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?

[*xcaitlinx*]

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... )

i agree with u 100%.

[racoons > you]

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.

i was agreeing with the idea that disection was rong...

and if u'd read the whole deabte properly, u'd understand the relevance ( u do mean the second point u quoted, dont you?)

[PUNKINitup]

Yes it is. I'm a vegitarian, and the only reason i became a vegitarian is because i feel it it wrong to breed animals to kill them. i mean, look at it this way. every year in america, millions of women have kids and people pay tax dollars to feed their kids from welfare. but in society, it would be "wrong" to kill the kids after their born (which i agree is wrong). instead, there should a limit to thewelfare system, meaning after a certain number of kids, if the person does not get a job or something, they are put in jail and kids are put in faoster care.

[imm]

Yes it is. I'm a vegitarian, and the only reason i became a vegitarian is because i feel it it wrong to breed animals to kill them. i mean, look at it this way. every year in america, millions of women have kids and people pay tax dollars to feed their kids from welfare. but in society, it would be "wrong" to kill the kids after their born (which i agree is wrong). instead, there should a limit to thewelfare system, meaning after a certain number of kids, if the person does not get a job or something, they are put in jail and kids are put in faoster care.

OH HECK YEAH!

Yes, it is animal cruelty.

I'm a vegetarian too.

[sadolakced acid]

oh yes. it's so cruel. i mean, helping propogate the species is soo cruel. wow. if it were between me and the animal, i'd SOOO want you to pick the animal. because the animals are Cute and Fluffy? i don't CARE that the LION won't care i'm a vegan. I'll go try to free it. What? but i'm nice to animals... why is the lion coming at me that way? why is the lion eating me? ahh. Why is the lion propogating it's life and species? i was NICE to it... i didn't eat it...

LIFE's not FAIR. ANIMALS get the short end of the stick.

i mean, if some other animal were in charge of the world, i'm SURE they'd let themselves die out so we could take over. i mean, it's not like it's NATURAL to want to propogate your own species...


1. Food is food. Humans are Humans. Humans are omnivores. Humans need to eat meat. Humans have the teeth to eat meat. Animals are meat. Humans eat animals. It's the circle of life, it's the way things are. It's life.

2. Animals are Animals. Humans are humans. I value human life more. So do you. trust me. you value your own life (a human's by the way. i hope.) more than any animal. Between yourself and an animal, you'd choose the animal. Don't kid yourself. You're alive. which means you chose yourself.

3. Dissections are needed for expirence. Plastic can only go so far. I disected a cat for Human Anatomy and Physiology. I learn a lot more than the three-d models and 2-d pictures taught me. Plastic models are expensive. They'd be single use too. Economically, it can't be done (replacing dissections with plastic models). To replicate an animal exactly, that's still not possible. We, Humans, even disect ourselves becasue there is no alternative.

[mysticalazxn]

some animal must sacrafice for tthe shake of the human race! if we donnt test on animal as a peparation the studnet will probably screew up on a real human being.

[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?

[sadolakced acid]

because humans are not animals.

disections of cats, i know, takes the cats from animals put to sleep from a shelter.

not enough peopel donate bodies to use that.

[LadyXTor]

yes, but that's only cats from shelters. Some cats are found and tested on or bought. Iams (the dog food company) cuts up dog thighs until they're small slivers while they are alive and awake. Yes, humans are not animals but animals still have rights. They are tested on involuntarily and killed. It's OUR products we're testing on them and we're trying to get further knowledge for OURSELVES. So why do we test on animals that don't have to do with anything? Why do we get to say that our lives are more important than theirs?

[eunie03]

They are tested on involuntarily and killed.  It's OUR products we're testing on them and we're trying to get further knowledge for OURSELVES.  So why do we test on animals that don't have to do with anything?  Why do we get to say that our lives are more important than theirs?

Very nicely said. I agree whole-heartedly.

because humans are not animals. 

disections of cats, i know, takes the cats from animals put to sleep from a shelter. 

not enough peopel donate bodies to use that.

Why are humans not animals too?

animal (n): A multicellular organism with membranous cell walls of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

Of course humans don't donate bodies. Why would they do that when cats who can't defend themselves are in abundance? Humans can say no. Cats can't. They're involuntarily sacrificed for the good of mankind.

As for your lion argument... it was said earlier that we understand the need to fight for survival. Eating, feeding (yes, even if it involves killing) is to just get by. Do you think our whim and curiosity as to what's inside a living animal is necessary for survival? I doubt it. One less eyeliner on the market won't kill the entire human race.

You shouldn't try to make the lion seem like a cold-hearted killer, when humans murder humans for no good reason at all (not for rank or food or mates) every day.

[sadolakced acid]

ok, so the cats will be involuntarily scaraficed for the good of the landfill then, because they're going to be killed anyways.

