Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Remove Ad, Sign Up
Register to Remove Ad
Register to Remove Ad
Signup for Free!
-More Features-
-Far Less Ads-
About   Users   Help
Users & Guests Online
On Page: 1
Directory: 1 & 151
Entire Site: 9 & 1015
Page Staff: pennylessz, pokemon x, Barathemos, tgags123, alexanyways, RavusRat,
03-28-24 11:38 AM

Thread Information

Views
533
Replies
1
Rating
1
Status
CLOSED
Thread
Creator
a-sassy-black-l..
09-24-14 12:31 PM
Last
Post
TitaniumOxide
09-24-14 03:00 PM
Additional Thread Details
Views: 201
Today: 0
Users: 0 unique

Thread Actions

Thread Closed
New Thread
New Poll
Order
 

how do you feel about animal testing?

 

09-24-14 12:31 PM
a-sassy-black-lady is Offline
| ID: 1081536 | 389 Words

Level: 37

POSTS: 205/289
POST EXP: 15997
LVL EXP: 326479
CP: 4624.0
VIZ: 191175

Likes: 0  Dislikes: 0
"testing" should be defined as all testing on animals including, medical research, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animal subjects. Most existing bans on animal research, when they have been implemented, have involved some form of disciplinary action by a professional body and the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Medical research is the hardest case for proposition in this debate to prove, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity , while contemporary animal research continues to contribute demonstrably to the speed and efficiency with which new scientific break throughs are achieved. Focussing the proposition case on toxicology, or cosmetics alone would divert the debate into an area of law and ethics that is settled in most respects: many states around the world have instituted bans using animals to test cosmetics and the toxicity of domestic cleaning products. Thus the best proposition strategy is to focus on the hard case of medical research.

Animal research has been used for several centuries as part of efforts to better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation.

The pharmaceutical industry spends a significant amount of time conducting research on animals. Due to the relative paucity of drugs that make it on to the market place after the initial testing phases, the global cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives, is around 5.75 million animals. By contrast the now shrinking industry sector on chemical safety testing using animals, uses around 860 animals per chemical when screening for carcinogens (cancer-causing substances).

Whilst much the research described above is categorised as causing minimal pain and suffering, figures obtained in 2010 show that in the USA alone 97,123 animals were used in research likely to involve pain and suffering, where pain killers and sedatives would not be administered. However, it should be born in mind that this figure is equal to only 8.5% of the total number of animals used in research activities covered by the US Animal Welfare Act - but the act does not cover mice, rats, birds or fish.
"testing" should be defined as all testing on animals including, medical research, cosmetics, toxicology testing, and psychological research involving animal subjects. Most existing bans on animal research, when they have been implemented, have involved some form of disciplinary action by a professional body and the possibility of criminal prosecution.

Medical research is the hardest case for proposition in this debate to prove, since it has previously yielded substantial benefits for humanity , while contemporary animal research continues to contribute demonstrably to the speed and efficiency with which new scientific break throughs are achieved. Focussing the proposition case on toxicology, or cosmetics alone would divert the debate into an area of law and ethics that is settled in most respects: many states around the world have instituted bans using animals to test cosmetics and the toxicity of domestic cleaning products. Thus the best proposition strategy is to focus on the hard case of medical research.

Animal research has been used for several centuries as part of efforts to better understand the world around us. Almost all states actively research on animals at present. The total scale of all research on vertebrates is hard to measure, but according to some estimates it could be as high as 115,000,000 animals per year, with the vast majority of these being euthanized at the end of the period of experimentation.

The pharmaceutical industry spends a significant amount of time conducting research on animals. Due to the relative paucity of drugs that make it on to the market place after the initial testing phases, the global cost of each successful new drug in terms of animal lives, is around 5.75 million animals. By contrast the now shrinking industry sector on chemical safety testing using animals, uses around 860 animals per chemical when screening for carcinogens (cancer-causing substances).

Whilst much the research described above is categorised as causing minimal pain and suffering, figures obtained in 2010 show that in the USA alone 97,123 animals were used in research likely to involve pain and suffering, where pain killers and sedatives would not be administered. However, it should be born in mind that this figure is equal to only 8.5% of the total number of animals used in research activities covered by the US Animal Welfare Act - but the act does not cover mice, rats, birds or fish.
Perma Banned
'The Lannisters send their regards.'


Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 02-24-12
Location: the house of the undying
Last Post: 3369 days
Last Active: 3357 days

09-24-14 03:00 PM
TitaniumOxide is Offline
| ID: 1081569 | 974 Words

TitaniumOxide
Level: 23

POSTS: 16/98
POST EXP: 31249
LVL EXP: 66625
CP: 350.6
VIZ: 33718

Likes: 1  Dislikes: 0
Animal testing is a necessary evil. I for one really enjoy the company of animals because I am a bio major and I find life as a whole fascinating. I was cleaning up some ants attacking a trove of maggots the other day and found staring at them up close fun which may seem very weird to many. With that said, I should be a strong supporter against animal testing.

I mean why is it okay for IAMS to lock up poor beagle pups in a dark room for days on end to test the effect of dog food? I know the argument. The argument is this: If you want to know if that drug works for the benefit humans, go test it on human subjects and solely human subjects. The only problem is that we are sentient creatures with a highly intelligent mind and we are capable to want our species to not hurt as a whole because we are super developed social animals. So it is only natural to find a way to circumvent human pain and suffering when possible and that means not having to test stuff on your own family pets because then your daughter will cry and say you are a heartless evil jerk. You can say oh but why do so many people go to war if we care so much about human suffering? That is called greed. I won't go into that but greed is everywhere and it plays a factor in
us not wanting us to be test subjects for drugs used on us until scientists deem that it is safe enough to be tested on us. So still, it is unethical. In our culture, majority rules so as long as there are more people think the same as I do (albeit subconsciously that may be) then there will be animal testing. We are us, and testing on
them is not us which makes it safer. Even in times of emergency like the current ebola epidemic, researchers are wondering if it is ethical to treat people with drugs that are untested yet (on humans and as a whole, on animals first).

I am not happy about it nor am I proud of it. The achievements are great and in the end we all know the big pharmas will profit but unless you shun any type of artificial drugs used on you to alleviate any form of symptoms you may be experiencing, then you are a hypocrite. This means that as much as I do not support 'faith' healing, if these people do not support animal testing and they do not use any drugs, then they are good examples of not being hypocrites for letting their kids die. It is an extreme example but it makes sense yes? So many drugs have been tested on animals that are saving human lives everyday. So, truly if you throw your full support behind ending animal testing then I give you 2 big thumbs up for being such a brave soul but I will not hesitate to let someone else have the drug because of your beliefs if I was the doctor because I rather not help someone who I don't know if he is a hypocrite or not but a strong supporter surely would be a hypocrite for taking those same drugs. Good thing I am not a doctor, I'd probably be a horrible doc lol.

Animal testing has yielded great results and like it or not, it will stay for a very long time. PETA can shout all they want and bless PETA for what they stand for but it isn't enough. As long as we keep benefiting from animal testing, it will not stop. No computer simulated models can predict 100% what life is capable of and life keeps pushing the boundaries of possibilities. People do not want to test on people until it has been done to animals and people do not want the risk. There are too many lawsuits already for animal testing. Imagine if the first trial of drugs killed 50 infants instead of 50 baby chimps. What a catastrophe that could have been avoided. Even if consent forms were signed, even if these kids were all braindead, and their parents both died in a war. Even in the worse of circumstances, testing on humans in the first trial will bear ethical questions even when consent is given. It makes us human. It makes us evil. It makes us sinners. So you can keep being the unlikely sinner and not be naive or you can decide not to go to the hospital when if you get infected by ebola because they are testing zmapp on some of our evolutionary cousins. I know I am harsh in my writings but without enough truth and logic, people are too driven by emotions and that is not the right path to take to prosper as a species if logic doesn't come first. Human psychology is a wonderfully scary thing.

Onward and Upwards,
TitaniumOxide

Note: For those who do not know, when I say you, I do not mean the OP, I meant strong supporters like people from PETA and affiliates like Hope4Paws. All these guys have my utmost respect, they have a lot of people who doesn't like them for what they stand for so if you have a little time, go see what they have to say if you haven't yet and you will be a much more open minded person. I for one will probably not ever be brave enough to stand for something like that but kudos to those who do. They are truly animal lovers, not your average college girl saying she loves animals when she only loves her pet dog and the four bunny rabbits and cat she left back at home. 
Animal testing is a necessary evil. I for one really enjoy the company of animals because I am a bio major and I find life as a whole fascinating. I was cleaning up some ants attacking a trove of maggots the other day and found staring at them up close fun which may seem very weird to many. With that said, I should be a strong supporter against animal testing.

