NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just read an article from a magazine about animal testing. It is called "Wronged". I saw this in the table of contents and thought, Oh, good! (I am very into animal rights.) I flipped to the page happily, but was then rather confused upon reading the subtitle: "Science does not deserve to be the target of protests, whatever you think of animal rights".

Whoa. Can you say subjective?

The article proceeded to fiercely defend animal testing, and basically denounce animal rights activists (referred to primarily as "those extremists who think it is just fine to inflict pain on an animal giving it life to science—so long as he is a member of Homo sapiens".) It claims science should be the last target of protesting: "For one thing, there is rarely an alternative to using animals in research. If there were, scientists would grasp it, because animal research is expensive and encircled by regulations." Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair? I personally think we as a race should, if we are truly committed, be prepared to allow a few of our number to sacrifice themselves to science. If we're not willing to use ourselves, we have no right to take it out on other species who not only will not benefit, but can not give or withhold consent and have no clue what it's for.

The last paragraph of the article I found the most offensive:

And science is, by and large, kind to its animals. The couple of million (mainly rats and mice) that die in Britain's laboratories are far better looked-after and far more humanely killed than the billion or so (mainly chickens) on Britain's farms .... animal welfare in Britain has just taken a step backwards.

Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane? Since war became civil, I suppose. How can you kill something humanely? Whether you're slowly removing his/her lungs with a protractor, or giving him/her a pain-free, quick, sedated euthanasia in their sleep, you are still essentially taking a life. Of course, the latter may be a more humane method, but the object is to kill, which is, to put it plainly, not humane (except in the case of someone who is in extreme pain with no chance of recovery and requests it, but that's a whole different rant).

To quote Wesley, "So you put down your rock and I'll put down my sword and we'll just kill each other like civilized people?"

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)

*runs screaming through the thread, swinging steaks around overhead* YAY MEAT! YAY MEAT! YAY!!!!!!

*calms down* The vegetarian lifestyle is not for me. But I certainly don't judge people on the basis of diet.

I'm a barbarian. I don't pretend to be a sympathetic person. I also wouldn't describe myself as a heartless person. Animal testing will produce medicines and treatments that will save human lives and prolong my life. Not testing on animals would greatly prolong the medical research process.

I came to terms with that. I like animals. I really do. But I like me far more. :)

Science shouldn't be immune from protest, especially when it comes to animal rights. There's got to be some kind of pressure to prevent animal testing from going out of control and new humaner methods being developed.

<snip>
Interesting to say the least but ultimately I am for testing on animals. There are some situations that computer tests can't compair to the real thing. And I think when they say killed humanely they mean without pain ie being left to die a long and painful death in some warehouse.

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)

Also you have not lived until you've eaten a baby seal sandwich. You don't know what your missing. :rolleyes:

I have just read an article from a magazine about animal testing. It is called "Wronged". I saw this in the table of contents and thought, Oh, good! (I am very into animal rights.) I flipped to the page happily, but was then rather confused upon reading the subtitle: "Science does not deserve to be the target of protests, whatever you think of animal rights".

Whoa. Can you say subjective?

The article proceeded to fiercely defend animal testing, and basically denounce animal rights activists (referred to primarily as "those extremists who think it is just fine to inflict pain on an animal giving it life to science—so long as he is a member of Homo sapiens".) It claims science should be the last target of protesting: "For one thing, there is rarely an alternative to using animals in research. If there were, scientists would grasp it, because animal research is expensive and encircled by regulations." Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair? I personally think we as a race should, if we are truly committed, be prepared to allow a few of our number to sacrifice themselves to science. If we're not willing to use ourselves, we have no right to take it out on other species who not only will not benefit, but can not give or withhold consent and have no clue what it's for.

The last paragraph of the article I found the most offensive:



Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane? Since war became civil, I suppose. How can you kill something humanely? Whether you're slowly removing his/her lungs with a protractor, or giving him/her a pain-free, quick, sedated euthanasia in their sleep, you are still essentially taking a life. Of course, the latter may be a more humane method, but the object is to kill, which is, to put it plainly, not humane (except in the case of someone who is in extreme pain with no chance of recovery and requests it, but that's a whole different rant).

To quote Wesley, "So you put down your rock and I'll put down my sword and we'll just kill each other like civilized people?"

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)
Why not just find some homeless people, explain the risks, give them a little bit of cash, get them to sign a disclaimer, and test stuff on them.
And another point...was the article on animal testing, or was it the magazine?

