HOME | DD
sabrelupe — Say No to Animal Testing Stamp
Published: 2009-10-26 15:38:02 +0000 UTC; Views: 2222; Favourites: 62; Downloads: 33
Redirect to original
Description
I think it's really cruel! Cutting up animals so that we can study what's inside them?!
I just pray there's a better way to study them! 
Related content
Comments: 59
"Cutting up animals so that we can study what's inside them?!"
You're referring to biological dissections? Those are usually done on deceased pig fetuses and other animals that died of natural causes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sorry, but in our country, they breed them in the school grounds, them not knowing that they'll just be used for those students' dissections when they grow up. Students are also often asked to provide their own live frogs so that the class can dissect them. Before, my highschool had live frogs, fishes and cats dissected in Science class after making them unconscious. It's sad, actually.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am still inclined to perpetuate my first point. Dissections should only or most of the part, should be done on animals that have died of natural causes, as it is the most humane option. But ultimately, anyone willing to become a surgeon whether to save the lives of animals or humans in the future, has to learn how the anatomy of different animals are comprised of and functions. And the most accurate way to study that is to cut up a real body and examine the pieces one by one. Just reading about it or watching it is not the same, it is something that must be experienced first hand to be fully understood and executed. Even those of us who want to study human anatomy has to learn by scrutinizing real human corpses.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm sorry and I mean no offense, but this train of thought is absolutely ridiculous. Roughly 90% of animal research is done with rodents, most of whom would end up living in sewers or trashcans had they not been picked up for scientific reasons. The other ten percent are made up of stray animals and pigs/cows whose only other option is the slaughterhouse. It is fairly obvious that they end up living much better, potentially longer lives than if they had been left in their "natural" environment. It is literally impossible to count how many lives animal research has saved, both human and animal. Some of the earliest known uses was the creation of veterinarian clinics in ancient Hindu culture. In more recent times, an insulin extract from the pancreas of a cow proved that it is possible to manage, if not cure, diabetes. This saves thousands of lives every year.
Antivivisectionists only think about the present. By performing experiments, observations, and other studies, we WILL be able to save millions of lives in the future. Besides what is "animal cruelty"? I consider cruelty to be purposeful suffering. In nearly every case of animal research, the animals are treated as humanely as possible, and in the unfortunate case that they do not live, scientists use anesthetics to give them a painless death. Very, very rarely is there any suffering involved.
By the way, your prayer may come true someday. Scientists have been working to make exact replicas of animals as well as humans in computer displays. It may sound simple, but there is more to it than just the visual. An organism is extremely complex, and it is very difficult to calibrate all the functions at once. The most logical thing is to do more research. If not, we can just let humans and animals alike suffer. And that IS cruel.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
AGREE! But why dont they cut up the animals when they die by THEMSELVES????
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Apparently they are 'hard to find'... not a good enough reason
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I know right! I'm so saddened that a lot had to die because of thes while most of the students will just play or make fun of the bodies >.<
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Even if it's in the name of science"
So even if the testing were to benifit animals specifically to stop and prevent future diseases pets AND wild animals go through on a daily basis, you'd still stay no?
Gee thanks, I'll be sure to tell all those poor dying cats and dogs in those pet hospitals they won't be getting their medicine because SOMEONE was being too sentimental because GOD FORBIN we can't sacrifice a few lives to same millions more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The belief of the "greater good" is actually only one school of moral thought. I believe in absolute morality, that every act we perform must be just in itself. That the greater good means nothing if we hurt some to save others. If everyone hurt some to save others then we would be stuck in an endless cycle, but if we reached a point where nobody hurt anyone there would be no need for the greater good.
I am willing to give my life if it would mean the only way of living is to let another die in my place. Self-sacrifice is the ultimate form of honor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe in absolute morality, that every act we perform must be just in itself.
I'm pretty sure subjective morality deals with the same concept but okay...I always find it funny when people try to argue objective morality for the simple reason that it is indefensible. What you base your objective morality on is, ironically, subjective, because not everyone is going to be on board with what you feel is objectively moral. For example: is murder objectively immoral? Then you'd need to restrain humans from harming each other like a mind altering drug or a 1984 esq society where everyone polices each other, eliminating free will. But is that objectively moral? Another problem with objective morality is that, for you to try and say "this is objectively wrong and this isn't" you first need to know everything there is to know about the universe (which is logically impossible) so even if we ignored the first point, you are still arguing a completely doomed argument because one cannot definitevely know everything about the universe.
That the greater good means nothing if we hurt some to save others.
