Animal Experimentation Contra Human Experimentation - General

What do you think about (voluntary) human experimentation contra Animal experimentation? What do you think sounds most morally correct? Is it fair for the animals to be experimented on like that? Is it morally correct for a human to be experimented with? What is the value of a person vs other sentient animals such as dolphins and crows, parrots and that kinda stuff? I personally believe Animal Experimentation is horrible, we ranch those animals to keep us fed, not to smear chemicals on them so they hurt. I believe, for example with surgeries, medecine and such designed for human people, that it should be solely tested on people, not animals, animals might be simmilar but they stil are different. Also i believe that harmful experimentation on animals of certain kinds should be illegal, dogs, dolphins, other non rat/mouse animals, monkeys to some extent. I am all ok with bacterias, especially artificially created ones. And that is my opinion, what is yours?

While it's sad that we have to kill animals, I'd rather animals died than people.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34036228]What do you think about (voluntary) human experimentation contra Animal experimentation? What do you think sounds most morally correct? Is it fair for the animals to be experimented on like that? Is it morally correct for a human to be experimented with? What is the value of a person vs other sentient animals such as dolphins and crows, parrots and that kinda stuff? I personally believe Animal Experimentation is horrible, we ranch those animals to keep us fed, not to smear chemicals on them so they hurt. I believe, for example with surgeries, medecine and such designed for human people, that it should be solely tested on people, not animals, animals might be simmilar but they stil are different. Also i believe that harmful experimentation on animals of certain kinds should be illegal, dogs, dolphins, other non rat/mouse animals, monkeys to some extent. I am all ok with bacterias, especially artificially created ones. And that is my opinion, what is yours?[/QUOTE] are you specifically referring to cosmetic experimentation or all animal experimentation. because testing new drugs on animals is a necessary evil that absolutely can't be done away with.

Drugs for people should be tested on people. Its not a neccesary evil, we arent masters of life and death. The animals have just as much right to live like we do. Food is a neccesary evil but smearing soap in the face of a monkey or doing head transplants with dogs is shit. I think testing on a person sounds much more neccesary than a dog that could have been a fantastic pet that makes you happy. I think lifetime prisoners and death row inmates should be subjects of experimentation when their live is done, people without family should be able to, voluntarily and with high paymemt to donate themselves to science.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]Drugs for people should be tested on people. Its not a neccesary evil, we arent masters of life and death. The animals have just as much right to live like we do. Food is a neccesary evil but smearing soap in the face of a monkey or doing head transplants with dogs is shit. I think testing on a person sounds much more neccesary than a dog that could have been a fantastic pet that makes you happy. I think lifetime prisoners and death row inmates should be subjects of experimentation when their live is done, people without family should be able to, voluntarily and with high paymemt to donate themselves to science.[/QUOTE] you say we aren't masters of life and death, then say we should experiment on prisoners? no ethics community in the world would approve this. additionally, testing drugs on humans is going to be a LOT more expensive than testing on animals. drugs testing is already incredibly expensive. if you're going to give high amounts of money to volunteers, it's just going to be astronomical. the first rounds of testing are often ineffective or even detrimental. the first rounds of testing generally involve infecting lab mice with the condition then seeing if the drugs do anything and this is many years before people become involved. even after this, people often die when taking part in drugs trials. your ideas are somewhat unwise, even dangerous. i should make clear my opinion - it'd be swell if there was a way to avoid animal experimentation but there really isn't.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]Drugs for people should be tested on people. Its not a neccesary evil, we arent masters of life and death. The animals have just as much right to live like we do. Food is a neccesary evil but smearing soap in the face of a monkey or doing head transplants with dogs is shit. I think testing on a person sounds much more neccesary than a dog that could have been a fantastic pet that makes you happy. I think lifetime prisoners and death row inmates should be subjects of experimentation when their live is done, people without family should be able to, voluntarily and with high paymemt to donate themselves to science.[/QUOTE] Yes but no one bar the absolutely desperate would allow people to test untested drugs on them, it would be down right exploitation to test on people without prior animal testing, regardless of whether they were voluntary subjects or not.

Animals do not have human rights. That is what makes them human rights. If animals wanted these rights so badly why haven't they petitioned the United Nations or set up their own governments yet? Clearly, they want to be experimented on. And that is OK with me.

We need to free all the millions of mice being experimented on in laboratories... I mean, they have human rights too, right?

We don't need meat. You certainly don't. You can afford being a vegetarian without any problems at all. So why do you continue to eat meat if you think they have the same values as humans?

