Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Limits of Animal Testing?

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 29 posts ] 
Limits of Animal Testing?
Author Message
AbiUser avatarPosts: 61Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:33 pm

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Can we not used brain dead or severely mentally retarded humans?
Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:20 am
MikeFozLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 80Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:29 pm

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Abi wrote:Can we not used brain dead or severely mentally retarded humans?


Only after they stop accepting donations for street preaching.
Skype of MEasonably disappointing chat:
My status
Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:36 am
WWW
WolfAUPosts: 564Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 12:56 pmLocation: Australia

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Touche Mikefoz.

Most widely accepted systems of morality say that any human life is sacred, and therefore we are generally forbidden from making spot judgements to inflict harm on them (for profit or sadistic pleasure). Example even if a human is suffering, even euthenasia advocates feel that for a person to end their life they must first have that persons permission and that of a loved one of theirs.

In the case of suicide, we have laws that prevent people from taking their own lives, with the law allowing us to interfere if we feel the person poses an immediate threat to themselves etc. While I think most peoples reasoning behind this would differ, I interpret this as in keeping with the above statement.

Also as I mentioned before, if we use cognitive function as a defining trait, we could harm infant children under this logic. As for brain dead, first you would need ideally either the persons consent that in the event of being brain damaged they would accept that, or permission from close family. In any case both of these are not really any more morally acceptable to the average person, and both raise issues, including those of how practical it is.

Its a double standard, and blind specieism, however arguing an animals life is equal to that of a human is a pandora's box I'd prefer to leave the hell alone.
Thu Apr 23, 2009 1:47 am
Jotto999User avatarPosts: 572Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:18 amLocation: Ontario, Canada Gender: Male

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Things like cosmetic testing, I agree that it is stupid and it's putting the animals through discomfort for nothing. Medical testing, I'm okay with. As unfortunate as the suffering of an animal is, it might save a lot of human lives in the future.

Of course, I am in favour of trying to minimize the discomfort and pain of the animals. They didn't chose to be used as test subjects, so the least we can do for them is try to reduce their suffering. That's just the humane thing to do.
With poor mental and physical health, happiness is like smoke that you reach for with bare hands. With great health, happiness is just pouring into your lap all the time.
Sun May 03, 2009 4:02 am
HomunclusUser avatarPosts: 195Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 9:15 pm

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

WolfAU wrote:Well as I (and others) have mentioned above, cosmetics testing can be important to prevent severe allergic reactions and other serious side effects of use. Though it is not as important as testing if a new treatment actually does what it claims to do.

But is it important at all? I mean never mind the fact that we don't need cosmetics at all...do we really need more of them?
Sun May 03, 2009 1:45 pm
AntiSkill42User avatarPosts: 83Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:20 pmLocation: Hungary

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Since "cosmetics" include things like sunscreen, soap and shaving foam
-more or less essential stuff when it comes to skin protection and body hygiene-
and since we are learning more about the human skin and how to protect it,
--> I'ld say yes it is important and we do need to develop new cosmetics.

What angers me is that I've heard that there are ways around animal testing while developing cosmetics that are not utilized at the moment because they are more expensive. But I have to admit that I didn't research this.

But if to test it on an animal is the only way to clarify if a new hypoallergenic, germ-killing soap is really safe for use, or if a new sunscreen compund really Is harmless... then sry rabbits but: scientists go for it!
Oohh... you found a spelling error. KEEP IT.
Sun May 03, 2009 8:39 pm
OtokogoroshiUser avatarPosts: 400Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:03 amLocation: Phoenix, Arizona USA

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

The idea that is ok to test on say... rats... rather than chimps because chimps are more intelligent is not quite sickening but certainly makes me frown.

All animals feel pain. Many if not most even feel a variety of emotions. Snakes can get depressed, cats feel happiness and rats know fear.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some PETA freak. I think those people are a bunch of tools and idiots. I'm not against all animal testing. Testing for cosmetics is unethical and disgusting. Making a living creature suffer for a humans VANITY!? That's vomit inducing. There are plenty of cosmetic companies that don't use animal testing yet somehow the products they come out with don't hurt people so clearly they're on to something.

Now for medical testing.