Why is that? Was the panama canal meaningless because people died making it? Was the Civil or American revolutionary wars meaningless because blood was shed?
If everyone hurt some to save others then we would be stuck in an endless cycle,
Take a look at the last 100 years of human advancement in medical, economic and social growth and you'll see we aren't in a cycle. Things change, we don't remain constant.
but if we reached a point where nobody hurt anyone there would be no need for the greater good.
That is:
A) Unrealistic and
B) Impossible to achieve, unless you feel like messing with free will, which nobody would do such and immoral thing.
I am willing to give my life if it would mean the only way of living is to let another die in my place.
What, you mean do the one thing that only seconds ago you just condemned as "meaningless?" I hate to be admiral buzzkill, but it is fundamentally imposssible to go through life without killing something for your own gain. You need to kill to get food, you need to kill germs to prevent infection, you have to kill or BE killed.
Self-sacrifice is the ultimate form of honor.
Interesting, so you think the scientists that create these medicines so that you may live isn't honorable?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello GarudaX, thanks for the reply! I don’t think you quite understand what I mean by absolute morality and endless cycles. What I believe is that we should act by what is moral at the present point in time, without thinking of consequence. When building a canal, or fighting a war, we look at our present acts. If I’m working to build something I’m not intent on causing loss of life, any loss of life is accidental. War is different, and a better example, because we are causing loss of life directly. War is also hard to define. I will only agree with war when one is fighting an enemy who has caused wrong and attacked you, that way it is defence and you are upholding what is just. In that sense, taking life is justified as it is not for a greater cause, but to prevent death to yourself and to a good cause. Self-defence.
I don’t mean an endless cycle as in we never advance, what I mean is a cycle of perpetuating violence. Say someone is holding 100 people hostage, and say they will let them go if you kill someone they hate. To kill for that reason is for a greater good (take one life to save one hundred), but as I believe in absolute morality I would refuse. This is because I judge my current action (murder) to be immoral, regardless of the one hundred who die because I refused to act. I judge this based on action and inaction, on one hand my direct action causes loss of life, on the other my inaction causes loss of life. Therefore we can see the reason for an endless cycle. The violence in this case is caused by action. If I am inactive, I do not kill, though others may die. But how do the others die? From the action of the hostage taker. But if he believed in absolute morality he wouldn’t kill them, because he would judge his current action (murder) to be wrong rather than looking at what is greater for himself (the elimination of his enemy). You claim it is unrealistic to think this way, perhaps so, but in my mind to use that as an excuse is to use “But others have killed before” as an excuse for homicide.
We differentiate between natural and unnatural killing. Killing accidentally and killing purposefully. Killing for a reason and killing without a reason. We kill for food, as all animals do, but this is different from something such as animal testing. Animal testing came about because our minds evolved to be able to comprehend science, and thus to create experimentation. Therefore I believe that we have a duty to think morally and condemn such a practice, as we must govern our scientific abilities with honor rather than thinking only of progress. I don’t think progress is justifiable of we had to torture to get it.
I think scientists that torture is dishonorable. Those scientists who give their lives by volunteering to be tested upon so that others may live is, however, a form of honor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What I believe is that we should act by what is moral at the present point in time, without thinking of consequence.
I don't follow. Are you saying we should just do things while ignoring what's around us?
I will only agree with war when one is fighting an enemy who has caused wrong and attacked you, that way it is defence and you are upholding what is just. In that sense, taking life is justified as it is not for a greater cause, but to prevent death to yourself and to a good cause. Self-defence.
Ok, then you agree that murder is subjectively right and wrong depending upon context.
I don’t mean an endless cycle as in we never advance, what I mean is a cycle of perpetuating violence. Say someone is holding 100 people hostage, and say they will let them go if you kill someone they hate. To kill for that reason is for a greater good (take one life to save one hundred), but as I believe in absolute morality I would refuse.
Ok.
I judge this based on action and inaction, on one hand my direct action causes loss of life, on the other my inaction causes loss of life. Therefore we can see the reason for an endless cycle.
But isn't that a false dichotomy? Are those the only two options? Death of one or death of a hundred? I can think of a number of things you could do to solve this: You could call the police for one thing. There is only one guy and one gun, he can't follow you around, so there is no way for him to monitor you.
You claim it is unrealistic to think this way, perhaps so, but in my mind to use that as an excuse is to use “But others have killed before” as an excuse for homicide.
But I already gave my reasons as to why it's unrealistic: In order to solve this issue one must either alter the hostage takers mind (like a drug) and alter society completely to avoid complications like this, but this raises the issue of is it morally just to infringe on someone's free will in order to achieve peace?
