|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Animal Testing...ethicial? or not.
Well i just did this debate in my schooling, about animal testing, ethicial or not. I myself am for animal testing, and i won the debate. but putting that aside, i want to see what the majoritiy of frihost thinks, is it ethicial or not? state facts and opinions 
i know this is a really touchy subject, and i mean not to offend anyone here.
Heres why im for it.
Becuase, alot of todays modern medicial breakthroughs have been caused because of animal testing. And if we stopped animal testing, it would slow modern medicial break throughs to a near if not a full halt.
prove me wrong if you so wish.
i know this is a really touchy subject, and i mean not to offend anyone here.
Heres why im for it.
Becuase, alot of todays modern medicial breakthroughs have been caused because of animal testing. And if we stopped animal testing, it would slow modern medicial break throughs to a near if not a full halt.
prove me wrong if you so wish
.I expect that to be general consensus though I disagree with it being ethical. I see it as wrong, no matter how large the good results, it is still wrong. Unfortunately as already mentioned, a lot of good can come from it so a rather necessary wrong.
For example, killing a man will save 10billion other men (& women & children etc). Most would kill him to save the others. In my opinion the right choice though killing him was still wrong, but a necessary wrong.
I'm interested in what other arguments can b brought into the debate. All I myself have encountered is differences in ratios of the need to do the right thing (leave the animals be), and the need to do the wrong thing but for the right reasons (test on animals).
For example, killing a man will save 10billion other men (& women & children etc). Most would kill him to save the others. In my opinion the right choice though killing him was still wrong, but a necessary wrong.
I'm interested in what other arguments can b brought into the debate. All I myself have encountered is differences in ratios of the need to do the right thing (leave the animals be), and the need to do the wrong thing but for the right reasons (test on animals).
| bloodeath wrote: |
| ....
Becuase, alot of todays modern medicial breakthroughs have been caused because of animal testing. And if we stopped animal testing, it would slow modern medicial break throughs to a near if not a full halt. |
Food for thought...Why is it a given that medical breakthroughs are a good thing? Everyone seems to just accept that extending human life is automatically good. However, extending the average life span affects over-population and has made many of the diseases of old age more common simply because more people are getting to ages not reached in the past. Economically, increasing the average lifespan seems to be putting a strain on the US Social Security system.
How about marriages? When the average lifespan was 40 yrs, 2 people only had to live together 25 years or so. Is the fact that a couple getting married at 25 today and facing twice that much time together, a part of the reason for the higher divorce rate?
Just something to think about.
Well... considering my own position (that would be my name), I'm strongly against Animal Testing!
On a serious note though, I agree with mathiaus's point:
There are degrees to which animal testing is acceptable - for example with research for critical lifesaving drugs. However, there are still some unethical tests done on animals for cosmetic products which I strongly oppose. It's a tough issue, and I'm just glad it's not my place to decide which drugs can be acceptably tested on animals and which can not.
On a serious note though, I agree with mathiaus's point:
| mathiaus wrote: |
| killing a man will save 10billion other men (& women & children etc). Most would kill him to save the others. In my opinion the right choice though killing him was still wrong, but a necessary wrong. |
There are degrees to which animal testing is acceptable - for example with research for critical lifesaving drugs. However, there are still some unethical tests done on animals for cosmetic products which I strongly oppose. It's a tough issue, and I'm just glad it's not my place to decide which drugs can be acceptably tested on animals and which can not.
Anyone have anything else to say?
I have my own opinion on this matter, whether animal testing or human sacrifice.
See, man has a conscious choice on whether he would give his life in order to save many more. Man has even given his life to save just 1 other. Any human being in their right mind would be a hero and give their life to save many many more. Then again man has also taken life needlessly.
As for animal testing, it may not be ethical as the animal has not made a conscious decision to give it's life for anything. But what can you say? They're animals and their natural instinct is to survive at all costs. But I'm pretty sure that if they were evolved to the level of human beings, they would probably feel the same way.
Although the following movie doesn't deal with animal testing, the moral of the story relates to this matter. In the movie Swordfish, John Travolta has to sacrifice the lives of many innocents to save the lives of countless more. It's really all a moral dilemma and will always be debated and no solid outcome will ever be made by either parties, at least in my opinion.
Also it depends on the reasons what the testing or sacrificing is done for. If it's to help the greater picture of saving lives, whether animal, plant, or human, then more would be willing to agree.
But of course if testing is done for unnecessary reasons, then the table would be turned.
and sorry I couldn't give an answer to your post as it was to vague for the reason animal testing would be done.
Last edited by xyberz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:01 am; edited 2 times in total
See, man has a conscious choice on whether he would give his life in order to save many more. Man has even given his life to save just 1 other. Any human being in their right mind would be a hero and give their life to save many many more. Then again man has also taken life needlessly.
As for animal testing, it may not be ethical as the animal has not made a conscious decision to give it's life for anything. But what can you say? They're animals and their natural instinct is to survive at all costs. But I'm pretty sure that if they were evolved to the level of human beings, they would probably feel the same way.
