of course i followed godwin's law. it's inevitable.

You say it makes you angry yet the medicine you take for your health was tested on animals. My mother works for the goverment (name withheld because of physcos who beling to PETA) and PETA has actually threatened the people who test on animals in other words my mother. In case you didn't know. PETA lies about the places my mother works. My mother cares for those animals almost as if they are her children. They watch movies much like we do. My mother takes a smuch pain as those animals because of the shots she takes, she does it because she knows that if we did not test, we would not be as far in medical science as we are.

I've been to were my mother works and regardless of what PETA says the people there are not cruel because one of thos epeople is my grandmother and my mother.

I understand that animals should have rights and they do. Much like childrens rights. They have the right to be protected by the goverment.

(Some of these are very old questions but I felt I should answe rthem with what I felt was right)



We need to know the effects because their may be something that may help the health of people or show what cause certain thinga and if there is a cure.



We still need the animals because not everything is tested on just human tissue, but since this way was deleoped or discovered, the animals at research faculties have decreased.



Hurting an animal with no actual reason a sscientists do (for reaserach etc) would be animal cruelty. And if you haven't noticed we have advanced, we do use human tissue. Check it out sometime.



There is life on earth because each species has a purpose.



Excuse me? Snooty scientists? My mother is one of the kindest people to animals. She can't even resist their puppy eyes. But she understands what she must do and she does so.



My mother doesn't do useless things like that nor does she support them as many people in her work don't. And I do believe my mother has only used an animal for the testing in health.



And we are doing exactly that. Animals have certain things that help them deal with diseases us humans are not as immune. Humans are the dominant that's our advantage like the Panda not getting splinters from eating Bamboo or etc. We are continuing our life-cycle. Making sure we survive. The fittest wins out in life we are the top dogs as my science teacher would put it.


I think I sumed this up as best as I could and I'm not saying that what I saw is law or anything. Just this is my view point.

in vitro is cheaper than animal testing. much cheaper. however, it's inadequete for finding out what happens beyond the tissue level.

Okay look, a whole lot of effects on animals ends up not being the same on humans, and because of that, several people had to be hospitalized because their prescribed medicine had some messed up effects. And btw, theres tons of alternatives to animal testing, you can look it up, it's cheaper and saves time.

I'm sure this is true. Despite the fact that the majority of biomedical science is based on animal testing and largely exists because of it: there have indeed been some mistakes Although most testing is easily made applicable to human counterparts.

But, it's also much more prevalent that biomedical sciences that have not been tested on animals have caused increasingly more harm to humans, even resulting in instantaneous death.



There is no viable alternative to the exstensive studies and testing that can be done on live animals in a lab setting in relation to biomedical science. If you believe one exists, I suggest you let us in on it. Also, if one did exist, why wouldn't scientists want to us it if it were just as accurate, cheaper, and time saving?

NO.

i like animals










between two pieces of bread!!!!
haha


seriously i believe that we shouldn't be worring about animal rights when there are people dieing and starving in places like Africa and Asia.
my dog has a better life than many people in Africa.
take care of people first, then animals

QUOTE(cashmere deer @ May 21 2006, 12:40 PM)

NO.

this is a debate forum. care to explain why you're against it?

QUOTE

seriously i believe that we shouldn't be worring about animal rights when there are people dieing and starving in places like Africa and Asia.
my dog has a better life than many people in Africa.
take care of people first, then animals

agreed. but i think most people can make the argument that maybe if the well off citizens of the Earth stopped spending so much money on a dog and ascending its status to that of a human, we would have money for people who do starve.

boo paris hilton who buys Louis Vuitton bags for her dogs to poop in.

There is only 1 answer to htis question... NO! why would you use a helpless little animal on freak experiment you wouldnt do on yourself.... ew.

Actually, there are many answers to this question; only one of which is "no."
And, how about in order to save, protect, enhance and better the lives of millions and millions of humans, and non-human animals?

Do you even realize the importance animal research has to biomedical science? And, if you do, do you understant the importance biomedical science has?!

No, because I think it is wrong.




Okay, i think that is terrible. Sure every species has a purpose but it is not to serve humans. That's like taking that exact statement but replacing rat with baby. I know many of you would hate to hear from our good friends at PETA, but this is something I strongly believe in. And even though your Mother, Latina Babii, may not do such hideous experiments on animals as people say, others do. The fact of the matter is that it does happen and we do need to spend time on developing new ways that don't hurt any form of life. I understand in some cases it is entirely necessary, but in others its completely ridiculous.

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/feat/testing123/

enjoy.

Some animals are as stupid as a three year old child. PETA does not think that they should have normal rights like we have, but at least the rights of a human child. The right to live without constant pain. No one is asking to give animals the right to vote. Come on now.

Are you serious? Not a single known living non-human animal is as intelligent as a three year old homo sapien. Not even close. Our brains are far more advanced and far more capable then any animal, even at the the age of three.



PETA wants total animal liberation. That means no using animals for anything, in anyway. No pets, no stage animals, no honey, no milk, no biomedical research. If we had to test on a rat to cure cancer, PETA wouldn't have it. Also, you don't seem to realize the significance of the word "rights." With rights come responsibility. If we were to give an animal the right not to be harmed, we would have to be arresting each dog that chased down a cat, because that dog would be infringing on the rights of the cat. Animals can not understand rights, thus they are not capable of having them. An animal can not respect my right to property, or anyone's right to property. Animals are too dull to have rights, and wild animals do not have guardians to take responsibility for their rights. And, in PETA's world, every animal is a "wild animal."

