Holocaust on animals (1 Viewer)

[nerual5]

Should animals be tested and killed off by lab testing? Should their life be valued any less than a human beings life? Around 2 million animals a year are being used for lab research just in the United States and are being put under stressful situations, and given horrible diseases, just so scientists can view the outcome.

Most of the tests that are done are meaningless. An animals response to a disease or drug can be way different from that of a human being, making the results useless. There have been many instances where a drug would work on an animal but when it is released to the public, death or serious injury occured. Is the testing really saving lives here?

There are plenty of alternatives to animal testing such as scanning and computer models that can copy a bodies responce to a drug without the need for testing on any life form. Animal testing is morally wrong, any form of life should not have to go through the painful and inhumane lab testing.

 

[nkgupta80]

There are plenty of alternatives to animal testing such as scanning and computer models that can copy a bodies responce to a drug without the need for testing on any life form. Animal testing is morally wrong, any form of life should not have to go through the painful and inhumane lab testing.

in medical research, even the most cutting-edge computer technology wouldn't give even near the results live specimens can give in experiments. Ideally we'd want to research on other humans but whats the point of saving humans by using others (and of course that the idea of human guinea pigs is just horrendous)... Thus we are forced to use animals.

 

[nkgupta80]

of course if you think the animal's life is the same as a humans then why do medical research at all? Why have any doctors? Since our life isn't worth any omre than the lab rat's, and since we're not out there saving rats from the plague, why should we save ourselves from a plague.

 

[gdalton]

We could create clones to do research on, that would be fun.

 

[Kelzie]

I say if testing on animals will save human lives, go for it. And I'm a vegan.:shock:

 

[V.I. Lenin]

Look I know Kelzie is a hippy and would want to save all the animals and that's all well and good but I personally....

!!!! She doesn't?! Holy...well then. I personally think if it saves humans, all well and good. If it's beauty products and lipstick...do we really need to test that stuff on dogs and pigs? Really, it that essential? I can understand a cancer drug on mice or chimps, but some things are just not needed.

 

[Hoot]

Animal testing is not needed in todays technology. It's simple laziness and the "bottom line" of the researchers that prevents alternative means of testing.

Any company, I'm aware of, that is involved in animal testing will never get my hard earned dollars.

Of course, I like animals more than I like most people, so there you have it.

If there's one thing that makes me see "red," it's animal abuse.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Care to share some data that backs up the claim that computer models are as effective as the real thing?

 

[clone]

animal testing should be legal if we are actually getting some benefit out of it. for example, if a great drug company comes up with a new drug to cure aids, we should be able to test it on animals.

and would you like to show us some evidence that drugs that worked on animals proved fatal or caused injury to humans? i dont think ive ever heard of that before...

 

[kal-el]

animal testing should be legal if we are actually getting some benefit out of it. for example, if a great drug company comes up with a new drug to cure aids, we should be able to test it on animals.

I agree. If there is a "potential" cure for Cancer, or AIDS, do you want to use humans as guinea pigs? I hate to see animals suffer, but I hate even more when I see people suffer.

 

[Hoot]

People...please...what is this the 1600's...when we burned 'witches' at the stake?

There are all kinds of alternatives to animal testing...In-vitro, computers, databases, human clinical trials, animal cells, tissue cultures, cloned human cells, and culture techniques...among many others.

There's not a research scientist out there that wouldn't agree that anesthesia, or sedating an animal will effect the outcome of any test.

We now have info on human genes and stem cell lines...what's the point of going backwards to animal testing?

I'd rather see our prison population used for voluntary testing, in exchange for commutted sentences, then continue to see the unneccessary, barbaric, and evil torture of animals.

Here's just a few alternatives to the torture of animals...

http://www.geari.org/alternativestest.html

 

[gdalton]

I'd rather see our prison population used for voluntary testing, in exchange for commutted sentences, then continue to see the unneccessary, barbaric, and evil torture of animals.

Now there is a good idea.