Therefore I believe that we have a duty to think morally and condemn such a practice, as we must govern our scientific abilities with honor rather than thinking only of progress. I don’t think progress is justifiable of we had to torture to get it.
Animal testing isn't necessarily torture, that's debatable. First off, animal testing is a preliminary test trial before we test on humans, this is to prevent a bad drug from entering the market. All animals are protected under the Federal Animal Welfare act except mice for some reason. Animal testing is actually a last resort method of testing when a convincing case is made that it is necessary to do so. So scientists, and the government actually do care about these things. They use alternatives before they test on animals. The scientific community always strives to improve on their methods and animal testing isn't a permanent method.
I don't know what you want from science but what do you want them to do? Sit on their hands and wait for better methods? That could take years. We can't just wait, we don't have time to wait, that's why I think it is unrealistic. Time doesn't stop for us to think.
I think scientists that torture is dishonorable. Those scientists who give their lives by volunteering to be tested upon so that others may live is, however, a form of honor.
They are sacrificing their time in this life so other life may live in the future, and I mean all life not just humans. They aren't being forced against their will to test on animals, they chose this career because they want to help. They realise the world is crap and want to fix it while realising they may have to resort to such methods if it is deemed necessary.
I don't think it is honorable to test these things on scientists. If the test kills them, who will continue the research?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I’m saying we should do things based on the moral situation as it happens, not based on the greater good. Everything is subjective, yes, and murder in war is different from murder at home, self-defence is different from manslaughter. I believe that sometimes we must make decisions that may have no clear right or wrong answer, but we must try our best to choose a result that is moral.
You’re right that there are other solutions to the puzzle, it was more a philosophical hypothetical rather than that those were the only answers. As I said above, we must do our best to choose a result that is moral. I do not believe we should alter other minds, but I do believe we should educate people to be moral. That is why I can’t agree with animal testing, because it’s not doing our best to choose a result that is moral without looking at a bigger picture. If we look only to the present, we see that we must kill. Killing is immoral, so we can’t do it. The only way to justify animal testing is to claim a greater good, but greater good is subjective and does not exist in my culture (as I said, we do no wrong no matter the cost. If millions die because we refuse to do wrong then so be it.)
I understand that in many cases the animals are kept as humanely as possible, but not it is only ‘as possible’ it can never be truly humane. They are being tested upon and are inevitably going to die. Yes, I would rather we sit on our hands and wait for better methods, it is what we do. Why? Because when people are in hospital and told the only chance for a cure comes from killing an animal, they refuse, they say “No! I will die with my honor rather than live because blood was spilled in my name.”
The scientists are choosing to kill, choosing to harm, this is unforgivable. Their belief in fixing the world is admirable, but their methods are not. I believe that one must ALWAYS do what is best in that moment of time (we must not kill), not for what might be (but we could save thousands!), because what truly matters is our actions and not the results.
Self-sacrifice, humans can willingly give their life for the tests. That is honorable because you give your life to save others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I believe that sometimes we must make decisions that may have no clear right or wrong answer, but we must try our best to choose a result that is moral.
I still don't understand. How can you make a moral decision without thinking about it first?
As I said above, we must do our best to choose a result that is moral. I do not believe we should alter other minds, but I do believe we should educate people to be moral.
Ok.
That is why I can’t agree with animal testing, because it’s not doing our best to choose a result that is moral without looking at a bigger picture. If we look only to the present, we see that we must kill.
Wait what? Doing things for the greater good IS looking at the bigger picture. It's focusing on the present to ensure a better future. By doing things now, it gives us the incentive to look for better methods.
I understand that in many cases the animals are kept as humanely as possible, but not it is only ‘as possible’ it can never be truly humane.
truly humane? Humane isn't a concrete thing. Humane is defined by what we deem as humane based off of the current knowledge of the universe we have. To say Animal testing is inhumane would be implying something better already exists and we should be using that instead. One needs something to compare one thing to another in order to deem it humane of not. We currently have no other method that works just as well, if not better, and as long as the animals are treated with dignity and respect, then it is humane. INHUMANE animal testing would be treating the animals poorly, and although some companies do treat them poorly, this does not make animal testing as a whole immoral or inhumane.
They are being tested upon and are inevitably going to die.
As apposed to the wild where they die anyway, at least here they died for a purpose other than to be someone's lunch.
