Animal Testing: Right or Wrong?

This issue has recently come to my attention due to the fact of a recent school video (which, btw, I think is wrong for the future...)

Testing human products on animals (hair sprays, medicines and pills, etc.) is one side of the issue. This means that a product YOU buy may or has been tested on an animal (in case you care, some of these companies are: Iams, Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, and the EPA). Usually, to get the product you may be using, an animal or a group of animals have had to suffer through death and/or extreme pain. Just for an advertising plan or product.

Now, you may be thinking, "Yeah, that's pretty uncool, but it's not like we're taking their souls or rights away from them, right?" Wrong. We may not be taking their souls from them, but we're definetly stealing some basic humane rights. Perfect example below (source: article on stopanimaltesting.com, not whole article)...

Oregon State University (OSU) and Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) are spending millions of public tax dollars on unethical hormone-altering experiments on “gay sheep” that seek to manipulate sheep’s sexual preferences and make them heterosexual.
OHSU experimenter Charles Roselli drugs fetal sheep in order to alter sex hormones in their brains, and he cuts open the brains of rams he calls “male-oriented” (homosexual) in an attempt to find the hormonal mechanisms behind homosexual tendencies so that they can subsequently be changed. Roselli’s cohort, OSU’s Frederick Stormshak, has surgically installed an estrogen device in the bodies of “gay sheep” in an effort to make their sexual preferences heterosexual. The test results carry the insidious implication that homosexuality in humans can be “cured”; the experimenters have stated that they plan to extrapolate the test results to humans.


But to this form of the issue, there is a sub-side, representing the human effect of it. When these tests are conducted, not ALL the products made are a genuine waste of money and life. Pre-tested medicines can help humans fight sicknesses, spread helpful body cells where needed, and even stop death! The tests can play a cause in helping to find chemicals to slowly but surely restore our enviorment. So, I suppose, this is the basic question... In your opinion, is the loss of animal lives, whether in single or major groups, ethical and helpful for the greater good of the general public and why?
Ever hear of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA? Very famous organization for animal rights. PETA's basic message is that animals have rights and deserve to have their best interests taken into consideration, regardless of whether they are useful to humans. Like you, they are capable of suffering and have an interest in leading their own lives; therefore, they are not ours to use, whether it be for expetimentation, clothing, or other forms of potential cruelty. www.peta.org

I'm not trying to sell you this idea or debate or whatever, I'm just expressing my personal viewpoint on the issue. I won't critisize if you don't aggree with my views, that's what a debate is (just as long as you give reason )

Discuss, then!

to keep it short...

No, Testing on Animals isn't right, but the truth is it must be done, without Animal testing, we wouldn't have any cures for some of the many deadly viruses and desease throughout our world, It's not that I think It's right they be put through agony for our gain, but when it comes down to it, I'm sure you'd rather it be them then us.

However Testing on Animals with Cosmetics, like makeup is completely wrong though...

You're completely missing a much more interesting and less rehashed topic here. They're trying to cure homosexuality. How did that escape you? Philosophize about that!

And as for the current topic, the fact is that "human rights" only apply to humans. Why? Because they're called human rights. What we do now is no different than carving up a moose for shelter and food. The only difference is we have multi-billion dollar tools with which to harvest these animals.

Also, keep in mind that an obviously biased source isn't a very good one.

Would you rather we do a few experiments (which are usually painless, I might add) to advance our race and better our lives, or would you rather we go back to primitive days and perform vivisections on squealing animals for trivial reasons like to "prove" they don't feel pain?

-I

The way I see it, if you're against Animal Testing, you're against eating meat.

In both cases, animals are usually bred to do the task. They both make our lives better, but on one side, they kill the animal, and on the other side, they test on them, which is usually painless (as Evil Eye stated)

Computer said:

The way I see it, if you're against Animal Testing, you're against eating meat.

In both cases, animals are usually bred to do the task. They both make our lives better, but on one side, they kill the animal, and on the other side, they test on them, which is usually painless (as Evil Eye stated)

Click to expand...

That's right. Perhaps if this topic was opened to animals as well, I'm sure they'd have something to say.

However, think about all the lives that wouldn't have been saved without animal testing?

I hate Peta.

They twist reality when they say every slaughter-house and pharmaceutical industry abuse their animals. It's false to believe all trades open rabbits alive, play in their organs and make monkeys fight in cages. I, for one, strongly disagree also with their methods. Showing visual violence on video to teenagers in order to rejoin their feelings is utter manipulation.

