Is Animal Testing Justifiable or Should We Seek Alternatives?

[lavalamp]

OK, fine. I'll trust you on that one, I just know that I'm against animal testing. I've made an attempt to try and justify me beliefs but I guess that I'm just irrational.

 

[Monique]

Lavalamp, if you are against animal testing of any kind.. are you against eating meat too? At least animal testing is regulated in some ways, animal farms are not in any way. Ever seen how chicks are processed in an animal food plant? They are transported along the line alive until the are finally ground up.. alive.

 

[Monique]

How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Monique
How do people think that piece of meat on their plates died? Not a natural death, not a peacefull death either.

Of course there are a lot of vegan animal rights activists who aren't affected by this logic.

 

[lavalamp]

That's a horrible way to die. Are you sure that you've got all fo your facts straight? I can't imagine how anyone could allow that to go on.
If animals are used for food then they should at least die in the most humane way possible, quickly and painlessly. I also don't tend to eat much meat by the way, although it has been known on occasion.

 

[Monique]

I have seen documentaries on television and in magazines, where people go into a plant with a hidden camera. Yes, I saw the chick example on television. The workers sort the chicks, ones that are healthy (or maybe the females?) were kept alive, ones that were damaged would be pulled out and set on a different line, ending up in a grinder.

As for the meat, there are two ways to die: bullet through the head or hammer in the neck. Who says the animal dies instantly? It might still be conscious while someone starts dismembering it. Many horor stories can be told.

How about veil, ever eat that? From birth they are put in a cage which doesn't allow them to move at all, not an inch, to keep the meat tender.

Eggs, ever seen how many thousand of chicken are in a several square meters? Stacked on top of each other.

Or do you know how animals are transported to the slaughery house? Noone cares if they get injured, dehydrate or die by heat exposure.

The problem is that I don't know how wide-spread these cruelties are and which organizations are there to monitor these activities. Neither for lab animals or farm animals.

 

[Monique]

I'd recommend taking 5-10 min of your time and view the flash presentation at www.animalcruelty.com just avoid using your browser back button, it will reset the presentation and you'll have to start from the beginning again.

I recommend to have your audio on, it really makes for a humbling feeling.

The site links to:

American Anti-Vivisection Society, very good website
http://www.aavs.org/home.html

and Factory Farming
http://www.factoryfarming.org/

For the ones with steady stomachs, some video footage of ongoing cruelties:
http://www.factoryfarming.org/gallery/photos_video.htm

 

[lavalamp]

So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?

It seems as though you're trying to show that animal testing testing is OK by comparing it with something that is worse.

Anyway, I'm not here to argue my viewpoint, I just came in here to state it. It's quite obvious that neither one of us is going to change our minds about this subject so I suggest that we just drop it. I know that I'm going to.

 

[Monique]

That is fine, but the thing I am trying to do is create awareness about that both animal testing AND animal processing can be very cruel. Both need to improved. It is a very easy thing to turn away and not think about an opinion.

I wish I knew where to donate money or which product to buy to create an anti-force against cruelty and support cleaner practices. Apparently from this thread, no one knows.

 

[lavalamp]

I don't know about america but over here we have the RSPCA (Royal Society of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). If you can't find the american equivalent, you could always donate to that organisation.

 

[Monique]

I think they should be certifying animal products, if they go by certain standards, give them a sticker and that way people can make their own decisions in the store..

For eggs there is this for instance, I guess for meats it would be the biological section?

So everyone start eating biological meats! The best way to hit these people is in their wallet.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
So am I right in thinking that you think animal testing is OK because it's not as bad as it could be? If you were doing an experiment on an animal and someone said that it was wrong, would your justification be, "Well at least I'm not dismembering it."?

Go to google.com. Select images. Enter "thalidomide" and see just one example of what happens when we don't test on animals. I think a few lab mice would have been worth it to prevent that. And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
If it's going to be used by humans it should be used on humans. I believe that some states have the death penalty in America. Maybe the prisoners should be offered the alternative to be tested on ina potentially fatal experiment. If they live they can go.
Of course testing could be imposed upon them, that would be a real deterent for gun crime.

So let me get this straight. You don't want to let any mice get tested. But you would like human beings to be told "you can either have this weird substance injected into your body, quite possibly killing you, or you can spend the rest of your like in prison."

 

[lavalamp]

While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
While I agree that in certain spcialised cases, a bit of foresight may have prevented a disaster. But if you tested it on mice, then surely they would have been caused great distress as well.
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us, just because they are smaller and we keep them locked up in cages.

If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
And in my opinion testing drugs on lab animals is a lot more morally justified than, say, eating a hamburger.