I eat meat because i have done it since i started eating solid food. We are omnivores, but not neccesarily kings of the world, and i meant masters of animals life and death. I just think intelligent nonfood animals that have a better purpose than being smeared makeup in the face should be illegal. Intelligent creatures such as dogs, dolphins, monkeys and such. A dog will blindly follow and love its master, and dolphins are apparently intelligent on par with humen, monkeys are our ancestors. I just dont want unneccesary suffering to animals, i dont want shitty american soldiers blowing up their dogs for the laughs, i dont want people who kill live whales(stranded whales -oops i gotta go

Humans first, other species are secondary. So yes, keep experimenting on animals, since it's the closest we can get.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34044613]I eat meat because i have done it since i started eating solid food.[/QUOTE] You think it's okay to [B]kill[/B] animals, just because your are too lazy to change your ways. Don't talk to us about animal rights.

[QUOTE=cccritical;34037730]If retarded babies/comatose patients wanted these rights so badly why haven't they petitioned the United Nations or set up their own governments yet? Clearly, they want to be experimented on. And that is OK with me.[/QUOTE] shit post from a shit poster That is a terrible argument, and it's accepted in much of the Western world that 'not saying no' isn't a form of consent. Go strangle a few animals and see if they like suffering. Protip: they don't [editline]4th January 2012[/editline] Some animal testing has benefits, but quite a bit does not. For instance, the LD50 from animal models and cosmetic testing.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]Drugs for people should be tested on people. Its not a neccesary evil, we arent masters of life and death. [/QUOTE] actually yeah we pretty much are. we have power over every other species on earth so we can do whatever we want. harsh but true. such is the nature of power. when it's all just talk I can appreciate the idealistic "let's be nice to everything! there's got to be another way!" mentality that you have, but it's not practical. [QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]The animals have just as much right to live like we do.[/QUOTE] god I hate it when people yammer on about fucking rights. nobody has the right to anything, least of all life. that's just a concept humans made up to somehow help us cope with death a little bit more. who guarantees us the right to live? the only thing that springs to my mind is myself, and only because I can defend myself if I'm threatened - but that has nothing to do with the "rights" that people are always talking about. I bet you've stepped on an ant or two in your life. did the ants have the right to live? if so, who gave it to them, and who were you to take that right away from them? if not, why? because they're not as intelligent as a dog, or a monkey, or a person? if that's the case, at what threshold of intelligence does something gain the right to live? do bacteria have the right to live? none of this rights bullshit makes any sense at all when you think about it [QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]I think testing on a person sounds much more neccesary than a dog that could have been a fantastic pet that makes you happy.I think lifetime prisoners and death row inmates should be subjects of experimentation when their live is done[/QUOTE] for one thing, there are a shitzillion animals that are put down every year because there [I]isn't[/I] any place for them to go. there's too many of them. might as well do something useful with them. for another, the majority of people (even counting criminals, disabled people, whatever you want) will prove to be much more useful during their lifetime than a dog that "makes you happy" (I love dogs btw) so, after you bring up the fact that animals have the right to live like we do, you imply that not only do you support capital punishment, but forced experimentation on inmates? what say you about rights there?

Imo OP should volunteer for medical experimentation.

As long as it's completely voluntary I'm fine with human experimentation, providing that they get a high pay check.

[QUOTE=TheDamnWizards!;34045881]As long as it's completely voluntary I'm fine with human experimentation, providing that they get a high pay check.[/QUOTE] as i addressed in my post, if you made this the way it works then you wouldn't be able to make new drugs! it'd be too expensive! as a result, drug development would be stifled and potential new breakthroughs would not be had.

It amazes me when people somehow justify killing animals for food but not for experimentation. From the animals perspective it's still dead it doesn't matter for what reason it died. Even if you justify the death of an animal to feed a single human then animals who die in experimentation are potentially saving the lives of many thousands of humans. Hence it's far more justified to kill due to experimentation. As for cosmetic experimentation, it's a more complex scenario, the justification here is that without animal testing there could be a great deal of human suffering due to unsafe cosmetics. It's harder to justify, I'll admit, but if you're opposed to it then you should vote with your wallet and not buy from companies who sell these products. This really works, look how Sony electric reacted when they noticed some people on the internet weren't happy with their support of SOPA; if you want to change a company you need to affect their bottom line.

[QUOTE=Rad McCool;34045837]Imo OP should volunteer for medical experimentation.[/QUOTE] And I suppose you don't need any medicine made possible by experimenting with animals? You are acting so holier-than-thou in this thread.

To be honest I think the consumption of animals is a vastly, [I]vastly[/I] bigger problem than animal testing (morally, ecologically, politically, etc). Cosmetics are a fucking stupid institution to begin with, but medical experiments on animals are just an unfortunate requirement if we are to continue exploring medicine with any reasonable speed. Not a necessary evil as such, because there's nothing necessary about us having medicine or existing in the first place. But the choice is between shitty advancement in medicine and plenty of potentially avoidable human deaths, or greater suffering for animals. Yup, it's a hugely morally dubious question, and since animals are capable of suffering it should definitely weigh in. Sadly the only way we can settle the ethical question is with some kind of speciesist bias towards man.

take the volunteers and keep using the animals as well.