And do you actually know what free range means with chickens? It's a relative thing - battery chickens are given bugger all space to live in, free range chickens are usually given an outdoor space with about twice as much area. In a lot of cases, free range may just mean 'outside'.

Oh, and I would put myself forward for testing, so long as I was made aware of the risks involved.

I have just read an article from a magazine about animal testing. It is called "Wronged". I saw this in the table of contents and thought, Oh, good! (I am very into animal rights.) I flipped to the page happily, but was then rather confused upon reading the subtitle: "Science does not deserve to be the target of protests, whatever you think of animal rights".

Whoa. Can you say subjective?

The article proceeded to fiercely defend animal testing, and basically denounce animal rights activists (referred to primarily as "those extremists who think it is just fine to inflict pain on an animal giving it life to science—so long as he is a member of Homo sapiens".) It claims science should be the last target of protesting: "For one thing, there is rarely an alternative to using animals in research. If there were, scientists would grasp it, because animal research is expensive and encircled by regulations." Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair? I personally think we as a race should, if we are truly committed, be prepared to allow a few of our number to sacrifice themselves to science. If we're not willing to use ourselves, we have no right to take it out on other species who not only will not benefit, but can not give or withhold consent and have no clue what it's for.

Most testing would be fatal to us. Thats why we use animal testing. We're also horrible lab animals, don't breed fast enough. Saying that we use homo sapiens as a lab animal is stupid, really. Scientists don't like using animals for testing, we just don't have much of a choice.

The last paragraph of the article I found the most offensive:



Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane? Since war became civil, I suppose. How can you kill something humanely? Whether you're slowly removing his/her lungs with a protractor, or giving him/her a pain-free, quick, sedated euthanasia in their sleep, you are still essentially taking a life. Of course, the latter may be a more humane method, but the object is to kill, which is, to put it plainly, not humane (except in the case of someone who is in extreme pain with no chance of recovery and requests it, but that's a whole different rant).

To quote Wesley, "So you put down your rock and I'll put down my sword and we'll just kill each other like civilized people?"

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)
Most likely the same way that one kills a human. Nature isn't humane at all. Get over it, animals die, and they most likely die more horribly in nature then in a lab. You are aware of what the protestors did at that facility correct? I say we use them as test subjects. We can use you too, I'm sure you'd be glad to apply to save a mouse.

Why not just find some homeless people, explain the risks, give them a little bit of cash, get them to sign a disclaimer, and test stuff on them.
And another point...was the article on animal testing, or was it the magazine?

And do you actually know what free range means with chickens? It's a relative thing - battery chickens are given bugger all space to live in, free range chickens are usually given an outdoor space with about twice as much area. In a lot of cases, free range may just mean 'outside'.
Economist.


EVEN if they deplore the activists' use of intimidation and violence, animal lovers everywhere can surely rejoice today. Darley Oaks, a British farm whose guinea pigs are used in scientific experiments, has finally said it will abandon the grisly trade and return to good, honest, old-fashioned farming.

Six relentless years of anonymous threats, of home-made explosives and booby-traps, and the gruesome theft of the farmer's dead mother-in-law from her grave are enough to revolt anyone—especially the family at Darley Oaks. But who could be against saving animals and who could deny that over the years something good has come from their campaign against the animal industry?

The honest answer ought to be pretty much everyone—at least anyone who takes medicine. That so many sympathise with the aims of the violent few attests to the thicket of contradictions and confusion that assists those extremists who think it is just fine to inflict pain on an animal giving its life to science—so long as he is a member of Homo sapiens.

Woolly thinking

People have good reason to care about the welfare of animals. Ever since the Enlightenment, their treatment has been seen as a measure of mankind's humanity. It is no coincidence that William Wilberforce and Sir Thomas Foxwell Buxton, two leaders of the movement to abolish the slave trade, helped found the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in the 1820s. An increasing number of people go further: mankind has a duty not to cause pain to animals that have the capacity to suffer. Both views have led people gradually to extend treatment once reserved for mankind to other species.

But when everyday lives are measured against such principles, they are fraught with contradictions. Those who would never dream of caging their cats and dogs guzzle bacon and eggs from ghastly factory farms. The abattoir and the cattle truck are secret places safely hidden from the meat-eater's gaze and the child's story book. Plenty of people who denounce the fur-trade (much of which is from farmed animals) quite happily wear leather (also from farmed animals).

Perhaps the inconsistency is understandable. After hundreds of years of thinking about it, people cannot agree on a system of rights for each other, so the ground is bound to get shakier still when animals are included. The trouble is that confusion and contradiction open the way to the extremist. And because scientific research is remote from most people's lives, it is particularly vulnerable to their campaigns.