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

As for your lion argument... it was said earlier that we understand the need to fight for survival. Eating, feeding (yes, even if it involves killing) is to just get by. Do you think our whim and curiosity as to what's inside a living animal is necessary for survival? I doubt it. One less eyeliner on the market won't kill the entire human race.

this whim of curiosity has already saved your life. If you're alive, in this world, and not in a third world country, you have already benifited from animal testing.

you are guilty of supporting the tourture of animals for the benifit of yourself.

everyone is.

[racoons > you]

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

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

you are guilty of supporting the tourture of animals for the benifit of yourself.

thats not necessarily true... i mean, i boycott animal tested products whenever possible, and im a member of an animal rights group...

just because the majortiy of society condones something, doesnt mean everyone in it does.

were german members of the anti-nazi resistance who smuggled jews out of denmark as guilty of the holocaust as the concentration camp guards... no.

[sadolakced acid]

thats not necessarily true... i mean, i boycott animal tested products whenever possible, and im a member of an animal rights group...

note: you said whenever possible.

it is not possible, if you've ever had any modern medicines, to have had something not tested on animals.

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals...
as well as many different common day things...

[LadyXTor]

note: you said whenever possible.

it is not possible, if you've ever had any modern medicines, to have had something not tested on animals. 

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals... 
as well as many different common day things...

It is possible to avoid. You can just not take any modern medicines and be sick. =) There ARE medicines that haven't been tested on animals. There are MANY alternatives to animal testing. Such as putting human cells and the chemical in a petri dish and seeing if it reacts bad....or whatever. There ARE ways and it IS possible.

[sadolakced acid]

there are no medicines, that have not been tested on animals. unless you go to your tribal elder and get his herbal balm or something. which doens't count as a modern medicine

There are MANY alternatives to animal testing. Such as putting human cells and the chemical in a petri dish and seeing if it reacts bad....or whatever. There ARE ways and it IS possible.

you are refering to in vitro testing? why is invitro not viable? because it's not a living system.

example:

some scientist has stem cells from a man dieing, and he needed more brain cells. They had put the stem cells in a petri dish, and in vitro they grew into brain cells.

in his head they grew into hair, teeth, and nails.

Also: in vitro doesn't see the effects of everthing together.

there are NOT alternates for animal testing for MEDICINES.

FDA rules. you take tylenol, you tourture animals. same with advil. penicillin? yup.

[whomps]

What the hell, animals are bred for that purpose? I thought they just had dead animals.. What the hell..

I've never dissected any animals before.

[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.

[CrimsonArchangel]

WELL said.

I actually believe all you say. I started the topic just to hear from the other side.

One thing, however, there are dissections that are done in live animals. There is the whole frog's heart thing. The animal has its brain hacked off, and there is no point in seeing what chemicals do to the heart if its not beating, so its still alive.

Another one of my points is the fact that pre-med students in my school still have to dissect animals to learn anatomy. *That* I see no point in doing. Your point about high school students yadda yadda is perfectly plausible and I go for it 100%.

[Spirited Away]

If it's so gruesome for high school students to use a human body, it would be as gruesome for some students to see a dead animal. *Raises hand*, that was me in high school. I knew kids who had notes from parents to excuse them from class to read the book rather than perform dissections. Problems at home prevented me from coming up with the same excused note they had.

So then, why can't those students, and students like me who had to grudgingly stay in class trying not to throw up, learn by looking at plastic models? We still learn something, right?

That way, I don't have to feel guilty dissecting a fetal pig and still learn something rather than nothing at all. It also lessens one fetal pig from being wasted.

[im2tall]

If it's so gruesome for high school students to use a human body, it would be as gruesome for some students to see a dead animal. *Raises hand*, that was me in high school. I knew kids who had notes from parents to excuse them from class to read the book rather than perform dissections. Problems at home prevented me from coming up with the same excused note they had. 

So then, why can't those students, and students like me who had to grudgingly stay in class trying not to throw up, learn by looking at plastic models? We still learn something, right?

That way, I don't have to feel guilty dissecting a fetal pig and still learn something rather than nothing at all. It also lessens one fetal pig from being wasted.

You are definately learning something... like I have said before, however, it's one thing to learn based on models and quite another to learn based on real animals. If you are not trying to become a doctor/surgeon, you can totally learn everything you need to know for your field, be it chemist, biologist, etc., by just looking at the models and learning from the textbooks. But if you are trying to become a doctor, you should be able to handle the gruesome image of dead or live animals being opened up. This can not be taught through textbooks...

I personally think that anatomy classes that have dissections give the students the kind of experience they need to make proper decisions for their future goals/aspirations. I've heard many people dropping out of med school, after all the hard studying and work, just because they couldn't handle human dissection. That's 4 yrs of college wasted...

WELL said.

I actually believe all you say. I started the topic just to hear from the other side.

One thing, however, there are dissections that are done in live animals. There is the whole frog's heart thing. The animal has its brain hacked off, and there is no point in seeing what chemicals do to the heart if its not beating, so its still alive.