 

[nkgupta80]

There are all kinds of alternatives to animal testing...In-vitro, computers, databases, human clinical trials, animal cells, tissue cultures, cloned human cells, and culture techniques...among many others.

wait until you have to design the experiment and realize that a fully functioning lifeform is essential to getting good research done. Any drug can have thousands of unimaginable sideeffects. Tissue cultures/individual cell solutions etc. all pertain only certain sets of research experiments and projects. There are other types of research (behavioural, clinical, surgical, etc.) that requires living organisms or a newly killed organism to perform the research.

Many of the cells you talk about must be obtained by killing the animal.

We now have info on human genes and stem cell lines...what's the point of going backwards to animal testing?

that still doesn't give enough information to grow live organisms. Once they are alive, they are living creatures, and people will have something against it again.


Computing power is still not strong enough to exactly emulate a living lifeform and processes in the body (there are just tooo many factors for a computer to be able to calculate).

 

[Kelzie]

People...please...what is this the 1600's...when we burned 'witches' at the stake?

There are all kinds of alternatives to animal testing...In-vitro, computers, databases, human clinical trials, animal cells, tissue cultures, cloned human cells, and culture techniques...among many others.

There's not a research scientist out there that wouldn't agree that anesthesia, or sedating an animal will effect the outcome of any test.

We now have info on human genes and stem cell lines...what's the point of going backwards to animal testing?

I'd rather see our prison population used for voluntary testing, in exchange for commutted sentences, then continue to see the unneccessary, barbaric, and evil torture of animals.

Here's just a few alternatives to the torture of animals...

http://www.geari.org/alternativestest.html

Wait hold on. Computer testing only works for compounds that we have already tested and entered the data for. If we are testing new drugs, than the computers are useless.

And I completely agree that the animals should be sedated. And I also agree with testing on humans.

 

[Nezdragon]

Wait hold on. Computer testing only works for compounds that we have already tested and entered the data for. If we are testing new drugs, than the computers are useless.

And I completely agree that the animals should be sedated. And I also agree with testing on humans.

I have a solution to using animals for testing. EAT THEM!

Seriously, many drugs require the animal to be awake so that biological functions can be more easily monitored. The different drugs may screw up the test. It is unfortunate, but it is a necessary sacrifice for the good of humanity. There are very few if any alternatives to animal testing, most of which are too expensive, unreliable, etc.

Besides, we eat animals don't we? We is on the top of the food chain!

I agree, death row prisoner experimentation is a good idea. Unfortunately, Hitler did that too. And besides, the Politically Correct Police will NEVER allow such a thing...

Meat FTW!

 

[galenrox]

I have a solution to using animals for testing. EAT THEM!

Seriously, many drugs require the animal to be awake so that biological functions can be more easily monitored. The different drugs may screw up the test. It is unfortunate, but it is a necessary sacrifice for the good of humanity. There are very few if any alternatives to animal testing, most of which are too expensive, unreliable, etc.

Besides, we eat animals don't we? We is on the top of the food chain!

I agree, death row prisoner experimentation is a good idea. Unfortunately, Hitler did that too. And besides, the Politically Correct Police will NEVER allow such a thing...

Meat FTW!

I don't know if I get what you're getting at. I personally have no problem with animal testing as long as they stay the hell away from my dog. But how exactly does eating them solve the problem of animal testing? Or are you just being abrasive for the sake of being abrasive?

And who the hell are these Politically Correct Police that you guys talk about?
Check this out
Nigger. Nigger nigger. Nigger nigger chinck chink spic nigger.
Nope, nothing happened.
So what the hell are you talking about.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Should animals be tested and killed off by lab testing? Should their life be valued any less than a human beings life? Around 2 million animals a year are being used for lab research just in the United States and are being put under stressful situations, and given horrible diseases, just so scientists can view the outcome.

Most of the tests that are done are meaningless. An animals response to a disease or drug can be way different from that of a human being, making the results useless. There have been many instances where a drug would work on an animal but when it is released to the public, death or serious injury occured. Is the testing really saving lives here?