In fact, science should be the last target, wherever you draw the boundaries of animal welfare. For one thing, there is rarely an alternative to using animals in research. If there were, scientists would grasp it, because animal research is expensive and encircled by regulations (see article). Animal research is also for a higher purpose than a full belly or an elegant outfit. The world needs new medicines and surgical procedures just as it needs the unknowable fruits of pure research.

And science is, by and large, kind to its animals. The couple of million (mainly rats and mice) that die in Britain's laboratories are far better looked-after and far more humanely killed than the billion or so (mainly chickens) on Britain's farms. Indeed, if Darley Oaks makes up its loss of guinea pigs with turkeys or dairy cows, you can be fairly sure animal welfare in Britain has just taken a step backwards.


and


Britain is the best place in the world to be a laboratory animal, but the worst place to breed one

AROUND 30 years ago, the Hall family diversified from dairy and sheep farming into breeding guinea pigs for use in research laboratories. Six years ago, they became the target of animal rights activists. They have been abandoned by frightened suppliers and employees and lost their entire dairy herd, which was slaughtered when their tormentors made it impossible for the milk to be collected. The nadir came last year, when activists stole the body of Gladys Hammond, mother-in-law of one of the Hall brothers, from its grave in the churchyard at Yoxall in Staffordshire.

This week, the family gave up its struggle, saying that by the end of 2005 they would stop breeding guinea pigs at Darley Oaks Farm. They hope this will at last lead to the return of Mrs Hammond's remains.

The brutality of the Halls' treatment at the hands of animal rights campaigners would never be suffered by one of their animals inside a British laboratory. Live animal research is more tightly regulated in Britain than anywhere else in the world. A 20-year-old law covering vertebrate animals (plus one species of octopus) determines that animal breeders and researchers must be licensed and are inspected by government officials on average ten times a year, often unannounced.

Before an experiment, the research laboratory must show it has the facilities and staff to care for the animals; the researcher must show he has the skills and training; and there must be no alternative to using animals—with the likely benefits of the science outweighing any animal suffering.

Under these rules, around 2.75m scientific procedures have been carried out each year since 2000 on animals in Britain. Roughly 85% involved rats, mice and other rodents, and only around 3% dogs, cats, monkeys and other large mammals. The great majority caused at most minor pain or distress, alleviated wherever necessary with painkillers or anaesthetic; only 2% caused severe pain or distress. Most animals are killed (painlessly) when the research they are being used for is finished.

The experimenters even have their own regulator, charged with minimising the future use of animals via the “three Rs”—reduction, refinement and replacement. Researchers must seek more efficient methods that involve fewer animals, look for more humane procedures and work towards developing completely new forms of experimentation that do not call for animals. But not all live animal research can be replaced. Although surgical techniques can sometimes be learned by practising on cadavers, microsurgery requiring careful control of bleeding needs living animals.

Thanks to the three Rs, animal research had been falling from a peak of about 5.5m procedures a year in the 1970s, but recently numbers have stabilised, as genetically modified animals have started to be used to model human disease. That is a cause for celebration—a sign of more worthwhile science.

One disease under study is cystic fibrosis, which is caused by one of around 200 defects on a single gene. It has no satisfactory treatment, and sufferers cannot expect to live much past 30. Researchers can now create mice with the same genetic defects and test potential treatments on them, or study the progress of the disease. This research could not be carried out on tissue cultures, as the disease affects several organs, and nor could it be done on humans—at least, not without killing them to study the results.

That amounts to a strong case for animal experimentation, you might think. Certainly 700 scientists and doctors sought to argue as much in a declaration this week. But it doesn't take very many extremists to make life unpleasant. The police reckon that around 20 fanatics are responsible for most of the damage. Their tactics have evolved since 1982, when the Animal Rights Militia sent letter bombs to the leaders of the three main political parties. They now realise that terrorism proper is unlikely to help their cause. So they have developed ways of scaring people that stop short of threatening lives—damaging property by pouring paint on cars, say, or sending fake bombs to laboratory workers. The owner of a fuel-delivery service that supplied Darley Oaks Farm found that his neighbours had received leaflets denouncing him as a paedophile.

They mostly persecute small companies, seeing them as softer targets than multinationals. Once a pharmaceutical firm, say, has built a research laboratory in Britain, it is unlikely to pull out altogether. But it may decide case by case to move some of its research abroad, leaving its investment in Britain to wither on the vine.

