing done properly is usually only done on expendable rodents like rats or mice, usually rats though since their pyschology is similiar to humans. Additionally, they are mainly for potentially dangerous or risky surgeries.

    Our knowledge of the human body is incomplete. Well on all neurology of all animals to be honest. It's an ongoing subject.

    One thing going wrong and killing a few people when it could've been done on an expendable animal like a rat is completely fine in my eyes.

    However there have been some impractical and immoral cases of animal testing on primates which i dont agree with at all.

    Cosmetic purposes for animal testing is legitimately stupid. Dermatology is detailed enough subject that we know for a fact that no cosmetic item should do more than cause a rash, and if it did cause more the company would be sued into oblivian.

    Usually i read more of the comments first but i didnt want to forget my point
  14. To clarify :p I am playing devil's advocate here to spark debate, my own opinion may come out before this thread dies and I start the next IsItOk? Thread :)

    Spider you make very fair points, I was particularly misleading in my statement. When it comes to neurology we have much to learn as a species about the complexities of it all. However, is it ok to test on these rodents to see their brains to compare them to humans? Yes there are similarities of course (all brains are just a bundle of cells after all) but is it fair to hurt, damage and kill these living beings in case we are able to find something new?
  15. Those people have something fundamentally incorrect in their make up to complete such acts. Scientifically, that would null results as they would only be comparable amongst that group, hardly a fair test to see if it would work on the rest of us ;)

    waits for a comment on if peodophiles aren't close enough to normal humans, how can rats be...
  16. I feel like that experimentation is okay, I understand it can be called cruel, but I value a humans life above a pig or mouse's, and if testing can save bad things from going to the public, then so be it. The lord has given us the power to govern over the animals, so what we feel we need to do, I guess its okay.
  17. If we're bringing God into this then the following quote implies we do not have the right to cause cruelty to animals.

    Ecclesiastes 3:19

    For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity.