Animal Rights: Testing, Population control, and Violence

[KrazyGlue]

I've got three main topics for discussion here; they can be addressed either separately or together.



Animal Testing

As you all know, animals are used in scientific experiments. They are sometimes just given drugs, but they are also sometimes infected with deadly, painful diseases.

Questions to dicuss:
Is is right to do this testing?
There are some possible chemical alternatives to animal testing, but will they work?
Is animal testing efficient?



Population Control and Violence

I grouped these two topics together because they are pretty similar.

Populations control has, for a long time, been a major issue for animals. Their populations sometimes grow quickly, and humans often hunt them down to keep the populations in check. The deer hunting issue is a good example of this.

Questions to discuss:
Is hunting just for fun or to keep populations under control ethical?
Are there any good alternative methods of population control?


Ok, now to the issue that I have called "violence". What I really mean is how we treat violence differently for animals and humans. For instance, if a human (i.e. Michael Vick) brutally kills many animals, they might get a large fine and a few years in jail. If say, a large dog, attacks someone, knocks them to the ground, and rips off their ear (I saw an tv show about this, so it isn't random), they will most likely get their version of the death penalty.

Questions to discuss:
Is this fair?
Do animals have the same feelings (mental and physical) as humans?
Should animals have equal rights?

_____________________________________

So... discuss!

 

[Disfunkshunal]

1) i dont think its right to do the testing. Like you said sometimes the things people test turn out to be very painful and deadly. This can negatively effect the animal for the rest of its life. The reason i think people test on animals rather than humans is because animals cant defend themselves as well. However just because they aren't able to say 'get that junk away from me before i kill you' doesnt mean they should be tested on. Just because animals are different than us and too an extent much more inferior doesnt mean they cant feel.

2) Hunting is a sport. with that being said i do think that one of the purposes is for fun. I think as a result of this fun animal population is kept down. As far as alternate solutions there aren't many. The only one i can think of is relocation. Taking higher concentration of animals to a lower concentrated area. This way would solve overpopulation without taking lives, but it would not work forever seeing as how we would eventually run out of room again.

3)This one is hard. i am in favor of equal rights for animals but i dont know if we can really enforce that. Animals do have the same feelings as humans. Wouldn't you feel happy if you found something equivalent to a fresh water supply? Wouldn't you feel mad if someone was taking your land? Wouldn't you feel scared if you were starring down someone with a gun? No doubt animals have very similar if not the same emotions as humans. Like i said earlier though, we only have so much room and some animals, sadly, may need to be killed off. (iirc under certain circumstances, in china you have to kill one/more of your children to avoid over populatioon

 

[Miggz]

Animal testing. : One would be surprised about how many misconceptions there are regarding this topic. For example, not many people know that the main animals used in research are rats and mice. In fact, rodents are used 90% of the time. Only 1% of animals used are primates, 4 percent are cats and dogs. As creepy as it sounds, majority of the animals used in research are born and raised in the lab for research. They are not taken out of the wild, and sadly, their only purpose is to better the human race.

But anyway, I oppose of the idea of animal testing. Here is why. The way I see it, if humans are not willing to undergo the testing, how can they force animals to take their place? It wasn't too long ago were we foolish assumed that animals weren't able to feel pain. We only very recently discovered that animals feel pain in the same way as humans, have similar central nervous system pathways, and similar pain receptors.

But despite all of this, some of us feel its ok because non-human test subjects apparently experience less suffering due to their incapability to remember the pain. I also gurantee that the animals used for these experiments are abused. It just bugs me to no end! Why shouldn't we consider the life of mice just as valuable as humans? Is it because of their size? Is it because their life time isn't as long? News flash, mice are incredibly successful creatures, a fact we seem to abuse.

I'm sure there are other methods of finding cures and testing drugs that don't require us to waste a life. The lab-grown cells is one option. I'm sure they can be used as an alternative in the cosmetic field. Instead of testing their products on animals, they are using donated retinas to see if eye aggrivation occurs. In matter of fact, why not donate skin too? You know, to see if there is any irritation.

I'm not trying to deny that animal testing hasn't benefited the human race. But its such a shame to see these animals as a "tool" for our own survival. I work at an Aquarium/Zoo, s maybe that is why I feel the way I do about using animals as test subjects. Nonetheless, I respect other opinions who support the idea. So no hard feelings.

Population Control and Violence: Ok now this question I find interesting. Judging from what I have posted earlier, I think you already know my answer for hunting for fun. But I'll state it anyway, absolutely not. I don't understand how anyone can find killing to be "fun," unless they are antisocial or something. If you are hunting to support your family or to eat the animal, then I guess that's ok. Now I'm not contradicting myself here. To me, its a difference between keeping animal in a lab and pump them up with drugs to see a reaction, and killing an animal quickly to eat. But anyway, I say hunting for "fun" is wrong.

Now, as for population control...I hate to admit this one but it is necessary. I actually help my job "control" the population of terrapins, which is a kind of turtle that is considered invasive in Bermuda. These turtles multiple rapidly and eat our endemic fish/plants. But at the same time, its not the animals fault. These terrapins were "introduced" into our environment by humans. They shouldn't even be here! I think its pretty safe to say that a good handful of invasive species are causing problems is because we humnas are introducing them into these "foreign" environments. It sucks, but yeah we still have to clean up the mess. So I say yes, it is necessary to deal with invasive species. As for a good alternative, we need to stop introducing animals into unnatural environments.

Animal Violence: I don't think its totally fair. But, we have to remember that animals and humans are two vastly different things. Animals don't have the same degree of logic as we do. So if you were to put a dog in "jail" for a few years, it probably won't change their behavior. An animal has instinct. It will attack when it feels neccessay, and there isn't any kind of regret because they don't know being "put down" or "locked up."

Anyway, it simply sucks that we look down on "nonhuman" life. It angers me so much! If you kill an animal (for food, ect.) at least feel some form of remorse or something for the poor thing. People like Michael Vick showed no remorse and I think he should have rotted in jail for his crimes. So to conclude your first question, "no," it isn't fair.

"Do animals have the same feelings (mental and physical) as humans?

This is a very hard question to answer. They obviously feel pain like we do. But how they interpret it, is something we'll never understand fully.

Nice topic. :-)

 

[KrazyGlue]

I have some opinions to share later, but I'll probably sit it out for a while and let more people discuss before I jump in. I want to see what the general opinion is.

I just wanted to clarify one point, though:

Animal Violence: I don't think its totally fair. But, we have to remember that animals and humans are two vastly different things. Animals don't have the same degree of logic as we do. So if you were to put a dog in "jail" for a few years, it probably won't change their behavior. An animal has instinct. It will attack when it feels neccessay, and there isn't any kind of regret because they don't know being "put down" or "locked up."

I wasn't saying to put them in jail; was thinking more along the lines of "train them to be less violent". Dogs and other animals will change their habits over time if they are trained to. Hope this helps the discussion.

Nice topic. :-)

Thanks.:bigthumbu

 

[Disfunkshunal]

Now, as for population control...I hate to admit this one but it is necessary. I actually help my job "control" the population of terrapins, which is a kind of turtle that is considered invasive in Bermuda. These turtles multiple rapidly and eat our endemic fish/plants. But at the same time, its not the animals fault. These terrapins were "introduced" into our environment by humans. They shouldn't even be here! I think its pretty safe to say that a good handful of invasive species are causing problems is because we humnas are introducing them into these "foreign" environments. It sucks, but yeah we still have to clean up the mess. So I say yes, it is necessary to deal with invasive species. As for a good alternative, we need to stop introducing animals into unnatural environments.

I have a question about that. Isn't introducing them to a new environment an alternate? I am not saying you are wrong, but if one area has an overpopulation one solution would be to kill them. However people like you and mean who oppose killing of animals will suggest something else. What else is there to suggest but to move them somewhere where their population is very low or doesnt exist, but still an area where the animal can survive. I think this situation will continue in a circle

 

[Miggz]

I have a question about that. Isn't introducing them to a new environment an alternate? I am not saying you are wrong, but if one area has an overpopulation one solution would be to kill them. However people like you and mean who oppose killing of animals will suggest something else. What else is there to suggest but to move them somewhere where their population is very low or doesnt exist, but still an area where the animal can survive. I think this situation will continue in a circle

Well that would seem like the logical thing to do. But the problem is, when you introduce an animal into a new environment, there is a chance it can become invasive. For example, a bird known as the Great Kiskadee was introduced to Bermuda many years ago to control the lizard population. The plan kind of backfired. The bird soon began to reproduce rapidly, attack/compete with our native birds and began spreading the seeds of invasive plants throughout the island.

What I'm getting at is that before a person introduces an animal to a new location, they should really consider the possible effects it will have. You just never know...