Yes, I would rather we sit on our hands and wait for better methods, it is what we do. Why? Because when people are in hospital and told the only chance for a cure comes from killing an animal,
I'm going to stop you right there for just one moment. Doctors don't inform their patients how the medicine was obtained and many people are either unaware, or are misinformed about animal testing. Furthermore we do NOT "wait for better methods." Did cavemen wait for matches to be invented before playig with flint? Did nomad tribes wait for guns to be invented before we used spears because "we must have better, humane methods?" Hell no! We didn't care then, we aren't going to care now. Your suggestions are ridiculous, not to mention self-refuting: How do you expect humanity to find better methods if we don't test the ones we have now? How would humanity have invented the gun if we didn't test the effectivness of the spear?
they refuse, they say “No! I will die with my honor rather than live because blood was spilled in my name.”
Ok this is the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Imagine a 3 year old stricken with lukemia. Now imagine that same three year old shouting to the heavens: "Welp, my time has come, time to die." No child would say such rubbish. Old people maybe (because they have nothing left to lose) but kids? No one would accept death at a yound age. That child has alot to live for, a future. Compare this to the mouse being tested on which has a life span of 3 years (if it's lucky) and won't contribute to society and won't make any difference if it died. Maybe you'll say that child is just one in a million, like the mouse, but do you honestly think that a mouse has more rights than the dying child?
The scientists are choosing to kill, choosing to harm, this is unforgivable. Their belief in fixing the world is admirable, but their methods are not.
Here's a suggestion: Why don't you find a better method? Or volunteer for testing? Who's stopping you?
I believe that one must ALWAYS do what is best in that moment of time (we must not kill), not for what might be (but we could save thousands!), because what truly matters is our actions and not the results.
But here's the thing, this is what YOU think. Yours is an opinion, not an actual fact. No, what truly matters is the preservation of the species. Having this foolish since of pride and "honor" has never gotten us anywhere in life. Seriously, who are you trying to impress?
Self-sacrifice, humans can willingly give their life for the tests. That is honorable because you give your life to save others.
No it's called counter-productive. Killing the guy who has all the knowledge of what he's doing is stupid. I don't care about doind the right thing because it's "honorable" I care about doing the right thing because it's SMART.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We try to think out our actions and do what is best. That’s exactly what I meant, that the greater good only looks at the bigger picture. Whereas we look at the small picture, what is happening now. We don’t care what could happen; only what we do.
We have computer simulations, stem cell research, and human testing that perform all the things animal testing does. The alternatives do exist; they are simply not explored by countries because animal testing is cheaper or easier. That doesn’t mean that it’s right.
It doesn’t matter IF they die in the wild, that is INACTION not ACTION. As I explained earlier, we believe that we should be judged on our actions not our inactions. If an animal dies in the wild it is through inaction on our part, if we kill that animal in an experiment that is an action.
Playing with flint is not a good analogy for killing, and using spears as part of warfare is, as I said, difficult to define. My suggestions are not ridiculous; you are simply taking them out of context. You haven’t met many 3 year olds from my country have you? Besides, you’re completely ignoring my arguments once again. I don’t care who has the best life ahead of them, who will live 3 years and who will live 80. No, I don’t believe a mouse has more rights than a dying child, again you’re arguing from a rhetoric I already said I am not part of. What I care about is ACTION vs. INACTION. I will not KILL a life to save a life. If the child can be saved without killing I will do everything in my power to save them, I would give my life to help that child through human experimentation if I could. Why don’t I volunteer for testing? I have, but I’m told I’m too young, and there is always a large waiting list.
And yes, mine is a cultural opinion that is engrained in the mind of me and others in my society. Just as yours is in yours. We believe in individual good, you believe in greater good. That’s my whole point. In my society animal testing is immoral because our culture is based on absolute morality rather than what is for the greater good.
Your final statements are proving the point here. We don’t believe in what is most productive, or the preservation of the species. We believe that honor, justice, and morality are far more important than life itself. That is why we are so willing to give our lives to preserve this cause. We always do what is right, even if it means we die. You only do what is right if it means it is productive.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We try to think out our actions and do what is best. That’s exactly what I meant, that the greater good only looks at the bigger picture.
And how is that a bad thing?
We have computer simulations,
Of protein chains, yeah that really helps.
stem cell research
Which requires teasting...derp.
and human testing that perform all the things animal testing does. The alternatives do exist; they are simply not explored by countries because animal testing is cheaper or easier. That doesn’t mean that it’s right.
"Animal testing isn't necessarily torture, that's debatable. First off, animal testing is a preliminary test trial before we test on humans, this is to prevent a bad drug from entering the market. All animals are protected under the Federal Animal Welfare act except mice for some reason. Animal testing is actually a last resort method of testing when a convincing case is made that it is necessary to do so. So scientists, and the government actually do care about these things. They use alternatives before they test on animals. The scientific community always strives to improve on their methods and animal testing isn't a permanent method.
[link] What part of that did you not understand?
It doesn’t matter IF they die in the wild, that is INACTION not ACTION. As I explained earlier, we believe that we should be judged on our actions not our inactions. If an animal dies in the wild it is through inaction on our part, if we kill that animal in an experiment that is an action.
What exactly is the difference between killing an animal for food and killing for a cure, they operate under the same goal except one is long term while the other is short term.
Playing with flint is not a good analogy for killing, and using spears as part of warfare is, as I said, difficult to define.
Yeah and animal testing is not, and shall not be different.
You haven’t met many 3 year olds from my country have you?
What country would that be? China?
What I care about is ACTION vs. INACTION. I will not KILL a life to save a life.
Then don't.
And yes, mine is a cultural opinion that is engrained in the mind of me and others in my society. Just as yours is in yours. We believe in individual good, you believe in greater good. That’s my whole point. In my society animal testing is immoral because our culture is based on absolute morality rather than what is for the greater good.
Fine, then you keep your morals on your side of the internet and I'll have mine, sound fair?
Your final statements are proving the point here. We don’t believe in what is most productive, or the preservation of the species. We believe that honor, justice, and morality are far more important than life itself.
And honor is subjective to you know? By your logic it is objectively moral to diesembowel yourself if you shame your family (in certain cultures).
We always do what is right, even if it means we die. You only do what is right if it means it is productive.
I fight for many things. I love my fellow man and refuse to allow them to live a life of suffering. I do what I can to minimise the pain by any means.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, stem cell research requires testing. I never said testing was wrong, I said the forceful use of unwilling subjects is wrong. Perhaps your computer technology is not as advanced as other countries then, because there is a lot of software that can simulate many parts of the body and brain. If animal testing were a last resort then why does your country have cosmetic testing? And why are many of the experiments done in your country to confirm things we already know?
But again, you’re arguing from rhetoric. I already said I am arguing not from animal welfare point of view, but from a moral point of view. It doesn’t matter how kind the animals are kept, what matters is the ACTION of testing.
The difference between killing an animal for food and killing for a cure is threefold. Firstly, killing for food is natural, we do this to sustain the cycle of predator and prey, we understand that without predators and prey the natural cycle would be upset. This is part of the natural process, and only done for sustenance. The second reason is that animal experiments are part of science, as science was developed by the human mind we believe we have a duty to guard science with moral thought. It is not part of the natural cycle, it is not required for us to live (some may die, but without food everything dies), and it was invented by man. Therefore we believe that all scientific process should be judged under moral principles, in this case the action/inaction principle. Thirdly, and finally, because we have a choice between testing on ourselves and testing on animals for progress, we have a moral duty not to test on animals. This comes from the principle of self-sacrifice, that in order to succeed as a species we must be willing to give our lives for progress. If we are unwilling to do this, and instead resort to testing on a lesser creature, then we have dishonored ourselves. We should live on our own, willing sacrifices, not the unwilling blood of another species.
But that is my point. My culture believes that suffering can be a part of life, and if the only way we can overcome this is by testing on an unwilling subject then we shame ourselves. For a species to live because another species died is shameful, if we truly want progress we should be willing to let ourselves be tested upon. If we can’t do that, then we don’t deserve a cure, because we are cowards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I said the forceful use of unwilling subjects is wrong.
This is where your problem lies. The animals being tested on aren't "unwilling" as they cannot make the morally conscience decision on whether or not they want to be tested on.
Perhaps your computer technology is not as advanced as other countries then, because there is a lot of software that can simulate many parts of the body and brain.
Care to provide an example?
If animal testing were a last resort then why does your country have cosmetic testing?
Cosmetic testing is currently an issue under debate in the US. By 2014, Cosmetic testing will be banned in Europe. As for where I stand on the issue: I do not support it as it has nothing to do with the scientific process.
And why are many of the experiments done in your country to confirm things we already know?
As I said above, I do not support testing that is either redundant or has nothing to do with the scientific advancement, but if I had a guess, I'd say it's because with viruses and diseases constantly evolving, these things need constant monitoring.
But again, you’re arguing from rhetoric. I already said I am arguing not from animal welfare point of view, but from a moral point of view. It doesn’t matter how kind the animals are kept, what matters is the ACTION of testing.
Yes I know, we've already established our viewpoints here, so let's just drop this point.
