is it animal cruelty? Options

[CrimsonArchangel]

No, this is not about fur, or wool or anything like that.

Its about science. Many of you have had to dissect several creatures for bio class, most likely. Today I had to do the frog ringer lab, where a frog has its brain removed (is it really dead?) and then we have to dissect it and add chemicals to its heart to see what happens, then add a third one that will kill it.

Now I ask. Despite the fact that many of those animals are bred for that purpose, "to further science", should we use animals as dissection subjects? Or should we just make plastic models and the such?

Is it animal cruelty to breed animals for the purpose of being cut up by students just to learn?

[LadyXTor]

People are saying that we don't dissect until animals dead, completely untrue. Many animals are tested on while they're awake, without any anesthesia. I think it is animal cruelty because animals cannot defend themselves and are tested on involuntarily. Why not test on humans? many people donate their bodies when they die for science to test on and dissect. After all, we are trying to get further knowledge for science for our human kind so why torture the animals for ourselves?

[im2tall]

wow... you kids are amazing... I didn't want to bother with this topic anymore due to your ignorance, but I just didn't want you young people grow up with misled information..

People are saying that we don't dissect until animals dead, completely untrue.  Many animals are tested on while they're awake, without any anesthesia.  I think it is animal cruelty because animals cannot defend themselves and are tested on involuntarily.  Why not test on humans?  many people donate their bodies when they die for science to test on and dissect.  After all, we are trying to get further knowledge for science for our human kind so why torture the animals for ourselves?

First of all, how the heck could people dissect something that is alive? It will be physically impossible to prohibit the animals from defending themselves or fighting during the procedure... and like I have mentioned before, there are laws that protect the rights of the animal and guidelines for using the animals for testing.

Second, most animal testing is done on a live animal. Dissection is only performed for learning the anatomy... it's one thing to look at a picture and another to actually see the inter-workings of anatomy. Could you say that you've been to Italy by just seeing the pictures? This is also why "plastics" won't work of learning the anatomy completely. Yes you CAN see what it looks like, but it's quite different to actually see it in person... Could you train a doctor by just looking at plastic human model? Would you want that doctor to do surgeries on you? I sure wouldn't...

Thirdly, humans are used for testing... more specifically on drug trials... most companies are required by FDA to conduct double-blind studies on human to show the effectiveness of the drug before it's approved... so to say that humans are being selfish by only practicing on helpless animals are quite misleading.

For those that are arguing that animals shouldn't be used for dissection purposes, let me ask you this. Would you feel comfortable, as a high school student, to perform dissections on a dead human body? If you are, then you should become a doctor. But most people at that age can't handle it and this is why animals are used for the purpose of learning anatomy. In addition, most school considers dissection as an option, meaning that you may opt out of the experience. So if you feel so bad about using the animals, then don't... Other people are actually eager to learn and get the first hand experience in seeing the anatomy in person. Just because you don't like smoking, it doesn't mean that you can force other people from smoking. What I'm trying to say is that, just because you consider using animal for testing and dissection purposes don't make it morally wrong.

QUOTE
"and for live test subjects: the animals are bred for the purpose usually. "


well of course that makes it perfectly acceptable... jesus

Moral standards are based on social norms... you don't have to identify yourself with the social norm, but that doesn't change what's established by law what is ok and not ok. Again, there are laws that insures that the animals are treated respectfully.


It's easier to criticize something than providing solutions... if there are alternatives to animal testing for safety, then let's hear it... like sadolakced acid said, most medicines are based on tests performed by animals, including humans. If you don't like the fact that animals are being used for testing, then don't use the products like the animal rights group do... you don't have to wear animal tested cosmetics, but you should note that most vaccinations that you've received to protect your own health have been tested on animals before... this is the only reason why you are able to survive from previously deadly diseases... without small pox vaccines, you could actually die from getting small pox... heck, you can even die from flu if not treated.


Most of you are complaining and arguing based on what you've heard from someone or read on the internet... please educate yourselves properly by talking to someone that is actually in the field... it's ok to have your own ideas and opinions, but before your criticize, understand what you're trying to criticize.