biotechpete Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Don't think they'd need me. Many people are short on cash and the prisons are very full. 2 birds, one stone. Legal requirement or not, everything that does eventually make it is tested on humans before being released. Sometimes with disappointing or even disastrous conquences so why bother with the animal step at all (1.)? The provivisection argument relies on saying to people "it's a necessary evil", "it will help save your/family's life", "if you don't agree, you should give up all rights to existing treatments" and "would you rather they tested it on you". (2.) None of which needs to apply absolutely. Some of which is nonsensical. More interesting is the size of the industry and all the jobs it supports. That surely has more to do with why it's a legal requirement and a necessary evil than anything else. The only way to see if vivisection is truly required would be to ban it entirely and see the effect it had on research and volume of new drugs that are created. (3.) The whole medical and pharmaceutical industries are driven by profit and attracting investment, not an overriding desire to help people or cure illnesses.(4.) 1. Because it vastly reduces the risks of those disasterous consequences. 2. All of those apply in some sense; if new drugs are not tested in animals they will be tested on humans or not at all. Ergo either we will get fewer/no drugs or we will get more dangerous and less effective drugs. 3. The only effect that would have is to accelerate the current decline in science and research (especially pharmaceutical) in this country. The tests will still be done, just in China, India or Eastern Europe. 4. If their drugs didn't help anyone then they wouldn't be profitable. But this isn't pharma research it's a university and for many the motivation of working in such institutions is pretty altruistic, the pay certainly doesn't make it attractive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Your argument is a bit weak..Kerrangaroo won't be the only person benefitting from the testing there'll be millions..he could stop using the product and the same good would have come from the animal's death and K would have stood by his principles.. Put you self on the position of the animal, Kerrangaroo is the only human campaigning for your species not to be killed to save humans, but all Kerrangaroo can do is campaign and hope to change the minds of other humans. Kerrangaroo gets an illness and can only be saved by a drug that was developed killing another member of your species, if Kerrangaroo dies there are no humans left to campaign for your life, would you want him to benefit so he can continue fighting for your right to life or would you want him to turn down the treatment and die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 1. Because it vastly reduces the risks of those disasterous consequences. 2. All of those apply in some sense; if new drugs are not tested in animals they will be tested on humans or not at all. Ergo either we will get fewer/no drugs or we will get more dangerous and less effective drugs. 3. The only effect that would have is to accelerate the current decline in science and research (especially pharmaceutical) in this country. The tests will still be done, just in China, India or Eastern Europe. 4. If their drugs didn't help anyone then they wouldn't be profitable. But this isn't pharma research it's a university and for many the motivation of working in such institutions is pretty altruistic, the pay certainly doesn't make it attractive. There are already too many humans and a small minority serve no useful function other than to destroy the lives of other law abiding humans, they spend their life being a burden on the rest of humanity. Best to put them to some useful function. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I'm not sure what you mean? Are you for or against animal testing? Would it worry you if one of your family,who you care so much about that you continue to use drugs tested on animals so as not to upset them, contracted a disease that could have been cured by a drug that had gone through animal testing if only it was allowed? I'd be heartbroken if my kid or my missus were to die but for what ever reason if there was nothing available to prevent it what could I do and how would I know. There are incurable illnesses now that may take anyone of us at anytime. There are also a number of man made diseases that could do the same, it's rumoured that cancer may be one of them. Is it right that we manufacture a disease and then destroy life to find a cure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Put you self on the position of the animal, Kerrangaroo is the only human campaigning for your species not to be killed to save humans, but all Kerrangaroo can do is campaign and hope to change the minds of other humans. Kerrangaroo gets an illness and can only be saved by a drug that was developed killing another member of your species, if Kerrangaroo dies there are no humans left to campaign for your life, would you want him to benefit so he can continue fighting for your right to life or would you want him to turn down the treatment and die. Do I get to wear a cape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Do I get to wear a cape No just a t shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kerrangaroo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 No just a t shirt. :hihi: i like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sci fi Posted July 31, 2012 Author Share Posted July 31, 2012 You predicate your argument on the fact that the kitten is tourtured. This isn't however the case. My answer however is no, I wouldn't. However would you be happy to go through life not using any drug or medical procedure that has been tested on animals? Even if that meant dying? Hey we all die, I believe we cannot change the past. But we can change the future. I would rather they not perform more tests on live animals. Animals that go through torture for the presumed benefit of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Hey we all die, I believe we cannot change the past. But we can change the future. I would rather they not perform more tests on live animals. Animals that go through torture for the presumed benefit of man. Sod that, I would rather be safe, not sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Hey we all die, I believe we cannot change the past. But we can change the future. I would rather they not perform more tests on live animals. Animals that go through torture for the presumed benefit of man. Presumed? That's not the case though - there are many real benefits, hence the reason these sorts of research projects are carried out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.