Another one of my points is the fact that pre-med students in my school still have to dissect animals to learn anatomy. *That* I see no point in doing. Your point about high school students yadda yadda is perfectly plausible and I go for it 100%.

Thanks... .. I totally understand what you're trying to do.... it's always better to understand other people's point of view when you're trying to argue your point. I honestly think that people should challenge the conventional view, but at the same time, respect the conventional view. It's like religion... it's fine if you so strongly belive in something, as long as it helps you to make the right and good decisions... however it's not ok to force someone to believe in the same way... it's one thing to talk about it, but another when someone is trying to win the argument.
You do not need other people's approval to justify your opinion. So let's just get along hehe

[Spirited Away]

You are definately learning something... like I have said before, however, it's one thing to learn based on models and quite another to learn based on real animals.  If you are not trying to become a doctor/surgeon, you can totally learn everything you need to know for your field, be it chemist, biologist, etc., by just looking at the models and learning from the textbooks.  But if you are trying to become a doctor, you should be able to handle the gruesome image of dead or live animals being opened up.  This can not be taught through textbooks...

I personally think that anatomy classes that have dissections give the students the kind of experience they need to make proper decisions for their future goals/aspirations.  I've heard many people dropping out of med school, after all the hard studying and work, just because they couldn't handle human dissection.  That's 4 yrs of college wasted...

Seeing how my original point is that we can lessen the use of real animals through plastic models, unless they are required for a study that could better our survival, I don't think I learned anything I didn't know before . Indeed there is a difference between dissectting a fleshy fetal pig and a fake, but to those who really have a problem with the real thing, at least they have a choice, and those who have interest in pursuing science can still have their experience.

I totally agree that science classes that offer hands on activities are great for a student's decision making process, but the class that I had to dissect a fetal pig was not anatomy; it was 9th grade intro to biology class. There isn't a doubt that I enjoyed the course, but it would have been more pleasant had I not done the dissection.

I also agree that it's like religion, and one shouldn't press one's views on others, but it works both ways. Why not give a choice to people who do not agree with dissecting the real thing? Instead of forcing them between learning how to dissect and not at all, give a choice to dissect a fake.

[sadolakced acid]

i agree plastic and silicone models can be good teaching tools... better than real life in some cases ( how many live samples of breast cancer can students use to practice feeling for lumps? compared to silicone models?)

however, they can only go so far:

plastic models cannot mimic the actual dissection, that is the cutting, etc. that is nessisary for doctors to know.

Plastic models will also all be the same; whereas two cats rarely have organs that all look alike.

plastic models would be very, very expensive to cover an animal in depth. or a human... and if it were to try to mimic the disection aspect, it'd be one use...


If someone were pursuing a career in science, at one point they would HAVE to disect something, or quit thier job... so why can't they just quit the disection courses when they start, instead of relying upon plastic models (which would not really be sufficent)?

plastic models are like trying to create a universal computer that every other type looks like, and functions like. All computers do the same things (usually), but they can vary dramatically in thier insides and appearance. same with animals, but a LOT more...

[Spirited Away]

Yes, yes. And once again, we can lessen the use of real animals by offering fake models to those who do not wish to pursue a medical/science career. That way, at least there is choice.

Sorry to be repeative but I liked bio, but the fact that I KNEW what I wanted to do with my life really made dissecting that pig unpleasant in more ways than one.

If required for the betterment of our survival, then I will not hesitate to admit that animal testing/expirimentation is necessary. But as a teaching tool for students who aren't interested, plastics will be just dandy.

Price would not be a problem if there is competition to provide the product. That means, if there is more than one seller, it will not be sold at an outrageous price. Many plastics are recyclable thus it should be easy, low cost, to acquire the parts needed.

My point is to lessen the use of real animals if and only if plastics can be an alternative.

[racoons > you]

I belive laundry detergent is also tested on animals...
as well as many different common day things...

its illegal in britain to test on animals for non medical processes... as long as i buy home grown stuff, im ok

And once again, we can lessen the use of real animals by offering fake models to those who do not wish to pursue a medical/science career

exactly, i want to be a journalist. i do not need to know about the inner workings of a guinea pig. why make me cut one up?

and to everyone who has said that because its legal, we should just shut up and it must be ok, then i ask you if martin luther king should have shut up, because segregation was legal, or if emmeline pankhurst and millicent fawcett should have shut up because it was legal to deny women the vote ...

[sadolakced acid]

most school have classes sans disection.

its illegal in britain to test on animals for non medical processes... as long as i buy home grown stuff, im ok happy.gif

no, you're not ok...

because those chemicals used have been tested on animals already.

the individual components are already tested on animals.

just because someone else did the testing doesn't mean it's not animal texted, even though technially you didn't test on animals. It was because of animal testing that those chemicals were deemed safe, and thus, avalible to be used to various 'not tested on animals ' products.