I mean why is it okay for IAMS to lock up poor beagle pups in a dark room for days on end to test the effect of dog food? I know the argument. The argument is this: If you want to know if that drug works for the benefit humans, go test it on human subjects and solely human subjects. The only problem is that we are sentient creatures with a highly intelligent mind and we are capable to want our species to not hurt as a whole because we are super developed social animals. So it is only natural to find a way to circumvent human pain and suffering when possible and that means not having to test stuff on your own family pets because then your daughter will cry and say you are a heartless evil jerk. You can say oh but why do so many people go to war if we care so much about human suffering? That is called greed. I won't go into that but greed is everywhere and it plays a factor in
us not wanting us to be test subjects for drugs used on us until scientists deem that it is safe enough to be tested on us. So still, it is unethical. In our culture, majority rules so as long as there are more people think the same as I do (albeit subconsciously that may be) then there will be animal testing. We are us, and testing on
them is not us which makes it safer. Even in times of emergency like the current ebola epidemic, researchers are wondering if it is ethical to treat people with drugs that are untested yet (on humans and as a whole, on animals first).

I am not happy about it nor am I proud of it. The achievements are great and in the end we all know the big pharmas will profit but unless you shun any type of artificial drugs used on you to alleviate any form of symptoms you may be experiencing, then you are a hypocrite. This means that as much as I do not support 'faith' healing, if these people do not support animal testing and they do not use any drugs, then they are good examples of not being hypocrites for letting their kids die. It is an extreme example but it makes sense yes? So many drugs have been tested on animals that are saving human lives everyday. So, truly if you throw your full support behind ending animal testing then I give you 2 big thumbs up for being such a brave soul but I will not hesitate to let someone else have the drug because of your beliefs if I was the doctor because I rather not help someone who I don't know if he is a hypocrite or not but a strong supporter surely would be a hypocrite for taking those same drugs. Good thing I am not a doctor, I'd probably be a horrible doc lol.

Animal testing has yielded great results and like it or not, it will stay for a very long time. PETA can shout all they want and bless PETA for what they stand for but it isn't enough. As long as we keep benefiting from animal testing, it will not stop. No computer simulated models can predict 100% what life is capable of and life keeps pushing the boundaries of possibilities. People do not want to test on people until it has been done to animals and people do not want the risk. There are too many lawsuits already for animal testing. Imagine if the first trial of drugs killed 50 infants instead of 50 baby chimps. What a catastrophe that could have been avoided. Even if consent forms were signed, even if these kids were all braindead, and their parents both died in a war. Even in the worse of circumstances, testing on humans in the first trial will bear ethical questions even when consent is given. It makes us human. It makes us evil. It makes us sinners. So you can keep being the unlikely sinner and not be naive or you can decide not to go to the hospital when if you get infected by ebola because they are testing zmapp on some of our evolutionary cousins. I know I am harsh in my writings but without enough truth and logic, people are too driven by emotions and that is not the right path to take to prosper as a species if logic doesn't come first. Human psychology is a wonderfully scary thing.

Onward and Upwards,
TitaniumOxide

Note: For those who do not know, when I say you, I do not mean the OP, I meant strong supporters like people from PETA and affiliates like Hope4Paws. All these guys have my utmost respect, they have a lot of people who doesn't like them for what they stand for so if you have a little time, go see what they have to say if you haven't yet and you will be a much more open minded person. I for one will probably not ever be brave enough to stand for something like that but kudos to those who do. They are truly animal lovers, not your average college girl saying she loves animals when she only loves her pet dog and the four bunny rabbits and cat she left back at home. 
Member

Affected by 'Laziness Syndrome'

Registered: 04-30-11
Location: San Diego
Last Post: 3035 days
Last Active: 2496 days

(edited by TitaniumOxide on 09-24-14 03:17 PM)     Post Rating: 1   Liked By: a-sassy-black-lady,

Links

Page Comments


This page has no comments

Adblocker detected!

Vizzed.com is very expensive to keep alive! The Ads pay for the servers.

Vizzed has 3 TB worth of games and 1 TB worth of music.  This site is free to use but the ads barely pay for the monthly server fees.  If too many more people use ad block, the site cannot survive.

We prioritize the community over the site profits.  This is why we avoid using annoying (but high paying) ads like most other sites which include popups, obnoxious sounds and animations, malware, and other forms of intrusiveness.  We'll do our part to never resort to these types of ads, please do your part by helping support this site by adding Vizzed.com to your ad blocking whitelist.

×