There are plenty of alternatives to animal testing such as scanning and computer models that can copy a bodies responce to a drug without the need for testing on any life form. Animal testing is morally wrong, any form of life should not have to go through the painful and inhumane lab testing.

Don't think for a second that those rat bastard jack rabbits wouldn't turn on you as soon as your guard go's down and strap electrodes to your nipples, I've seen it happen way to many times.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

Animals are Inferior to Humans, Both History and Genetics and Science show it. The Small difference in our Thyroid gland releases and Brain Development has proven what Darwin has called "survival of the Fittest" , and we are the fittest. Animals have no mind or intelligence as we define the terms. They attack us, kill us, and drain our resources. Of course this does not mean kill them all. Just Animal < Human, in Terms of Who gets the better treatment first.

in the 20th Centruy, we killed more humans per year than we killed animals per year, so see those shocking statistics. (Note: According to RJ Rummel, 200,000,000 - 400,000,000 Humans were killed by Other Humans in War, or Goverment Geonicide/ Mass Murder. This does not include items like Homicide, Car wrecks, Murders, Abortions, Diseases, or such)

 

[nkgupta80]

Animals have no mind or intelligence as we define the terms

Wrong, there are many animals that show intelligence and even reasoning capabilities...but otherwise, yes you're right. We are genetically superior in terms of mental capability and our adaptations.

 

[clone]

eff that.

i say torture the little punks until they squel in pain and bleed through their eyeballs.

throwing acorns at me like that...

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

Wrong, there are many animals that show intelligence and even reasoning capabilities...but otherwise, yes you're right. We are genetically superior in terms of mental capability and our adaptations.

Yes, Thanks for the Correction, I sometimes over generalize. Some do show signs of Intelligence and Reasoning, and yes we still are Genentically superior in mental capability than them as of this moment

 

[UtahBill]

I'd rather see our prison population used for voluntary testing, in exchange for commutted sentences, then continue to see the unneccessary, barbaric, and evil torture of animals.


Ummm, don't be saying that out in public too much. You never know when a paroled, violent offender might take offense.
Using animals to test makeup and other items not necessary for life is wrong, I can agree there. But if it is a cure for disease, it may be the only choice.
There are no computer models in any science that takes into account all variables, which is why the models are constantly being improved, upgraded, etc. The more we learn, the more we learn how little we know.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

Why use our Poor Prisoners? People do desreve Forgivness, and even if they are in there, they arent any different from their previous genetic state, so thus are still superior to animals. They are also more useful than animals, since animals cant operate human machines well, and have limited brain power, they wouldnt function well if the roles of Prisoner/workers and animals were switched. Its part of nature, we hunt them, they retreat, they hunt back, we fight them back.

Prisoners, if truly beyond reasonable help, insted of executing them, the most unreasonable thing to do is to execute them, for it destroys possible labor you could get from them, and workforce and such. If the only other option is execution, and they cant be maked into a good mental state, simply use the scientific brainwashing techniques upon them, and "brainwash" them in a good way. If we trust our gov. to execute thousands of people, trust them to fix thousands of people

 

[robin]

Of course the real holocaust on animals is what is happening in the wild which is the biggest mass extinction since the dinosaurs were wiped out, due to de forestation/loss of habitat & pollution.
I'm not inclined to support experiments on animals. All the pets I've ever owned have been nicer & had purer hearts than many of the people I've met.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Oh, jeez! NASA requires a full spectrum of testing, static, dynamic, acoustic, on the compoent, assembly, and flight ready configurations. That's after the a full series of finite element models, static and dynamic, and three sets of coupled loads analyses to study the effects of the launch vehicle on the bus and payload.

All this testing happens after full materials databases are established for all relevant properties including strength, elasticity, thermal properties, reflectivitiy, absorbtivity, outgassing, electrolytic, ductility, crystalographic, radiation sensitivity, and probably esthetic for just about everything, including plain old washers.

That's just for a simple thing like the Hubble Space telescope...oh, which failed on orbit...and someone wants to skip testing on something as complex as biological units?

I bet this guy takes a hit when he's got a ten and a jack and the dealer's showing a deuce.