Actually there is an answer to this, you can test medicine and chemicals on some sort of a synthetic piece of cell culture.. Or something like that. My point, soon we probably don't have to test any of that shit on either of us, not on animals not on us.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34046923]Actually there is an answer to this, you can test medicine and chemicals on some sort of a synthetic piece of cell culture.. Or something like that. My point, soon we probably don't have to test any of that shit on either of us, not on animals not on us.[/QUOTE] they already do this. if they're testing a new cancer drug they test it on cell cultures to see if it'll have an effect on the cancer. if so, great. then they have to test on animals to ensure it's not going to do something else that they haven't foreseen. it's all well and good if it kills cancer cells but if it also destroys liver tissue then they need to know that.

They test on animals, then they test on humans. There's never a situation where they test on animals and not humans. They test different things on different animals depending on the effect they want to watch - For example mice are in some ways more similar to people than apes. They they scale up the dose and check for effects on people. At this stage some people die, but they volunteered and are being paid thousands and signed away their life so it's okay.

[QUOTE=mike;34047428]they already do this. if they're testing a new cancer drug they test it on cell cultures to see if it'll have an effect on the cancer. if so, great. then they have to test on animals to ensure it's not going to do something else that they haven't foreseen. it's all well and good if it kills cancer cells but if it also destroys liver tissue then they need to know that.[/QUOTE] Then you fabricate some studies indicating that the liver tissue damage was an anomaly, get it FDA approved and then damage 88,000-140,000 livers before you pull it off the market! :v:

Look up Peter Singer, he pretty much sums up exactly how I feel about this anyway. I'm writing a dissertation for my college/university degree on a similar topic to this. To me experimenting on animals is as bad as experimenting on a particular race or creed of people. Experimenting on animals because of a lack of sentience or intelligence or just because 'they aren't humans' is as abitrary as experimenting on a black man because he isn't white. If we allow experimentation on animals to continue, we must be clear on what grounds it makes it acceptable, because currently, in my opinion, if it is a pure matter of sentience or intelligence, we could easily experiment on comatose and mentally disabled humans who are at the same level of "intelligence" or "sentience".

[QUOTE=Contag;34045632]shit post from a shit poster That is a terrible argument, and it's accepted in much of the Western world that 'not saying no' isn't a form of consent. Go strangle a few animals and see if they like suffering. Protip: they don't [editline]4th January 2012[/editline] Some animal testing has benefits, but quite a bit does not. For instance, the LD50 from animal models and cosmetic testing.[/QUOTE] how in the name of fuck did you not pick up on the sarcasm [editline]asdf[/editline] oh, should've noticed it's you, Contag

Agree with Benf199105 he pointed out my opinion almost perfectly.

[QUOTE=Holy-Smokes;34037083]Drugs for people should be tested on people. Its not a neccesary evil, we arent masters of life and death. The animals have just as much right to live like we do. Food is a neccesary evil but smearing soap in the face of a monkey or doing head transplants with dogs is shit. I think testing on a person sounds much more neccesary than a dog that could have been a fantastic pet that makes you happy. I think lifetime prisoners and death row inmates should be subjects of experimentation when their live is done, people without family should be able to, voluntarily and with high paymemt to donate themselves to science.[/QUOTE] Let's be practical: Yes maybe in the case of cosmetic stuff it is not as clear cut. But we [B]need[/B] to test lifesaving drugs and medical research and things like that on something/someone before we test them on normal humans. If we don't test them on something/someone then we don't get any new medicines or medical techniques. These tests and experimentation are not like normal human drug trials - some of them are, but lots of experimentation is the sort of thing where half of the participants die, or their spines are shattered to see how well they regrow after application of some special new drug or medical technique, or the animal is genetically modified and then killed. With your suggestion all of these things would be carried out on people. Is it OK for people without a family to be able to volunteer for these tests, because I'm not sure many people would agree that orphans should be used for medical experimentation, even if they do volunteer. Plus it is not feasible for researchers having to pay lots of money for volunteers since medical research is very expensive as it is. You also need a LOT of test subjects for some experiments, so presuming that not many orphans are going to volunteer for deadly experimentation most of these people would be life prisoners or on death row. I'm not how sensible it is to encourage a system whereby the [I]more[/I] murderers we have the better our medical research becomes. Also it would not be possible now - 16,740 murders were committed in 2005 [URL="http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm"](link)[/URL], while about 1.2 million animals were used in testing just in 2005. To make it sustainable we'd need to raise the murder rate by 7100%. So basically your suggestion is not practical as far as I can tell. It's easy to say that something is bad and should stop, but in this case there is a real need for animal testing - if you want it to stop you need practical means of doing so.

I think people need to look into computer simulators, try to go farther there before potentially fucking up the life of anything else.