Although the extremists do not enjoy much support, many people share their aims. In part that's because animal rights extremists fought hard for a ban on foxhunting, which was widely supported. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, a group that acts as a rallying point for extremists, sets up stalls in shopping malls with pictures of mangled animals and petitions to sign calling for an end to research using animals. In 2002 a MORI poll for the Coalition for Medical Progress showed that 67% of people were either very or fairly concerned about the use of animals in research—though almost everyone accepts that research is sometimes needed.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that reducing animal suffering is not the activists' main concern. If it is, they have made a poor choice of target. Domesticated cats alone kill around 300m animals each year in Britain, including around 80m mice, 15m rabbits and 3m rats. And forcing British suppliers of laboratory animals to close will lead to more animals being imported, with an increase in suffering.

Since extremists first targeted small animal-breeders, in 1997, they have closed down four outfits, breeding dogs, cats, monkeys and rabbits. The longest any of the companies lasted was two years; the most recent, perhaps because it had seen what others had endured, capitulated after only a week.

The Halls held out at Darley Oaks Farm for six years. In that sense their resistance has been a triumph, albeit a dismal one.

I am all for animal testing in fact I'm all for science in general (meaning why not create a turtle you can milk) people+science= dark ages

I heard somewhere that insects could be used instead of animals for testing.not only will fewer poeple care about millions of insects getting experimented on but it's cheaper.

Surely this is a good idea,yes?

people+science= dark ages


do you mean people-science?or were youe being sarcastic?

As I once read, if animals weren't supposed to be killed and eaten, why do they taste so good?

As I once read, if animals weren't supposed to be killed and eaten, why do they taste so good?What's that got to do with animal testing?

AROUND 30 years ago, the Hall family diversified from dairy and sheep farming into breeding guinea pigs for use in research laboratories. Six years ago, they became the target of animal rights activists. They have been abandoned by frightened suppliers and employees and lost their entire dairy herd, which was slaughtered when their tormentors made it impossible for the milk to be collected. The nadir came last year, when activists stole the body of Gladys Hammond, mother-in-law of one of the Hall brothers, from its grave in the churchyard at Yoxall in Staffordshire.

This week, the family gave up its struggle, saying that by the end of 2005 they would stop breeding guinea pigs at Darley Oaks Farm. They hope this will at last lead to the return of Mrs Hammond's remains.

Holy **** that is horrible.

What's that got to do with animal testing?
Sorry, that has more to do with the Vegetarian thing.

Sorry, but the first thing that you wil have to do is convince me why an animal is equal to a human. Secondly, while I think that there is something a bit bizarre about pouring shampoo in a rabbit's eye to check if it gets irritated, when it comes to medicine, animal experimentation is really the only route to go. The alternative is having a lot more people die from medication testing, which is definately something to be avoided if possible.

Im all for testing testing on animals. Otherwise how would i get my nice hair shampoo? Atleast there being treated better than they would be in wild. Prosters. If it were up to me they be forced to watch hungrey men eat meat filled sandwhiches.

Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane? Since war became civil, I suppose. How can you kill something humanely? Whether you're slowly removing his/her lungs with a protractor, or giving him/her a pain-free, quick, sedated euthanasia in their sleep, you are still essentially taking a life. Of course, the latter may be a more humane method, but the object is to kill, which is, to put it plainly, not humane (except in the case of someone who is in extreme pain with no chance of recovery and requests it, but that's a whole different rant).

Okay first, I was a vegan for 6 years, so I understand the hurt you feel when animals are mistreated, but they aren't really being mistreated in most animal testing. There are very tough regulations, at least here in America.

Second, millions upon millions of mice are being beheaded in American homes each year by dollar store mouse traps. Shouldn't you really be ranting about them? Trying to get those off the market?

I found a more humane mouse trap that I use on my property now, no decapitation, no poison, it just electrocutes them, I am sure you don't like that idea either, I don't, until I remember that if one of those mice gets to my kids that they could get rabies, then I feel justified of ridding my property of the little rodents.

oh and why do you eat chicken and fish at all if you are so proanimal? Do you know how they kill chickens? I do, I grew up on a farm, that is why I quit eating meat.
Oh and check all your food vegetable soup has beef in it, chips have beef stock, and even some kinds of candy have animal products (meaning animals died to make it) and animal byproducts ( milk, eggs)
I used to get very angry with "vegetarians" who still ate meat, but not so much anymore because well I eat meat now too, and let me tell ya, it's good.

