I know... before that one lab I actually thought dissections were kinda cool.... now I really don't think so.... specially since I just found out today that the darn frogs were not sedated...

Like eunie30 said, we haven't grown any new organs, so there is no need to check over more than once. Make plastic dissectable models or something...

You know, the blood and gore in movies can look really... erm... real. I wonder why they don't put together some plastic stuff and add those effects...

What about vegetable cruelty? Plants too are living things, you don't even take into consideration of their feelings x]

Veggie's are torn out of the fertile soiled ground, cute up, cleaned with numerous chemicals.
Yet noone complains x]
--------------------

ON-TOPIC
Is it animal cruelty? I believe it is... of course thats me. Giving them life just to cut them up for study. =/

the contrast between disection models and the real thing is very different.

how will doctors learn how find the gallbladder by touch if all the plastic models are , will, plastic and hard?

does plastic beat? like a plastic beating heart?

the problem with these substitutes is they can only be used so much. Eventually, live animals must be used.

and on the subject of cosmetic testing.

all cosmetic testing is humane. HUMANe, if not particarlly nice to animals.
I would like all those people opposed to cosmetic testing to think of this:

imagine i decide to be a cosmetic maker. I decide to make PETA certified ones that aren't tested on animals.

hmm... for some reason i put a chemical in mascera. it's great, makes lashes really great.

i sell it. it's great. thousands buy it.

one month later, i find out that this chemical i put in this mascera, it causes blinding! prolonged exposure causes blinding! and it comes off into the eye whenever someone blinks!!

so, there goes thousands of people's sight. Thousands of people, blind. Why? because PETA would not let me stick the chemical forciblly into many rabbits eyes untill they were almost bleeding from the eyes.

Sure, it's not great for the animals. But it's great for the humans. thus, it's HUMANe. as in HUMAN.

(anyways: something like this actually happened. Someone made a mascera not tested on animals. and it blinded a few hundred people. )

cosmetics MUST be tested, (or at least all chemicals used in the cosmetic), on animals BEFORE humans use it, or else the HUMANS are the beta testers of potentially lethal blush or lipstick.

cosmetics, because they are used so close to the eyes, and they are applied to the skin, and the lips, MUST be tested, because someone WILL get some in thier mouth, or in thier eye, or it will leeech into thier skin.

and we are HUMANS first, and which would you rather? 10,000 people blind, so that 20 rabbits don't die?

maybe those priorities need considering.

(Note: i don't like the thought of sticking chemicals in rabbit's eyes till they bleed. i wouldn't want to watch it. but it is nessisary. for safety reasons. )

yea, all the ideas are pass by generations and people can make a difference ..

Plastics do not need to be hard and unrealistic....

There are ways to make plastics like the real thing, I'm sure...

There are sex toys that feel like the real thing. Why not just make the rest of our body parts feel like the real thing since we can already make certain parts?




What are you talking about, boredperson?

yes but on the flip side there are things which, whn tested on animals which dont cause any effect, but do in humans

like one asthma medication caused a thousand deaths when released herre over a couple year period, with side effects which scientists were unable to reproduce in animals even when they tried

no, because you DONT DISSECT THEM ALIVE.



unless they are killed purposely [are they]?

yea it does sound like that too me. 9th grade we had to do pig disections. they told us the pigs had been dead before birth and it was a natural death. but i still got out of it cuz i switched bio classes. i was very happy when i'd heard that

read the whole topic before you post.

the animals are brought up and then killed with fromaldehyde so we can dissect them.

That's what I find so sick about this society. Why would you put potentially lethal chemicals on your face? I don't care if it makes better makeup. I don't care if the people who want this make-up riot for it.

If they want it so bad, make them test it on their face. Rather than testing HUMAN make-up on rabbits, why don't you risk those human's faces, lives, whatever. It's not like the rabbits are gonna wear blush, for Christ's sake.

I'm sick of people risking other living things' lives because they're too chicken spit to check it out for themselves.

I'm sorry, but most of your comments are based on wrong facts...

Formaldehyde is not used to kill any animals.. the chemical is used to preserve the dead animal so that it doesn't rotten. Most of the animals that are used for dissection in high school labs aren't killed on purpose... they were "put to sleep" by the animal shelter.

Stem cells are not some animal cell. It's embryonic cells.. meaning it's from unborn fetuses.. usually from those that are aborted or from unused eggs that were artificially inseminated. those "lives" are being used for experiment to advance the scientific knowledge and medicine.

As many have said, animal use for medical advancement is crucial. Without using animals for testing, there won't the kind of medical care that we take advantage of..... organ transplants, surgeries, cold medicine, etc. You can only test the effectiveness in theory for so much and practical application must be done to prove its effectiveness and safety for human.

I myself work in a lab that breeds and kills rodents for microsurgical transplantation. Everyday I kill at least 2 rats, practicing surgical procedures and transplanting organs for scientific studies. Without such studies and experiments, people who have diabetes and kidney failures won't survive..

For those that think that killing animals are cruel, then how can you be eating chicken and beef? These animals are bred and grown to specifically feed us. How about eggs? They're unborn chickens...

I understand that killing a living thing may seem crucial, but there are ethical guidelines in place to insure that these animals are not used in vein and treated well. There is absolutely no way of avoiding killing a living matter in order for other animals to survive.