Firstly, killing for food is natural, we do this to sustain the cycle of predator and prey, we understand that without predators and prey the natural cycle would be upset. This is part of the natural process, and only done for sustenance.
Ok I have no problems with this, but what does this have to do with animal testing?
The second reason is that animal experiments are part of science, as science was developed by the human mind we believe we have a duty to guard science with moral thought.
No problems here.
It is not part of the natural cycle,
Ehhhh. no I disagree. The point of life is to survive for as long as possible on a hostile planet. We use science as a means of having a better understanding so that we, the human race, can thrive together, and survive together. All animals do this, we just have a more complex understanding of it. We use tools to survive, they use tools to survive. Our knowledge drives our morality. I wonder, would you care about animal testing if we didn't know animals could feel pain? We most certiantly would not have found that out if we never interacted with them. Truth cannot exist if there is no knowledge to back it up.
it is not required for us to live (some may die, but without food everything dies), and it was invented by man.
Of course it isn't necessary to live. But then, neither is a computer, or clothes, or the roof over your head, and an abundance of things we created. All of the things I listed here aren't necessary, invented by man, and are potentially environmentally harmful, what's your point?
Therefore we believe that all scientific process should be judged under moral principles, in this case the action/inaction principle.
Ok, by your logic you should be out of the house, in a forest, naked, and consuming raw fish.
Thirdly, and finally, because we have a choice between testing on ourselves and testing on animals for progress, we have a moral duty not to test on animals. This comes from the principle of self-sacrifice, that in order to succeed as a species we must be willing to give our lives for progress.
You really aren't paying attention are you? I've already explained, on several occasions, that scientists that sacrifice themselves to continue research is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE, and we do test on humans, both in the form of cadavers and voluntary testing. You can find this out from a simple Google search.
If we are unwilling to do this, and instead resort to testing on a lesser creature, then we have dishonored ourselves.
Argumentum ad Nauseum. Also, see subjective reasoning as well as the definition of honor.
We should live on our own, willing sacrifices, not the unwilling blood of another species.
If we had lived on our own, without animal interaction we would have died a long time ago.
But that is my point. My culture believes that suffering can be a part of life, and if the only way we can overcome this is by testing on an unwilling subject then we shame ourselves.
That's fine, and you're free to believe that. My culture on the other hand has a different mindset.
For a species to live because another species died is shameful,
Then why do you still exist? over 90% species that ever existed are now extinct, we will probably go extinct someday too.
if we truly want progress we should be willing to let ourselves be tested upon.
See above.
If we can’t do that, then we don’t deserve a cure, because we are cowards.
No, humans can make moral decisions and it would be immoral to test on a person who has full knowledge and the right to not be tested on without permission. I don't support animal testing as a permanent method, and I can assure you we will one day grow out of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
BULL CRAP
If a new pediatric medicine could be created by killing and dissecting children, would you support that? How about a cure for arthritis made from the guts of old people? Would that be okay?
Your argument falls pathetically flat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow... This is a really old comment.
You're comparing fruit flies and mice to children? That's pretty bad man. :I
It saves more lives in the long run. Especially since animal testing has done quite a bit. More than any animal rights activist will tell you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I thought I’d comment here quickly and say something. As above I explained the principles I live by. Because I’m honorable I don’t differentiate between species. Killing a mouse or a child is judged on the action itself. I kill something to save myself. The action itself defines me, not the result or what I kill, but the act. The act stays the same, no matter whom or what I kill, at the end of the day I still took a life to save my own. This is selfish, and dishonorable.
I don’t care how many lives it would save, even if it saved millions. Why? Because I would hate to be part of a species that only survived because we killed other lesser creatures to save ourselves. An entire species built on the blood of another. That to me is a fate I would not wish to live through. We must succeed as a species because we have the honor to give our own life for progress, to sacrifice ourselves willingly so that others may live. If we can’t even do that then I don’t believe we even deserve a cure. Selfishness should not be rewarded.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wanting to live IS selfish, your entire existence is a selfish one. You have to kill a completely innocent creature in order to live, be it animal or plant, all of which have just as much of a right to live as you do.
Do you take pain pills of any kind? a majority of our medicine was made through animal testing. We use medicine everyday for ourselves and the animals we love. The rabbies vaccines was found through animal testing. Do you think it is selfish that we found a cure to a disease that saves non-human animals? And that's just the tip of the iceberg. We have done more with this reasearch than you can imagine.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wanting life is selfish, just as wanting gold is selfish, it’s how we act that defines us. I do not value life; I value truth, justice, and honor. I would give life for these values, as life is not as valuable to me as they are. That is what makes a man.