??????do you mean people-science?

no because people killed all the scientists

people+organized religeon-reason=dead scientists-go nads

Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane?
Doesn't actually just say 'humanely killed', does it? It says 'far more humanely killed' ie. in a manner that is more humane. And the manner in which the vast majority of animals used in scientific research die is far more humane than what the article compares it to - battery farmed chickens, animals that live in possibly the worst conditions of any living creature on the planet. Especially when the only 'freedom' for them is being taken out of their cage (which may be approx. 1 cubic foot, and which they share with maybe 10-20 other chickens), and slaughtered. Pretty much anything is more humane than that, don't you think?

Sorry, but the first thing that you wil have to do is convince me why an animal is equal to a human. Secondly, while I think that there is something a bit bizarre about pouring shampoo in a rabbit's eye to check if it gets irritated, when it comes to medicine, animal experimentation is really the only route to go. The alternative is having a lot more people die from medication testing, which is definately something to be avoided if possible.Thing is, if there weren't as much protest against it, there would be no reason why science wouldn't look for more humane methods. For instance a couple things no longer need to be tested on rats or mice, but can be tested on fertilized chicken eggs. There's a slight difference there...

Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair?

One: it would make more sense for those that care about saving the animals to do this, as opposed to the people that don't give a shit. Animal rights protestors should sacrifice themselves to save a couple puppies, if they really care so much. Two: the whole "nice hair" thing is irrelevant, we're talking about using animals instead of people for scientific purposes, not asthetic purposes.

I personally think we as a race should, if we are truly committed, be prepared to allow a few of our number to sacrifice themselves to science. If we're not willing to use ourselves, we have no right to take it out on other species who not only will not benefit, but can not give or withhold consent and have no clue what it's for.

I disagree. If you, as a protestor, are truly committed, sacrifice yourself to save a rat.

Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane?

It's the manner in which they are killed, which I'm sure you understand, but feel like bringing up anyway because you seem the uppity type. Humanely killed simply means quickly and with minimal pain as opposed to slowly torturing to death.

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)

So... tempted... to quote... Ron White...

If animal testing is important to make sure humans don't get maimed or killed by products and medicines that we need I'm all for it. Normaly I'm in favor of treating animals humanely, but when animal rights people start hollering about how cruel it is to test on animals I start wishing that children's chemistry sets came with little white lab mice and syringes so kids can be cruel to them just to piss off the protestors.

(Just a note: I am mostly vegetarian, the exception being chicken or fish that is completely organic, free-range, and dolphin-safe, and before eating I apologize inwardly for eating what was once a living creature. I do not wear real leather or fur or use any product tested on animals.)

I would never have guessed you were a vegetarian :rolleyes:
One of my friends was into organic farming, he had free range chickens that didn't last long. The Hawks and eagles quickly discovered these tasty little treats. They were popping 'em off like a 6 year old with a box of marshmellow peeps. He called it quits when he came out of the house to find a weasel chewing the head off his pet qoose. Keep buying that free range chicken (the birds of prey love it). I confess to finding the futility of his good heartedness rather amusing and boy couldn't those hawks make them feathers fly.

Thing is, if there weren't as much protest against it, there would be no reason why science wouldn't look for more humane methods. For instance a couple things no longer need to be tested on rats or mice, but can be tested on fertilized chicken eggs. There's a slight difference there...

Seems to me that using chicken eggs would be a lot cheaper than mice, too. Given that you have to feed mice. So maybe protest is the only reason that they switched?

... and basically denounce animal rights activists (referred to primarily as "those extremists who think it is just fine to inflict pain on an animal giving it life to science—so long as he is a member of Homo sapiens".) Compare:
Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair?

I was going to say something....

It claims science should be the last target of protesting: "For one thing, there is rarely an alternative to using animals in research. If there were, scientists would grasp it, because animal research is expensive and encircled by regulations." Why don't those of us who insist upon it volunteer themselves to be poked, prodded, caged, bred, and given something that could potentially kill you so that some random person can have nice hair? I personally think we as a race should, if we are truly committed, be prepared to allow a few of our number to sacrifice themselves to science. If we're not willing to use ourselves, we have no right to take it out on other species who not only will not benefit,
Bull. How do you think medicines for your putty kat came to be?

but can not give or withhold consent and have no clue what it's for.
If your so against it, stop taking any and all medicines.

