Animal Testing

[omniscient]

Alrighty then, more controversy for you all, courtesy of myself.

Is the testing of drugs/medical procedures on animals wrong? Should it be stopped? Or does it help us create more cures for humans?

[TJ]

It is wrong. We dont need any more humans or medical advances until our birthrate has dropped to a level such that we are not replacing ourselves. Animals are cute and they make the world a better place.

[omniscient]

Originally posted by TigranJamharian It is wrong. We dont need any more humans or medical advances until our birthrate has dropped to a level such that we are not replacing ourselves. Animals are cute and they make the world a better place.

Tigran, but what if something happens to yourself? What if you develop a very serious medical condition sometime in the future and there are no cures because none of the medications have been approved because of limited testing. Then what would you say?

[fstkhnan]

Re: Animal Testing

Originally posted by omniscient Alrighty then, more controversy for you all, courtesy of myself.

Is the testing of drugs/medical procedures on animals wrong? Should it be stopped? Or does it help us create more cures for humans?

sounds pretty good to me! although I like animals, but I like humans better!

[surferarmo]

To ask if we should stop testing new potentially life saving medicines is to ask scientists to stop innovating possibly life saving drugs. Who are they going to test these on? Other people? I dont think so. What happens is that it comes down to value. Which is more valuable, a human or an animal? To us, the human is more valuable. The reason I think animal testing should be is because I wouldnt want to be tested on, and nor would I want anyone else to be tested on. I could not go in accordance with the rule of law in this circumstance. Not many people would test out the drug by voluntary action. It would be like a draft sort of. The government would force you to try these drugs, which would lead to socialized medical care!! ARGGGGGGGG

They do have people test some drugs now, but these drugs have been thoroughly tested on mice beforehand.

[Arvestaked]

I do not mind medical advances as long as they are improving quality of life but we do not need to live longer. I think however, that medical testing on animals is wrong and so is cosmetic testing. It is done because it is inexpensive. If we put less money in living longer and more money in curing symptons we would be able to conduct more humane testing. I started the animal rights club at my highschool for this stuff. Too bad it was a complete flop.

[jahannam]

Originally posted by Arvestaked If we put less money in living longer and more money in curing symptons we would be able to conduct more humane testing.

aren't we promoting "living longer" by "curing symptoms"?
lol
it's no wonder your cute little club didn't work.

[TJ]

Surfer you are very wrong there. I am surprised that you dont realize that it does not come down to values but to money. The scientist doesn't give a crap whether you live or die. He wants to get recognition and money for making a breakthrough medicine.

I will not attempt to stop development, it is natural you cant stop development because people always want to invent something new and get the upper hand on the other people. Think of it in terms of two armies, they will naturally try to develop the best weapons they can to get the upper hand and they will totally disregard values or anything else until they are in deep xxxx.

Deep xxxx is what we are getting into, this planet's population will double by 2050 to 12,000,000,000 people. We will not be able to support this population and that quality of life you are speaking of will be inexistable. By 2050 thousands of species will be extinct. There will be almost nowhere to go and enjoy yourself the world will be completely overcrowded. Id rather die early from a disease, something which my ancestors have done for thousands of years, than live in a world like that.

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by jahannam aren't we promoting "living longer" by "curing symptoms"?
lol
it's no wonder your cute little club didn't work.

:O)
No, that is not necessarily true. This is just an example for the sake of arguement: Alzheimer's Disease is deadly. But it is also painful and lasts a very long time. My idea would be, and, again, this is for the sake of arguement, that it would still kill you but it would not be as terrible a process. I want people to die because we need population control, but it does not have to be such an awful ordeal. Quality of life over length of life.

And my cute club failed because I was a lazy son of a motherless goat.

[Anonymouse]

Hmm, well this you can make an argument either pro or con, and the government relies on this difference and friction created by this issue, so then we have more government control. It's called 'divide and rule' and it doesn't just apply to animal testing.

Now animal testing has provided many benefits, as well as bad things. One can say "well who are we to tamper with their life?", ultimately we are humans and if humans are capable of enslaving humans, committing acts of genocide against humans, animals shouldn't be that hard.

Whatever side you side with, you're wrong and right, and ultimately I don't know about this, but I would definitely be against using government legislation to ban testing on animals since it is a socialistic ploy. If a private labaratory or pharmaceutical company wishes to delve into testing on animals, they should have every right to do so within their property since once again this is the basics of what property rights are.