Whether I take pain pills or use the rabies vaccine is no more an argument than saying we shouldn’t use hypothermia or neurosurgery techniques because the Nazis invented them. Whether we test on humans or animals to find a treatment does not change the fact that said treatment exists. I’m certain that things such as pain pills and neurosurgery would have been invented even if we had not tested on animals or humans.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As far as I'm concerned: killing an animal for food and killing an animal for medicine are the exact same reason. You are doing it to survive.
And it is different. The third Reich no longer exists so using the tools they invented wouldn't mean supporting nazis.
On the other hand, purchasing goods while animal testing is still around gives companies incentive to continue.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We don’t purchase goods that fund animal testing. All of our drugs are non-animal tested. Killing an animal for food is very different. It is part of the natural process, and does not involve locking that animal in a laboratory and testing on it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We purchase goods that CAME from animal testing is my point.
There is no such thing as an "unnatural killing."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That’s not quite true, we do not. Before you speak of things that have been tested on animals where you are, remember they were not here. As a good comparison imagine if someone found a new drug and tortured humans with it, can we now say that any use of this drug is related to torture? No. Just because someone used it for that or tested it like that does not mean it can’t be used again.
If we use a drug we do not use animal tested science, we test it ourselves. Many of our drugs are rediscovered or found separately by us, to say that once one country discovers a drug and tests it everyone else has to use their source is not correct. I am certain that the pain killers you speak about that were tested on animals were also discovered in other countries and not tested on animals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm pretty sure most if not all modern medicines came from animal testing. US, the UK, Australia, Switzerland, ect. all use animal testing are amoung the biggest producers of medicine.
If we use a drug we do not use animal tested science, we test it ourselves.
After testing on animals.
Many of our drugs are rediscovered or found separately by us, to say that once one country discovers a drug and tests it everyone else has to use their source is not correct.
Where? By who? With what? 90% of medical research comes from animal testing. If we stopped using animal research you would be effectively shutting down an overwhelming majority of medical progress for centuries.
Here's an example: Scientists recently discovered that naked mole rats are immune to cancer. If we can figure out what causes this and if we can replicate it, we can eradicate one of the biggest killers in the world since the black death. How in the world do you think we would have discovered this without touching the animals?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have to get these things off my chest once in awhile.
No, I'm not. You specifically mentioned dogs and cats, but I'm talking about rodents, mustelids, pigs, and monkeys, too. Your argument was that,and I quote, it's better to " sacrifice a few lives to same millions more". Why are animals, who we KNOW can think and feel pain, worth any less than people? I don't know if you're religious, but as a Christian I know that God gave animals to us to care for, not to inflict pointless suffering on. I'm not talking about ALL animal testing, but the VAST majority of testers keep their subjects in HORRIBLE conditions and for no good reason refuse to administer pain medication or even euthanize animals that are clearly suffering. THAT is what we are against.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well... 95% of testing is conducted on Mice. :I
The other 5 is cats dogs, rats, and other animals. We have both human and animal testing, which go hand in hand. Animal testing is a preliminary test trial. You see, the process to which a medicine is made is very long, usually spanning a decade or more. Animal testing is done first to insure the medicine is safe for human testing, which both are ongoing in America. Yes we know they feel pain, and? People suffer everyday. :I Animal testing goes on for about 1 to 3 years. Human testing lasts like 6 years.
I'm athiest, I don't partake in any religion. 
"I'm not talking about ALL animal testing, but the VAST majority of testers keep their subjects in HORRIBLE conditions and for no good reason refuse to administer pain medication or even euthanize animals that are clearly suffering. THAT is what we are against."
I think the PeTA propaganda is going to your head. See the Federal Animal Welfare Act is made to make sure such abuse doesn't occur in testing labs. Just because what you may have seen in those videos are horrible, and boy is it horrible, does not mean this is going on in Every testing lab, or even a majority. 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, that not ALL places are like that, but the majority of them have at least some issues of unnecessary abuse or neglect. You can tell yourself what you want, and believe all the cover-up crap that scientists dish out, but it doesn't change the truth. All you're doing is deluding yourself, hardening your heart, and robbing the animals of a voice to speak up for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"True, that not ALL places are like that, but the majority of them have at least some issues of unnecessary abuse or neglect."
I don't think you get it do you? Scientists can't mistreat test subjects. It screws up their test results. The Federal Animal Welfare Act works both ways to ensure not only animals don't get mistreated in testing labs, but it also prevents flubbed test results due to poor treatment. It is simply unaccptable. If you honestly think the majority is still mistreated after what I just said, then I have no hope for you.