Under these rules, around 2.75m scientific procedures have been carried out each year since 2000 on animals in Britain. Roughly 85% involved rats, mice and other rodents, and only around 3% dogs, cats, monkeys and other large mammals. The great majority caused at most minor pain or distress, alleviated wherever necessary with painkillers or anaesthetic; only 2% caused severe pain or distress. Most animals are killed (painlessly) when the research they are being used for is finished.
I can but hope that they are only killed because it would be unnecessarily cruel to keep them alive once the research is complete. What animals is the other 12% of testing done on? Anyone?

I would never have guessed you were a vegetarian :rolleyes:
One of my friends was into organic farming, he had free range chickens that didn't last long. The Hawks and eagles quickly discovered these tasty little treats. They were popping 'em off like a 6 year old with a box of marshmellow peeps. He called it quits when he came out of the house to find a weasel chewing the head off his pet qoose. Keep buying that free range chicken (the birds of prey love it). I confess to finding the futility of his good heartedness rather amusing and boy couldn't those hawks make them feathers fly.

Just goes to show that nature dishes out stuff a lot worse than people most of the time.

If animal testing is important to make sure humans don't get maimed or killed by products and medicines that we need I'm all for it. Normaly I'm in favor of treating animals humanely, but when animal rights people start hollering about how cruel it is to test on animals I start wishing that children's chemistry sets came with little white lab mice and syringes so kids can be cruel to them just to piss off the protestors.

ROFL! I almost want to put this in my signature.

Just goes to show that nature dishes out stuff a lot worse than people most of the time.
Because birds eating their prey (which, in case you weren't aware, they need to do in order to stay alive) is worse than implanting cancerous cells (for example) into a mouse...

If animal testing is important to make sure humans don't get maimed or killed by products and medicines that we need I'm all for it. Normaly I'm in favor of treating animals humanely, but when animal rights people start hollering about how cruel it is to test on animals I start wishing that children's chemistry sets came with little white lab mice and syringes so kids can be cruel to them just to piss off the protestors.

That was what big sisters were for. :D

unless its unnecessarliy cruel or idiotic (lets test the effects of poking a monkeys brain) i see nothing wrong with it

Seems to me that using chicken eggs would be a lot cheaper than mice, too. Given that you have to feed mice. So maybe protest is the only reason that they switched?What protest does is maintain the idea that you should be looking for ways to reduce the suffering of animals while doing research. I doubt anyone would have bothered discovering a way to use eggs for the same tests if there was no such ideal.

Because birds eating their prey (which, in case you weren't aware, they need to do in order to stay alive) is worse than implanting cancerous cells (for example) into a mouse...

That's why I said most of the time. And I still that giving mice cancer is justifed to test medication.

What protest does is maintain the idea that you should be looking for ways to reduce the suffering of animals while doing research. I doubt anyone would have bothered discovering a way to use eggs for the same tests if there was no such ideal.

Fair enough point, but the protestors should still be seeking better treatment of animals, not complete release of them.

I thought I would say that... Frankly, I dissagree with PETA Pushers on princible...

Listen, if the cure to AIDs or Cancer, or even the common cold could be sped up just a little bit via the use of animal testing, it is justified. When you compare the amount of people who die YEARLY or Cancer or the Flu, to the ammount of animals who would have to go thru with testing, there is a dramatic difference. Unfortunately, its as much a number game as a whats good for us game.


We should have a Technocracy BTW: Woot 'Technocracy'!

Fair enough point, but the protestors should still be seeking better treatment of animals, not complete release of them.Not the protesters, but the mainstream movement against animal testing. There always need to be a couple people voicing just how much they disagree with things that are morally controversial.

I've read that more animals on their way to experimentation die from starvation before they have the opportunity to meet Mr. Scientist. If that is true, then that is an appaling waste. I disagree with using animals for cosmetic or Columbia-esque experiments. For diseases, can't we isolate them and discover what destroys them? Malfunctions within the human body are more difficult to take a side on. A rabbit may not be the best representation of the human system, yet animal experiments have (for the most part) helped humans in the past (although I remember reading an article about something that cured rabbits but worsened the health of humans).
In regards to vegetarianism, I've been a vegetarian since age nine. I was vegan for two years, but it became a hinderance to my health and an annoyance to anyone I ate with.
I have mixed feelings about PETA. Their campaigns intend to unsettle, offend, or upset to enlighten, and it is disgraceful how they bring in ditsy celebrities to advocate for their cause. They make vegetarians, who I find generally warm and intelligent (just like many meat-eaters), look dumb. Despite their desire to shock, PETA happens to be a very powerful organization.