It's hard to say what life is more important than another. However, there are fundamental reasons for doing what we do now. If my mother and a dog was drawing, I think I would no doubt save my mother than my dog... am i being cruel?

im2tall, you know that formaldehyde isn't actually used to preserve the animals?

formalin is used, which is basically a 10% formaldehyde solution.



because we are human. we care more about the life of a human than an animal. it's they way things are. Humans and animals are not equal. you can't get life in prision if you shoot an animal. in fact, it's legal. the government gets money from it.
Note: these animals are bred for the purpose. Only when you get to cats and dogs are they actual pets, and then it's from a shelter that has to put them to sleep anyways. Monkeys and primates, however, are activley captured. they are, however, nessicary.





the problem is these organs are not the real thing... you don't actually disect them. you pull them apart at the handles.

I'd like to see a plastic model that correctly simulates facae so the students can learn how to pull skin off of an animal without damaging muscles.

we can sythesis skin pretty well; but can we synthesis the way muscles are held together? how about the layers of skin?



some disections are done on live animals. All laboratory animals, to my knowledge, are killed purposely.



yes; but it still remains. testing on animals has saved more lives than 911.

I'm not sure if all surgeries require such extensive detail on all the parts. On the parts that we can emulate, use plastics, on the parts that we cannot, use the real thing. At the very least, we can lessen the use of real parts.



I think if some scientists, technicians, or whatever you call them, put their mind to it, they can come up with something.

They are to me.



The government gets money from it... that makes everything right, doesn't it?
I could name a number of things wrong with the government (as I'm sure anyone can)... but let's not get into that.



That's why there are vegetarians and vegans, my dear.



If your mother and a lab assistant were in a drawing.... you would no doubt save your mother.

Are you being cruel?


(I hope you guys don't think I'm attacking you. I see your side....)

yes.

animals and humans may be equal to you. they are to some people. those people happen to annoy me, because animals don't care about being equal. in the animal world, no one is equal. there is always an alpha, and always an omega.

anyways: an animal cannot speak to defend it's rights. It is not equal to humans, because they are not humans.

animals were here first. we invaded their territory. we knock down trees to build homes. we pollute the water. we pollute the air. the list goes on and on....

idk how ppl can say that humans are so much better than animals. we're the ones slowly destroying the land and water by using valuable resources that are depleting and causing global warming to become a major issue.

the world was a whole lot better off when humans weren't there to screw it up. all because animals can't express themselves through language...they still communicate with each other. animals a lot smarter than people give them credit for being...and may be smarter than some humans as well. Without animals, we wouldn't even be alive. [evolution...food]

yes... but we are still human.

loyalty to species first.

of course... most of the solutions used are not in pure concentration... I was just trying to make a point that this chemical is not used to kill the animal.




Although I understand that you're trying to make a point, it doesn't have any relevance to what we are discussing here. Your hypothetical question compares the value of one human life to another (which is a whole another issue). When I gave my hypothetical question I was comparing the value of one human life to one animal. nice try though...

Well.... I guess the debate has stemmed to the issue if an animal's life is worth protecting or not... eh, no matter. Its still in the same area.

I'm going to agree with Fae again. If skin can be made to resemble organic skin, and if sex toys can be made to feel like the real thing and if certain prosthetics and even movie props can be made to look and feel like the real thing, why not do that with human and animal anatomy models? Make them unlabeled so the task of labeling is still there.

Humans and animals are not the same, but animals *are* alive. They have a right to get their lives preserved.

Though I see your point, but I must also say that some mentally disabled humans cannot speak to defend their rights either. Does that mean they do not have a right to life?

I do not believe humans and animals are equal simply because I believe in survival of the fittest. But you know, we are here to survive foremost but we live beyond that. We know and understand love (most of us anyway), experience morality first hand... etc. Animals may not know love and morality as we do, but they have their own laws and ethics, which is called nature. They kill because it is in their nature to do so in order to survive and it would make sense that we kill them to survive as well. However, killing them in countless painful, bloody ways such as injecting chemicals in them are not always necessary for our survival.

Because I, too, care for human life more than the life of lower species (with rare exceptions), I think that animals should be used, if need be, for our security. But can using them to test makeup and the likes be called a "need"?

I should hope not, else I would be lead to believe we all have truly lost our morals and our common sense.

Actually, it has every relevance in my standpoint. I'm trying to tell you that the value of a human life should be treated with the value of an animal's life. If I had the choice to save you, a total stranger (no offense) and a befriended animal, I would save the animal. I don't happen to think I'm being cruel for not saving the glorified human.

Don't tell me what's relevant to me.



And I reiterate: humans are animals too. We happen to be at the top of the food chain.... because we're geniuses who know how to create weapons of mass destruction, but that doesn't give us the right to raise animals to poke and prod them to death for our own understanding.

....Man, didn't anyone watch Planet of the Apes
(Bad attempt at lightening the mood... )

then surely it is the responsibility of humans to defend them where they cannot?

the lives of animals shouldnot be sacrificed, of rsomething as needless as cosmetics. humans wont die without mascara you know.

medical test have more weight to them, but i personally still think its wrong...



good point? can u test tings on people in comas? they cant say 'no', can they

Yes, medical testing has more good reasons behind it, but student don't open up cats and pigs to test medicines, now do they? Unless a student is going to become a veterinarian, I really don't see why dissections are required for human Anatomy and Physiology courses. That is totally pointless.

As for your second statement, where does that tie into this debate? Forgive me, but I really don't see the point of it.