Although the following movie doesn't deal with animal testing, the moral of the story relates to this matter. In the movie Swordfish, John Travolta has to sacrifice the lives of many innocents to save the lives of countless more. It's really all a moral dilemma and will always be debated and no solid outcome will ever be made by either parties, at least in my opinion.
Also it depends on the reasons what the testing or sacrificing is done for. If it's to help the greater picture of saving lives, whether animal, plant, or human, then more would be willing to agree.
But of course if testing is done for unnecessary reasons, then the table would be turned.
and sorry I couldn't give an answer to your post as it was to vague for the reason animal testing would be done.
Last edited by xyberz on Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:01 am; edited 2 times in total
This is a really touchy issue for some people and hard to be wrong or right. I think testing on animals for cosmetic reasons are wrong, especially if it harms the animal mentally or physically. If the testing is done on animals as humanely as possible and for medical reasons, it still feels wrong, but is for a greater good.
EDIT: PS About human sacrifice, it's true more testing should be, and is, done on people too. For clinical reasons.
EDIT: PS About human sacrifice, it's true more testing should be, and is, done on people too. For clinical reasons.
This is something I really don't like about debates, these are one of those double face questions where both sides have equally powerful points.
I really have a hard time siding because:
a) We kill animals to eat such as beef and we do consider it ethical in a way, while in Indian and other countries where Hinduism is dominant, it's a big no no.
b) Animal testing is in a way ethical and non ethical, firstly, the animals do tend to suffer and I'd doubt anyone of us here would like to be injected with a uncurable disease and monitored, body checked and eventually dissected to study upclose the results. Secondly, Animals aren't really considered our equals, so the same principal of "dignified treatment" doesn't apply to them.
c) As much as I should be against the testing on animals, This is really the safest way to ensure our existence. If it weren't for animal testing, I think alot of humans would end up being dead due to the testing phase of a new drug.
so you can book me in the middle on this issue.
I really have a hard time siding because:
a) We kill animals to eat such as beef and we do consider it ethical in a way, while in Indian and other countries where Hinduism is dominant, it's a big no no.
b) Animal testing is in a way ethical and non ethical, firstly, the animals do tend to suffer and I'd doubt anyone of us here would like to be injected with a uncurable disease and monitored, body checked and eventually dissected to study upclose the results. Secondly, Animals aren't really considered our equals, so the same principal of "dignified treatment" doesn't apply to them.
c) As much as I should be against the testing on animals, This is really the safest way to ensure our existence. If it weren't for animal testing, I think alot of humans would end up being dead due to the testing phase of a new drug.
so you can book me in the middle on this issue.
Alkady i understand what your saying but there you go, bringing religion into this, religion is not adequite justificiation on to the grounds is it ethicial or not. regardless of what anyone says, religion is a belief not a fact.
I understand everyone has their own opinions on this, thats why i posted this, i want to see what everyone thinks of it. But as ive said before, i mean this arguement in MEDICIAL purposes only, cosmetic animal testing is just dumb. it has no point, but medicial research does, suppose it like this.
a doctor just made a supplement that you drink that is supposed to raise life expectancy of the average human by 10 years. you and 4 million other's drink this supplement and you all form 10 different types of cancer *exaggeration i know, but you get the point* you and 4 million other people die becuase the society thinks its inhumain to kill like 20 monkeys vs. 4,000,001 people.
If you look at it like this, it makes more sense on why animal testing is ethicial, becuase its not only for the benefit of medicial purposes, its also to stop epidemics from breaking out, and countless law suits on the company, becuase they couldnt test it first. and im sure no human in their right mind would put them selves in a testing clinic for something that big.
[b] Do i expect anyone to read this? no. its too long to keep most peoples attentions.[/b]
again, i say prove me wrong[/quote]
I understand everyone has their own opinions on this, thats why i posted this, i want to see what everyone thinks of it. But as ive said before, i mean this arguement in MEDICIAL purposes only, cosmetic animal testing is just dumb. it has no point, but medicial research does, suppose it like this.
a doctor just made a supplement that you drink that is supposed to raise life expectancy of the average human by 10 years. you and 4 million other's drink this supplement and you all form 10 different types of cancer *exaggeration i know, but you get the point* you and 4 million other people die becuase the society thinks its inhumain to kill like 20 monkeys vs. 4,000,001 people.
If you look at it like this, it makes more sense on why animal testing is ethicial, becuase its not only for the benefit of medicial purposes, its also to stop epidemics from breaking out, and countless law suits on the company, becuase they couldnt test it first. and im sure no human in their right mind would put them selves in a testing clinic for something that big.
[b] Do i expect anyone to read this? no. its too long to keep most peoples attentions.[/b]
again, i say prove me wrong[/quote]
| bloodeath wrote: |
| ....
again, i say prove me wrong |
Gee, If your whole argument is based on it helping to extend human life, I still think you need to prove that that is a good thing.
It's okay.
By testing pharmaceuticals on animals, you can save a lot of lives... See Wikipedia to see what's going wrong if you don't test them enough.