A common misconseption about vegetarians is that they all try to push their opinions on others. A certain number of us do that, but I try not to. Eat all the steak you can, I don't really care. As far as hunters go, they cause the animal they kill far less suffering than a factory farm does. So, and this may sound bizzarre coming from a long-time vegetarian, I'd prefer if you killed the animal yourself!

I really don't see how a rabbit or a rat can be accurate examples of the pricesses going on in the human body. The only way we can be sure that medicine works for people is to use human subjects. I'm sure some death row inmates would gladly donate their bodies to science if it meant not getting Mr. Suirtyneedleofpoison. As for cosmetics and shampoos, slap on some warnings and tell people to call the poison control if they were stupid enough to drink the shampoo. I mean we sent monkies into space without most of us knowing if they came back safely or were simply left up there to starve, suffocate, or burn up in re-entry. Humans torture animals because we feel like we are somehow superior to them. That's why some people starve their dogs and shoot deer.

Man, if the Topic Creator hates experimenting on Animals, I don't think he would like my ideas of live experimentations on Humans...

I really don't see how a rabbit or a rat can be accurate examples of the pricesses going on in the human body. The only way we can be sure that medicine works for people is to use human subjects.

Exactly.

Better yet, we get some PVS patients, and perform gruesome experiments, that will be cool, and kill them in the bloody disgusting process.

Then, we can show videos of the Live Human Dissection, to little kids!

I think Vivisection on animals for cosmetic reasons is already illegal in the U.K, which I think is great because for me hurting an animal for a vain reason like that is disgusting. But I can't say I am against animal testing for medical reasons, because I am pretty sure metal screws to fix broken hips was tested on monkeys before it got to me. I owe the fact I can walk to that testing.

Don't get me wrong, as a full vegetarian I would prefer it not to happen, but it is an neccessary evil. I do, however, think that animals are a poor choice for test medicenes because there have been mistakes (that morning sickness drug that cause babies to be limbless comes to mind, thamine or something like that) but as I said, testing hip replacements is ok with me.

I don't condone animal extremists at all, digging up a dead woman? No way! I am just happy to protest *quietly* in my own way by not eating meat and hoping that a better way of testing eventually happens.

The last paragraph of the article I found the most offensive:

And science is, by and large, kind to its animals. The couple of million (mainly rats and mice) that die in Britain's laboratories are far better looked-after and far more humanely killed than the billion or so (mainly chickens) on Britain's farms .... animal welfare in Britain has just taken a step backwards.

Humanely killed. Humanely killed. Isn't that an oxymoron? Since when is killing humane? Since war became civil, I suppose. How can you kill something humanely? Whether you're slowly removing his/her lungs with a protractor, or giving him/her a pain-free, quick, sedated euthanasia in their sleep, you are still essentially taking a life. Of course, the latter may be a more humane method, but the object is to kill, which is, to put it plainly, not humane (except in the case of someone who is in extreme pain with no chance of recovery and requests it, but that's a whole different rant).


Um... have you ever seen a regular household rat-trap? I honestly beleive them when they say that the animals in laboratories die less painful than that.

I really don't see how a rabbit or a rat can be accurate examples of the pricesses going on in the human body. The only way we can be sure that medicine works for people is to use human subjects. I'm sure some death row inmates would gladly donate their bodies to science if it meant not getting Mr. Suirtyneedleofpoison. As for cosmetics and shampoos, slap on some warnings and tell people to call the poison control if they were stupid enough to drink the shampoo. I mean we sent monkies into space without most of us knowing if they came back safely or were simply left up there to starve, suffocate, or burn up in re-entry. Humans torture animals because we feel like we are somehow superior to them. That's why some people starve their dogs and shoot deer.
Mostly because tumors work the same way. Do remember we have the same basic protein/genetic structure, and our systems work in the same basic way. What kills a mouse will most likely kill us as well.

While I believe that animal testing should only be used when there is no other viable alternative. Criminals could be used instead of animals in many cases, but they simply don't exist in the numbers required.

I am not a vegetarian, mainly because I really like meat, but it occurs to me that many (not all) vegetarians, and especially vegans, seem to think that if everyone stopped eating meat, then all the cows and pigs and whatnot would just happily frollic in meadows and live long lives. The fact is that if no one ate meat then very soon there would be no cows, and no pigs. Like the animals used in vivisection, they are bred for that specific purpose. Without it there is no reason to breed them.

