Animal Testing

Do you think that we should allow animal testing for scientific research?

  • Yes

    Votes: 14 77.8%

  • No

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    18
(yes, but it should be used with a great deal of judiciousness, basically if you're going to do testing on a very intelligent animal like a chimpanzee then it very much should be an application that has the potential benefits to be worthwhile and can't be done on other animals or without animals at all, I'm not as familiar with the testing process as I was when I was in high school, but I wouldn't be surprised if the incentive structure of capitalism means that it is often done to be expedient and cost-effective, and that is unethical)

 
Micchan said:
Then we can't eat an apple because that's what we are, living being, and eating an apple is like causing an abortion!!!

And one day a bald kid with cancer who can barely walk approaches you asking why he has to suffer and you will answer "but I saved a mouse!"

You need priorities
Click to expand...
An apple isn't an animal it is lifeless

But eating animals for survival is logical as it is in the wild

How do you know that the mouse experiment was going to save the bald kid?

What right have you over the mouse, just because he is dumber and smaller you can force him do to your bidding

Can we extrapolate that to the worldwide human population?

I might not have priorities but you lack values

 
Chief Savage Man said:
this is a useless argument and you have said nothing of value

the fact that there are issues larger in scope does not have any bearing on one's ethical/moral position on smaller issues
Click to expand...
What I mean is that almost anything you do in life causes more harm to animals for less benefit. 

Based on some cursory googling: let's estimate that a million animals big enough to care about suffer a horrible research death every year.

Divide that into the population and multiply by a lifespan, and you get about 0.25 animals killed in your lifetime for research.

Or if I'm off by a huge factor, let's say a whole animal or two is killed in your lifetime for research.

Imagine going through your life and cutting out anything activity you do, any product you consume, that kills even a single animal in an entire lifetime and has less benefit to you than all the medicine and science that's come from animal research. Can that be done? It might seem difficult to imagine how it's possible, but there's one way to do it - jump on a compost pile and strangle yourself with some organic hemp rope. That's basically what I was getting at with my comment.

 
you have still said nothing

its a cost benefit consideration inherent to the specific issue, and handwaving it away as being less important as some other problem days nothing about it specifically

 
Chief Savage Man said:
you have still said nothing

its a cost benefit consideration inherent to the specific issue, and handwaving it away as being less important as some other problem days nothing about it specifically
Click to expand...
No, it's really not unique to this issue at all. The cost benefit consideration works the exact same way as it does on any other question of animal rights. You balance the benefit to humans on one end of the scales, and you balance the harm to animals on the other end.

If someone thinks animal testing isn't worth it, their scales are unbelievably weighted towards one side. Weighted so heavily towards one side that if someone used them consistently, they would have joined the voluntary human extinction movement by now instead of being around to vote in a poll like this. Is that clear enough?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My general point of view on this is yes, but only due to 3 factors. 1. Our models/artificial testing devices are currently pretty trash, so we really can't replace these test subjects. 2. Most of these lab animals were in fact bred for this purpose, and letting them back into the wild or putting them in zoos would create massive overpopulation of certain species of animals. 3. This boils down to basically a better them than us argument, but in all honesty, if I had to choose between killing an animal or killing a human to develop a cure, I'm killing the animal every single time.

 
Back
Top