Now for quite some while there have been these debates about testing things
on animals. Some may call it animal cruelty but honestly.
What else do we have to test it on?
I want your opinions on this topic
Remember keep convo's civil do not
bash on or frauwn upon other peoples ideas or
opinions.
Also saying random things or not abiding by these rules
will get you reported..

Well, this topic is very discussive frome differnet sides.
First point of view is the tolerance to animals.

According to this point of view we should be tolerant to annimals, respect their lives and don't test any medications on they, which could hurt them.

Second point of view is about to stay alive in this world

According to this point of view that we should "stay alive in this cruel world". Law of the jungle "every man for himself," "anything goes," "survival of the strongest," "survival of the fittest," "kill or be killed," "dog eat dog" and "eat or be eaten," and so on, according to this point of view we should do anything to stay alive, so we should do animal testing
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ______________________________________________

As for me, sure, it is miserable to harass our lil brothers, but we should stay alive, should fight with diseases to stay alive

And yes, my English not so good to explain all of my feeling about it, but you feel free to ask me anything and I will answer you

Well, I feel that testing on animals should be allowed because in the eyes of us humans, we are the most superior animal in the world and we would get weaker animals to experiment on, it's like if a human made another human their pet, it is seen as despicable because it is one of us. And we do need to get medication for life threatening diseases like many forms of cancer. It could also be due to psychological torment, I wouldn't mind killing 100 lab rats to cure cancer but I would mind if I killed 10 humans to cure cancer since the are one of me and it just fucks up your mind. Another thing would be to actually keep humans and animals alive to carry on testing, it costs a tonne more to keep and human healthy than an animal. Also there are animals that have DNA really close to ares so why bother affecting us when we can just use them.

So that's my opinion, yes on testing animals.

Rats have a survival strategy which is basically to make more offspring in one go than they can handle, so in the wild, many baby rats don't get a chance to live anyway. This makes me feel a bit less bad about animal testing, for you give the rats a bit of time to live in return for an experiment.

Still, they suffer. Sometimes badly and for a longer period of time. But animals don't have the same moral value for us as humans do, so of course we choose them over our own kind when things get deadly or twisted. I'm okay with animal testing because it is convenient for us, humankind, and doesn't cause long-term problems.

So two questions remain as far as I'm concerned: Firstly, what gives us the right to decide about the life of the rats in the first place? And secondly, where lies the border between human and animal morale?

I wouldn't dare say.

I personally don't fully support animal testing
but who else are they gonna test stuff on?
I am mostly nuetral on this subject.

Why not test on death row inmates:

• 1. Limited amount of specimens

Kinda hard to get a good sample base from a very limited amount of people, and also due to point 2. This is exactly why we use lab animals, mostly mice.
We can pretty much breed them indefinitely, therefore we have a controlled sample size.

• 2. The different physical/mental health of inmates

Lab animals are bred just to be used as lab animals. We can be fairly sure that these specimens do not differ in health, therefore we can assume the chemical we are testing will have similiar if not the same effects on all the specimens.
You can hardly say this for inmates who probably had a longer life before getting onto death row, and were exposed to the prison enviroment. Humans generally differ from eachother.

• 3. Just because they are death row inmates doesn't mean they aren't humans

By proposing we test on them, you pretty much state that the life of the [lab] animal which is bred for the single purpose of being tested on is the same as of a human.
This was heavily discussed in the last thread, but we pretty much came to the conclusion that comparing the life of a human to that of an animal is foolish.



Now back to animals. Testing on animals has been, and most likely will be, a big part of science as a whole. From the simpler times were some poor guy had to discover that approaching a lion was dangerous, to more advanced studies, such as the discovery of Insulin by studying dogs.

On the other side we have cosmetics. I would highly advice that people do not discuss cosmetics here since this is almost purely a moral dillema. Infact, leaving morality out of the general discussion would probably the best course of action, from my perspective.
Why? Because morality is purely subjective. What you see as right, I might see as wrong, or the other way around. All morality discussion would just boil down to "I think 'x' is right/wrong!" which can hardly be called discussion anymore.

It's either us or the animals we test on and I for one would choose the animal than to see a human going through pain from bad chemicals and such. This I guess is why we need people like Mengele and stuff. Science can only move so fast using animals, but actually using another human would bring results a lot faster.

Also Deathrow inmates forfeited their basic human rights already, they're human, but they're not People..

There will always happen unlucky things when you test things on animals, I do not choose a side to whether yes or no these days, if you are a skilled scientist and you are able to adapt theory on a full understood practise(I think we are far from understanding our human body/mental and other shifts in ourselfs) then you should have enough balls for testing it out on yourself.

Scientists don't need balls, they need brains and testing on subjects and not yourself falls into the category of brains.

Having a scientist fall ill to their creation is just not good for the rest of the non-scientists, the scientist could die without even fixing the problem and we are just left with a broken unfinished theory, which is why we need the animals.

Alright, I'll challenge your moral position.

Do pigs give consent to be slaughtered and eaten? Do dogs give consent to being raised in our homes? Do lions give consent to being locked in enclosures?

No, and we don't care. We eat bacon, we keep pets and we visit zoos. Why? Because we innately understand that human life is more valuable than other animal life. You wouldn't burst into tears over accidently stepping on an ant, but if you accidently hit a pedestrian with your car you would certainly find yourself deeply emotionally affected.

Clearly, there's a scale. It's not humans as #1 and all other animals as #2. For various reasons, we value some animals over others. A cute, cuddly cat means a lot more to us than some foul cockroach. Regardless of this scale, however, no other animal is #1. We don't treat other animals like humans or confer human rights to them - That would be ridiculous (fancy going to jail for screwing with the individual liberty of a bug).

It's not morally wrong to test products on animals. The researchers and scientists are not some kind of moral monsters for doing what they do.

That said, keeping animals in horrible conditions or torturing animals is morally abhorrent. Why? Because inflicting unnecessary suffering on animals isn't moral. I think we could all agree that maximising happiness and minimising suffering are our two main moral imperatives.

If the suffering is happening in order to serve a legitimate purpose (e.g. developing new medicines), the suffering becomes digestible and not immoral. If the suffering is instead wanton and not necessary, well then that's just a morally ugly act.

tl;dr:
It doesn't matter that animals don't give consent, that doesn't make animal testing immoral.