Animals are better off dying than never living.

although i agree with you on the subject that animal testing should be removed, i agree for completely different reasones.
vegetarianism is a vile and horrible practice. the plants are allive to, that is discrimination against the plants.
it is perfectly fine when someone doesn't like meat or is allergic to it, but not eating meat just to save the life of the animal while disregarding plants-that is purely sickening.
the farming of an animal or a plant is also horrible too, in a farm, they all die. in the wild, the ones that are best adapted to survive do. in a farm, they are mistreated and such, in the wild, they have the ability to live to the best of their potential. all things that are forced to be killed should be honoured and respected. Never kill without cause or live without purpose.

although i agree with you on the subject that animal testing should be removed, i agree for completely different reasones.
vegetarianism is a vile and horrible practice. the plants are allive to, that is discrimination against the plants.
it is perfectly fine when someone doesn't like meat or is allergic to it, but not eating meat just to save the life of the animal while disregarding plants-that is purely sickening.
the farming of an animal or a plant is also horrible too, in a farm, they all die. in the wild, the ones that are best adapted to survive do. in a farm, they are mistreated and such, in the wild, they have the ability to live to the best of their potential. all things that are forced to be killed should be honoured and respected. Never kill without cause or live without purpose.

having grown up on a farm I can tell you that the farmer who mistreats his animals isn't a very good farmer at all. Healthy animals make money, sick, abused animals do not. It may be hard to believe but farmers really do like animals and most would never do something to make them suffer (other than selling them to slaughter) you really have to like animals to spend from 3am to 10 pm taking care of them for 40-50 years.

having grown up on a farm I can tell you that the farmer who mistreats his animals isn't a very good farmer at all. Healthy animals make money, sick, abused animals do not. It may be hard to believe but farmers really do like animals and most would never do something to make them suffer (other than selling them to slaughter) you really have to like animals to spend from 3am to 10 pm taking care of them for 40-50 years.
i've worked on quite a few farms, i do agree that they are quite good on the most part, but there does exist some bad ones(not the majority)(do you remember the news about 8 years ago when there was a farm and the people that worked there were poking the eyes out of the cows for fun when the cows were going to be slaughtered? or some of the farms where the chickens are kept in small cages and are specifically bred to lay eggs?) in all farms it get's in the way of natural evolution, the animals or plants that are naturally superior to the others never get any advantage over ones that aren't and things like that.

i've worked on quite a few farms, i do agree that they are quite good on the most part, but there does exist some bad ones(not the majority)(do you remember the news about 8 years ago when there was a farm and the people that worked there were poking the eyes out of the cows for fun when the cows were going to be slaughtered? or some of the farms where the chickens are kept in small cages and are specifically bred to lay eggs?) in all farms it get's in the way of natural evolution, the animals or plants that are naturally superior to the others never get any advantage over ones that aren't and things like that.
it would be a travesty to shut down all farms because some ( not the majority ) are staffed by psychopaths. My entire family would be out of work not to mention how it would affect the way america eats. (most people can't just hunt down thier own meat)

although i agree with you on the subject that animal testing should be removed, i agree for completely different reasones.
vegetarianism is a vile and horrible practice. the plants are allive to, that is discrimination against the plants.
it is perfectly fine when someone doesn't like meat or is allergic to it, but not eating meat just to save the life of the animal while disregarding plants-that is purely sickening.
Many vegetarians actually don't eat meat because of the waste of resources involved in the process of farming the animals. To raise one beef cow from calf to slaughterhouse requires somewhere in the region of 2000 gallons of water a year - that's 6 gallons of water a year for every pound of beef produced (the average cow produces 310 pounds of meat). 2000 gallons of water can produce far more plant food.
Also, 40% of the world's grain harvest goes on feeding livestock. 40%. 3 people die every 10 seconds from starvation. If, say, just 10% of the world's grain went towards livestock production, that figure would be closer to 3 every minute. Six times less people would die from hunger if livestock production was cut by 75%.
One more thing - the 1.25 billion cattle on earth would provide every human on earth just 120 pounds of meat each. That's enough to sustain one person for around a month, if they ate just beef. Not much, really.

Animals are better off dying than never living.

I disagree, because the lives that the animals live in factory farms is so miserable that I think it would have been better for them to have never lived.

Also, although I think that other poster was trolling for responses from veggies, plants are not sentient and cannot feel pain. Plus the fruit is usually the part that gets eaten, which would drop off and rot anyway so we are just using the wastage.

Also, I used to be a meat eater and I like the taste of meat, I just hate the way animals get treated and killed in factory farms (not the little family farms which are much nicer) I miss chicken a lot because that was my favourite, but I don't think me liking meat should be an excuse for me to be a hypocrite by eating it.