Animal testing, I'm thinking here of rats for exemple, as made science evolved at an exponential rate. Like the black plague, us in 2006 would surely be dying of a worldwide disease right now if it wasn't from animal testing.

So, ¡ viva los animales !

Animal testing is fine for life-threatening diseases or disorders, but not for beauty products. Preferably when the ratio of lives lost to lives saved is 1:100, the animal's life was not in vain.

The animal's life was not in vain? I beg to differ.

Yes, us humans don't have a choice. But what right do we have to take a living life to better ourselves? They are living just like us. Just because we are the dominant species doesn't necessarily give us the privilege to do potentially harmful tests on them, destroy their habitats for our own benefits, etc.

I value any living creature's life. What if you were the unfortunate one in our ecosystem and was born a pig rather than a human? Would you want to live life knowing that you will inevitably, one day, get slaughtered just to feed a more dominant species who is more intelligent than you are? Something to think about.

However, it's all part of the food chain. A species will feed upon another who are less dominant to survive; it's just human nature. If one link of that food chain broke, this world would end. So I think in essence, whether we kill and eat them, or use them for guinea pigs when it comes to testing, it's essential.

That, and I like my meat.

On point- I am a pre-vet student. I am for animal rights. But, animal testing needs to be done. Some people get carried away, and some just plain abuse the animal. I am not for that kind of animal testing.

Kind of off point- In this debate is a much bigger story. Homosexuality being cured?! If it can be cured it must be a disease. I have always thought homosexuality can be linked to a gene and one day will be, and this just makes me even more confident. If homosexuality is liked to genes and is decided apon being a "disease," then the church (I use this loosely) is wrong. I have heard nothing but "homosexuals are sinners." What happens when they find out the "sinner" didnt have a choice? Will the church drop the claim, or then go against every other genetic disorder, such as Downs?

Sorry for going on. I think the whole homosexual animal thing should be a new topic. I have so much to say on this point.

Meh. I think it's a bit off to say that all animal testing is cruelty, or even necessarily dangerous to the animal. Fact of the matter is, the art of creating cosmetic products isn't exactly new to humans, and we've pretty much narrowed it down as far as things not to put in it to ensure that it doesn't kill you. That being said, I'm not a big fan of the cosmetics industry in general, as it seems rather unnecessary to me, but that's another topic. I don't think it's unethical to test things on animals, although I'd trust the results a bit more if they'd just pony up the relatively miniscule sum it would take to pay some human to test the product on them instead. Not a question of ethics, it's just that testing a product intended for humans on other animals seems like a source of slightly less reliable data. Then again, anything to save a few bucks.

As far as cures for diseases, no question. Animal testing is a **** good way to work if they can get results out of it, and it's one of the few situations in which I'd not find it surprising if there were few humans willing to be guinea pigs, or at least not for any reasonable fee.

Pragmatically, there's no real reason not to use animals for testing except the ones I've stated above. Now we can theorize for eternity the status of non-humans as far as intelligence, depth of emotion, and rights go, but quite honestly, what does it matter? There are situations that are cruel and unnecessary, which should be stopped. Those don't void the usefulness and in some cases necessity of animal testing as a whole.

And another thing: PETA is ridiculous. Wholly ridiculous. The level of propoganda and bull**** they employ on a regular basis rivals governments, and I'm sick and tired of their amazing ability to gain a seemingly endless series of followers through these time-tested techniques. Yes, the instances they present are oftentimes examples of unethical behavior on the part of humans (Honestly, who keeps letting them into the places they take their pictures from?), but the conclusions they draw are incredibly fallacious and in no way credible.

As humans, we are the dominant race. Recognizing this, we realize that we cannot put another one of our species, not to mention a member of an intelligent species, at risk of death or pain. I believe it is this that drives us to use the "lowers" to quench our craving for cause and effect. Yes, it can be argued that animals do in fact have feelings, and they do in fact feel the same things we do, but take this into account: an animal does not recognize it's own being. An animals mind is fixated on repetitive tasks, such as eat, sleep, excersize, repeat. Is it necessarily a loss if an animal that is being tested on dies? Does it even fear death? This brings us back to the animal's lack of recognition of itself. If an animal cannot recognize it's own being, then it is impossible for it to fear death, as death is, in most simple terms, "loss of physical being". To dig deeper than physical being would be metaphysical, which I won't go into for the sake of other's understanding. All in all, if the animals tested on do not fear death, nor acknowledge themself as a living entity, is it a loss to them, us, or our world for something to die in order to advance our race? A race that is capable of so much, and even more with the advances in science?