I'm fairly lenient about this. Thanks to cows, rats and a variety of other animals we have treatments and even cures for ailments. Anti-venom is made by injecting venom into large livestock, usually horses because of their docile nature then drawing their blood to get the antibodies from it. The horse tends to be perfectly fine since the dose of venom given to them isn't great enough to cause harm. So on this front is a perfectly fine use of animals to get a treatment for humans. Diabetic medicine I hear also requires I believe cows?


However I don't think we should ever give blanket approval for anything. There should always be oversights and careful observation. Advancement should be an expectation and minimizing the animals suffering should be a requirement.


Now to end with a quick story. I love rats. I even used to breed them a wide variety. Often I would take in a rat someone no longer could take care of and make them happy and comfortable till the end. One of these rats was Splinter. He was a big friendly gray rat who never ever fought with the other rats and could be placed with any male and make quick friends. Those who know rat behavior will understand that typically it is a very bad idea to put two unfamiliar males together since they tend to fight.

One day I came into the rat room (they had their own space :P) and Splinter was acting oddly. He had his face pressed up against the bars and was wheezing at me. I instantly opened up the cage and he came toddling over to me and climbed into my hands. He pushed up against my body and looked up at me, mouth agape; wheezing. He had never been the mostly cuddly rat, typically just happy for a quick rub on the head and a treat. Still today he desperately clung to me and I don't anthropomorphise my pets. I understand they are animals and aren't at the human level of reasoning or even close. But still today Splinter seemed to be suffering and knew I could help.

Sadly he was unsavable. He was suffering from a relatively common disease that rats are pron to get and his lungs were failing. Even if I had opted for treatment there was little chance he'd recover. I had to put him down. Still the look on his face will never leave me. It was pleading. He was suffering and to him I was his god. I fed him, kept him safe and warm, played with him and gave him yummy treats. In his little rat brain he understood that I could make him better. I just wish I could have T_T



Animals can't speak to us so we must speak for them. However a human life tends to be more valuable than an animals life (though I would argue the point, we're all animals and equal) so we use them to make our lives better. Don't forget their sacrifice for your comfort, vanity and health.
Tout homme sensé, tout homme de bien, doit avoir la secte chrétienne en horreur.

Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.
-Voltaire
Sun May 03, 2009 9:07 pm
darthrender2010User avatarPosts: 273Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:35 amLocation: Emmitsburg MD, USA

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

Otokogoroshi wrote:One day I came into the rat room (they had their own space :P) and Splinter was acting oddly. He had his face pressed up against the bars and was wheezing at me. I instantly opened up the cage and he came toddling over to me and climbed into my hands. He pushed up against my body and looked up at me, mouth agape; wheezing. He had never been the mostly cuddly rat, typically just happy for a quick rub on the head and a treat. Still today he desperately clung to me and I don't anthropomorphise my pets. I understand they are animals and aren't at the human level of reasoning or even close. But still today Splinter seemed to be suffering and knew I could help.

Sadly he was unsavable. He was suffering from a relatively common disease that rats are pron to get and his lungs were failing. Even if I had opted for treatment there was little chance he'd recover. I had to put him down. Still the look on his face will never leave me. It was pleading. He was suffering and to him I was his god. I fed him, kept him safe and warm, played with him and gave him yummy treats. In his little rat brain he understood that I could make him better. I just wish I could have T_T


wow, that is both unbelievably sad and awesome at the same time...
"It's just a theory"
Theory of Gravity
Cell Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Evolution
Mon May 04, 2009 12:35 am
OtokogoroshiUser avatarPosts: 400Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:03 amLocation: Phoenix, Arizona USA

Post Re: Limits of Animal Testing?

darthrender2010 wrote:wow, that is both unbelievably sad and awesome at the same time...


It was a very moving experience. I think many people either don't interact with animals closely or maybe only deal with the poor examples :P

Anything that can feel pain should have the right to be free of pain.

/pops some aspirin
Tout homme sensé, tout homme de bien, doit avoir la secte chrétienne en horreur.

Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.
-Voltaire
Mon May 04, 2009 1:01 am
Previous
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 2
 [ 29 posts ] 
Return to Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
cron