By testing pharmaceuticals on animals, you can save a lot of lives... See Wikipedia to see what's going wrong if you don't test them enough.
test on humans, itsmuch more logical then animals, as anuiamls arnt humans.
test on humans it makes sense
test on humans it makes sense
For medical purposes, yes. Although I don't see how you won a debate if you were as vague during it as you were here.
So your argument is that animals should die so we can extend our own lifespans? I don't see how that could either be seen as ethical or justifiable. Not only that but I don't see how it's practical or wanted.
Already society is having a hard time in coping with the length of time that people are living for and the medical costs of this advanced old age. Would you want to deteriorate for a further decade anyway?
It all depends upon the precise reasons the tests are being conducted as to whether or not it's acceptable. Not something as vague as what was stated in the opening post.
So your argument is that animals should die so we can extend our own lifespans? I don't see how that could either be seen as ethical or justifiable. Not only that but I don't see how it's practical or wanted.
Already society is having a hard time in coping with the length of time that people are living for and the medical costs of this advanced old age. Would you want to deteriorate for a further decade anyway?
It all depends upon the precise reasons the tests are being conducted as to whether or not it's acceptable. Not something as vague as what was stated in the opening post.
my arguement wasnt about extending life spans, it was about saving lifes, for like cancers and stuff, i used that example to explain to everyone how animal testing is right and how it can help out society
| bloodeath wrote: |
| my arguement wasnt about extending life spans, it was about saving lifes, for like cancers and stuff, i used that example to explain to everyone how animal testing is right and how it can help out society |
But isn't saving lives going to extend the lifespan? Can you step back just a bit and ask yourself why saving lives is a "good" thing? It is a natural assumption we tend to make, but, in the bigger picture, there are a lot of negative results from increasing lifespans. Until you address that, I don't think you have won your debate yet.
Why ... surely !
If eating animals is "ethical" in the first place ...
Antivenom or hamburger ... just different ways of exercising our position at the top of the food chain.
If eating animals is "ethical" in the first place ...
Antivenom or hamburger ... just different ways of exercising our position at the top of the food chain.
Of course it is ethical. If we are not going to do testing on animals we will require humans to test our products which I think would be much mor unethical.
Also it is the law of nature -- 'Survival of the fittest' , i.e. only those who can benefit themselves best will survive.
Also it is the law of nature -- 'Survival of the fittest' , i.e. only those who can benefit themselves best will survive.
At one time I was a strict vegan with strong animal rights beliefs (where I would have put the lives of innocent animals before the lives of any humans-we after all always have a choice) but that all changed over time and the lines between what is acceptable and what is not became so complex.
Anyway now that I am a married man with kids (and yes I now eat meat) I have to say that if it came to a choice between animal tresting and saving my son I am afraid there would be no choice - my son's life is more im;portant to me.
That is not to say that all animal testing is acceptable. This has been gone over in posts above so I won't rake over old ground.
Anyway now that I am a married man with kids (and yes I now eat meat) I have to say that if it came to a choice between animal tresting and saving my son I am afraid there would be no choice - my son's life is more im;portant to me.
That is not to say that all animal testing is acceptable. This has been gone over in posts above so I won't rake over old ground.
The fittest survive....
| herbert wrote: |
| The fittest survive.... |
And is this the basis for your personal ethics? I thought maybe we might fall back on something more than evolution to justify or actions.
The Captain makes good points, as always, and I agree that there is a lot of good that comes out of animal testing. But I do get upset at the way some of it is carried out, though. Many times ease of testing takes precedence over humane treatment. And don't even get me started on animal testing for cosmetics.
It's a complicated issue, of course. My only point was that, in the debate mentioned in the first post, extending the life span of humans is not necessarily a good thing, so it isn't a great argument.
As long as the animal does not suffer then infact it is tolerable only if it benefits and ends up with a success or a purpose.
Also if the animal is kept into a good health and, should the animal suffer, then for the animal to be sedated.
I know there is a lot of feelings on this but I reckon it can be good for the human race.
Genesis:
'you shall act as stewards to this earth'
Also if the animal is kept into a good health and, should the animal suffer, then for the animal to be sedated.
I know there is a lot of feelings on this but I reckon it can be good for the human race.
Genesis:
'you shall act as stewards to this earth'
Yes but if the test is made to minimize the pain and suffer. And only for medicine cosmetic is not OK so unimportant. But animal testing is very important for our medicine development.
| HoboPelican wrote: |
| But isn't saving lives going to extend the lifespan? Can you step back just a bit and ask yourself why saving lives is a "good" thing? It is a natural assumption we tend to make, but, in the bigger picture, there are a lot of negative results from increasing lifespans. Until you address that, I don't think you have won your debate yet. |
Not all drugs exist to extend life. Lots are merely to solve temporary problems such as headaches with pain killers. This doesn't seem as important but for someone in constant pain who needs strong medication all the time, that drug is vital. Doesn't extend their life, but makes what they have more comfortable (at the very least).
It always surprises me that humans are so arrogent to think their lives are worth more that the other animals on the planets. And that they think that the changes we make to the eart and its creatures don't have any effect on anything. Its all connected, we are all connected.
 |