I was never suggesting we give an animal the right to vote, come on now.

PETA is a fanatical joke. That video you posted about animal research was an insult and largely a flat out lie. Animal testing is essential to biomedical research. Without it, we wouldn't even have biomedics. The extent that animal research has enhanced the lives of humans and non-human animals everywhere is amazing, and irrefutable.

We have libraries full of animal cruelty based legislation. Animals are treated rather well in today's world. Sure, sometimes it happens. Animals suffer. It isn't pretty, and no body sane enjoys it. But, for the most part, it isn't a moral out cry, it's an aesthetic one. Of course it's ugly. They could show us nasty images all day, but that doesn't make it wrong. And, it sure doesn't equate an animal to the moral level of a human being, three years old or fifty years old. Also, PETA is far from innocent when it comes to animal or human cruelty. Heck, PETA is connected with serious terrorist organizations. They funnel money to people who strike matches and throw bombs. They also kill animals, thousands of them; they kill them with their own hands (They put most of the animals they "rescue" to sleep, and then they go and protest animal shelters and pounds). PETA members use medicine that was made possible through animal research. Some of them live and breathe from so called "animal cruelty." If you want a word synonymous with hypocrite, PETA is a viable option.

While I recognize the importance of animal testing in the name of science...

"The question is not, 'Can they reason?' nor 'Can they talk?' but 'Can they suffer?"
-- Jeremy Bentham

Look i get all the important bio-medical stuff but i dont see it fit that they get used in experiments that can be harmful and potentially lethal to them. Its just not RIGHT that just because they arent human they are treated inferior i say if your going to conduct an experiment on an animal than that same experiment is also done to a human.

Uhhhhm. Animals and humans are not equal. Animals are indeed inferior to human beings. We test on them because it would be morally wrong to test on a human being. Plus, we have rights, where animals do not.

And that is exactly what we are arguing in this topic. I, along with many others I am sure, understand that they are inferior to us when it comes to intelligence, ability to learn, think, UNDERSTAND rights, but I do know that they feel just like we do. They experience pain, just like we do. They suffer just like we do. Just because something is superior to someone in smarts, gives them no right to inflict pain upon it. Back to the human child thing. A three month old baby has less brain power than I do, but I would never do hideous experiments on them even if it were to make things easier for myself.

most cases cited showing the inadequecies of animal testing really show the inadequecies caused by restrictions.

there was that drug that caused pregnant women to have miscarriages. it was intended to treat morning sickness.

strangely, testing had not been allowed on pregnant animals.

later tests on pregnant animals clearly showed the miscarriage risk.

I think animals should not be used as experiments. They are not equal to use because we are above them but they are smaller (a lot that are tested on are). Remember that "Why don't you mess with someone your own size". Animals can't speak to use. When they are being tested on, killed and everything they scream (in there way, barks... other animal noises I can't thing of lol) but you can't understand them. How would you like being in a situation and not being able to say how you feel? I believe it’s completely wrong to test on animals and kill them as well. Your hurting a living thing and its wrong.

Feeling pain does not automatically give something rights. I understand if that calls for pity and sympathy but I wouldn't assign rights to a living thing just because it feels pain.

"You're hurting a living thing and it's wrong"? What a load of bull. If you say that to protect animals, you have to use it to apply to all things that are living. So stop swatting flys or smushing other bugs. They probably feel pain or at least, death. And you're killing a living thing! And maybe, we should stop eating animals because in order to eat them, we have to kill them which hurts them.

Biomedical research has it's gift and curses. Curses: people live long, there are more people, overpopulation, and unnatural things are happening (viagara for one). But I would advocate it because much of the research are geared towards epidemics in Africa. It would be horrible to let a continent die off from diseases the Western world has conquered. It would be horrible to let Africa die when pretty much the rest of the world has screwed with it.

I find it funny we care more about animals than we do ourselves.

You see a bum on the street, you do nothing to help him/her. You see an animal in the street by itself, you post up millions of "Found" papers or you call a shelter to go pick it up. I find it funny that more people would help an animal in need opposed to an actual human.

I believe that "rights" should be granted to those who understand them.

^wow. that`s deep and SO true.

no, animals should not be used for testing; it`s plain wrong.

would you sarcifice your legs in order to protect a monkey?

http://img448.imageshack.us/img448/6040/rofl7tt.jpg

stop animal cruelty. :(

I agree w/ what you stated.

& sometimes, animal testing IS needed for certain experiments. Yes, animals might have feelings, but honestly, would you rather there be animal testings which could find the cure for AIDs & help out people w/ it or there be no animal testing & then have never found the cure for AIDs? Oh, & don't give me "but PETA said this." In case you didn't know, PETA LIES about most of their shit. & not only that, but instead of using the majority of the money they get to help out animals, they spend it on advertising & stuff. Want proof? Here are links:

http://www.animalscam.com/peta_7things.cfm
http://www.kookycongos.ca/peta.htm

There IS a difference between abusing an animal just for the fun of it & testing one for something that could change the world.