"You can tell yourself what you want, and believe all the cover-up crap that scientists dish out, but it doesn't change the truth."
LOL, what truth? What evidence do you have that shows animals are being treated terribly in testing labs? Note: Your argument is invalid is you respond with youtube clips and anything related to that. What reason do scientists have to lie? I'm dying to hear your answer.
"All you're doing is deluding yourself"
Says the person who can't give me objective evidence.
"hardening your heart"
Who do you care about more: A 10 year old with Cancer, or a mouse? Go.
"and robbing the animals of a voice to speak up for them."
This sentence doesn't even make any sense. How can a mouse speak out against testing if it doesn't even know what it is?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, the contrary is true. Scientists claim the reason they refuse to use anesthesia for painful tests is that the added stuff in the animals' systems will screw up their test results.
Are you kidding? Like I'd actually believe anything from YouTube? You need to read Animals Make Us Human and Some We Love, Some We Hate, and Some We Eat. Both very informative books with arguments from either sides. The All Animals and ASPCA magazines are as well. I've gleaned lost of information from all these sources. There, that covers the so-called lack of objective evidence.
Both. Experiments on the mouse to save the kid can be done humanely. They just aren't more than 50% of the time.
I mean YOUR voice. YOU could speak up for them. And while a mouse may not be able to speak English, it can feel pain just like you. And I repeat, you can tell yourself what you want, and believe all the cover-up crap that scientists dish out, but it doesn't change the truth. And all your twisted opinions won't change my mind. I see now that you didn't actually want to argue a cause, you just wanted to fight. This is a waste of my precious time. You'll forgive me when I block you and spend time talking to someone who can actually make a difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Actually, the contrary is true. Scientists claim the reason they refuse to use anesthesia for painful tests is that the added stuff in the animals' systems will screw up their test results."
[citation needed]
"You need to read Animals Make Us Human and Some We Love, Some We Hate, and Some We Eat. Both very informative books with arguments from either sides. The All Animals and ASPCA magazines are as well. I've gleaned lost of information from all these sources. There, that covers the so-called lack of objective evidence."
Nope. Those are still subjective forms of evidence. I'm talking about something on the lines of legal grounds: Court cases. Bring me some fucking court cases, then you will have some legal grounds. If what you're saying is true, then bring me as many court cases as you can find that violates Animal welfare laws.
"Both. Experiments on the mouse to save the kid can be done humanely. They just aren't more than 50% of the time."
In this case you can only choose one.
"I mean YOUR voice. YOU could speak up for them. And while a mouse may not be able to speak English, it can feel pain just like you. And I repeat, you can tell yourself what you want, and believe all the cover-up crap that scientists dish out, but it doesn't change the truth. And all your twisted opinions won't change my mind. I see now that you didn't actually want to argue a cause, you just wanted to fight. This is a waste of my precious time. You'll forgive me when I block you and spend time talking to someone who can actually make a difference."
And I'm sorry but without objective facts I won't believe you. Hey, you're the one who jumped on my old comment. Fuck you if you can't take an opposing opinion. 
Also, I don't appreciate you blocking me, I never did anything to warrant such action. It just makes you look like an absolute dick, and a pussy. I was going to be very fair and honest and I would have believed you if you were objective, but it seems you can't even be assed to do that, so kiss my ass you jerk.
One more thing, don't even bother reporting me, I have full right to go around your block as you have invited me to continue chat when you replied.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I agree to some percentage. Like you said, cutting frogs up for school classes is unnecessary indeed. But would you really like not use any medicine from now on?! Because quite each medicine is tested on animals before it is sold for a good reason. Think about it when you get something against your next cold or when you see a doctor. You want the medicine to work properly and not to harm you.
It's quite tragic that there is no real way out of this. If you do want makeup and medicine that does not make you ill, you need to test it on someone else before.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
in child development class, they were talking about making bunnies and rats misscariage for no reason becasue they wanted to see what would happen. I HATE SCIENTISTS
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh man~ That's just sad and pathetic..:C
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thanks! I'm glad you like it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
YES!
Stamps like this make me regret that I don't have a paid account.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Hehe, I guess I feel the same way!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Me too!
I love the message this stamp gives
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, this needs to be repeated over and over and over...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you. I really do want to help them but I don't know how.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I learned recently that the industry and the laboratories had used 12 000 000 animals for testing (80% of rodents), just for 2007, just in European Union ! It's dramatic and hallucinatory
Then your nice stamp is welcome
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, gosh! That number is big! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yes, respect for animals has a long way to go
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>