Well said :)

 

[lavalamp]

Originally posted by Chemicalsuperfreak
If I had to choose between a few hundred mice and hundreds to billions of human beings, than yes, I would side with the human beings.

No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by lavalamp
No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

No offense, but it isn't your decision to make on whether or not rodent should have the same rights as humans.

 

[lavalamp]

So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
You seem to have picked up the premice that we are above them, and they are inferior to us

We are, and they are.

No offence, but it isn't your decision to make. Did anyone ask the mice if they wanted to make that sacrifice, no. Just because they can't answer for themselves does not mean that they have fewer rights than humans.

Try it, lavalamp. Ask one. See what it says. Seriously. Based on the answer you get, you can answer the question you posed above.

So you just assume that they don't have the same rights as us and are willing to just go ahead and experiment on them?

They don't, lavalamp. Human rights are human rights. They apply to humans.

Quick question, which is more humane, killing a cow by shoving an electrified metal rod up its rear (thats how its actually done - I think Monique's info is out of date) or having a mountain lion chase it down and bite its throat? Either way they die. The mountain lion probably takes a little longer to kill it.

The food chain can be a brutal thing, lavalamp. Thats the way it works with or without humans in it: it is not any more or less brutal due to our existence.

Now you can of course argue that humans are unique in that we are capable of choosing whether or not to kill other animals, but be careful - you may inadvertently answer the first question I quoted from you in a way you won't like.

Jeez, may I ask how old you are? You are incredibly naive and squeamish about this issue.

 

[lavalamp]

My age is in my profile.

I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.

Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?

Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by lavalamp
I also don't remember mentioning anything about human rights.

You suggested that they should have many of the same rights as humans. The rights of humans are called "human rights."

Lat me ask you a question. If you could choose how you would die, would you want to die peacfefully, or by having an electrified metal rod up your arse?

I would of course choose to die peacefully, but that really isn't relevant to this issue. A cow can't ask a mountain lion to make his death as quick and painless as possible.

Just because the food chain is a brutal thing, it doesn't mean that we have to be. If it is neccesary to kill animals, why does it have to be in such a cruel way?

How would you suggest we do it?

 

[lavalamp]

I did not mentin human rights as that would imply that they are species specific.

We aren't mountain lions, but for some reason you keep drawing the analogy between us and the lions.

I'm sorry, but I'm not skilled in the art of slaughter, therefore I can't think of many pleasant ways to die right now. I'm sure that there are people out there who can though.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How would you suggest we do it?

with respect

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect

Some religions have rules on animal killing. Like Islam.

 

[Another God]

well, like it or not, rights are species specific, even if you desire otherwise or proclaim to thinik otherwise. At some point or another, you too cross the line where u differentiate that that lizard deservees to live, "because I like lizards" but "that damn mosquito must die now!"

The reason Human Rights have such a privledge over all other animal, plant, bacteria and archae life forms is because we are the only species with which we can safely enter into social bargains with. We have a reasonable basis upon which we know we can generally trust each other to behave certain ways, and do certain things to help each other out. Cows, sheep, Mice and Rats do not. They will not enter social constructs with any of us, and so are of no use to us, other than a use we force onto them (one of food, or of experimentation).

Dogs on the otherhand are generally treated differently. Why do you suppose that would be? Would it be because dogs do enter a form of social contract with us? We feed them, and in return they (origianlly hunted for us) protect our house from robbers, defend us, and enjoy our company... Dogs are given special rights above other animals. Cats also receive similar rights, for similar reasons.

So, is experimentation on animals OK? Absolutely, becauase in the end, Humans are the only species which we are actually concerned with (at least, immediately concerned with...Secondarily we do desire safety for all species, otherwise we would feel bad for no longer being able to see lions, and tigers etc in the zoos of the future)

 

[Another God]

Originally posted by Monique
with respect

With respect for what exactly?

What is respect all about anyway? Respect for the fact that a lion can kill you: That I understand. Respect for someones intelligence over you... etc I understand those uses of the word respect. But having respect, while killing a cow... what does that mean? Respecting the cow as a docile creature, specifically bred over 5000 or more years to be perfect for human consumption? I'll bet there is a lot of respect for that.

 

[Monique]

If you don't know what I mean with handling an animal with respect then, well..

Slaughtering animals or experimenting on them without any respect, without acknowledging that they too have the right to live a decent life, is plain unethical and wrong.

How about animals in a zoo, we keep them there solely for our pleasure. Does that mean we put them alone into wired cages, or do we respect the animal and try to recreate their natural habitat as closely as possible? That is having respect for the living. We put them into a cage, but better make that cage as pleasant as possible.

 

[FZ+]

Ultimately, it boils down to this. We are humans. If we have to make the choice, we protect our own kind's interests.