Political Crossfire Forums

mathurin · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 1:10 pm Post subject:

lets keep going revolution
why cant an animal gives its consent

because its stupid, has no concept of time, right or wrong, ethics, its thoughts are just about eating and survival, instinctual

also, someone mentioned nature is not an arms race, you really cant be serious, nature is exactly that, everything is doing its best to not be eaten while eating something else, they have no intelligence, its kill, run or be killed (or use some specialized defense like porcupines)
nature is an arms race, and without our tools we would be dead last

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

Though i think certain animals do have the ability to think and have emotions.
they are no where near as evolved as us.

A genocide or holocaust means to exterminate a species but do we exterminate cattle no we breed them, milk them, and eat them and repeat the process no different then killing a plant to eat.

No one would argue that a lion killing a zebra is a natural part of nature they do it to survive well we do it too it's just we can't survive on meat alone we need the nutrition of both plants and animals. We have cannine teeth and those are mean't for ripping flesh and we also have flat teeth for grinding plants. our molars are made for both chewing and grinding plants and animals.

Eventually we will go beyond animal and human testing to computer models etc. but until we hit that point of technology we need to test on animals and eat them as well. If something is not strong enough to survive then maybe possibly it does not deserve to co-exist with us. animals go exint not only from hunting deforrestation etc. but by natural disasters, other animals, weather, pole shifts, asteroids etc.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

revolution_reversal wrote: Rohit wrote: revolution_reversal wrote: Sorry, much of animal testing is useless. As well I beleive in the concept of consent, so no animal can give that, therefore I think its up to humans to save themselves. Most diseases coemf rom domestication and sedentary life therefore its our own fault not the animals.
hehe, domestication successfully built up immunity in Europeans to diseases carried by most of these animals. Contact with these pathogens is a fact of life according to necessity.

But please, answer this question. You have no moral qualms with injecting patients with untested, potentially lethal drugs because it would hurt your sensibilities to inject a rat with it?

Did the person give their consent?
The real question is how many fewer people would volunteer to test medications that are untested, and could kill them.

That would kill, or severally cripple, the medical industry.

I don't know about you, but I don't care if rats have to die for life saving medications to be produced.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject:

Most of western medicine isn't as effective as advanced sanitation systems, proper hygeine and a balanced diet, and sex education. Have increased funding for all of those and we wouldn't get sick in the first place.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Many diseases are not solved by simply doing this or simply doing that. They require medication, and that medication requires animal testing.

Give me an answer on how many people would actually risk their lives by taking an un-tested medicine.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:19 pm Post subject:

Wolverine wrote: Many diseases are not solved by simply doing this or simply doing that. They require medication, and that medication requires animal testing.

Give me an answer on how many people would actually risk their lives by taking an un-tested medicine.

I will answer your question with a question, how many people take drugs now that are risky?

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Quote: I will answer your question with a question, how many people take drugs now that are risky?
Quite a few, but those are already tested on animals.

revolution_reversal · Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:44 pm Post subject:

some concerns:

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/AnimalModels_SCI.html
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Comment%20NRC.html
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/2042302.htm
http://www.stopeuchemicaltests.com/sci.html
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/eands.html#2.

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

I have not been sick with anything that requires a medication n over 8 years. To add to this i have never had a flu shot or any other kind of vaccine. I do agree though that some ailments do need to be treated by medication. the truth is Asprin for instance kills about 30,000 a year in the U.S. and anti-depressants were involved in all the school shooting and many other kinds of mental problems like schizophrenic like symptoms as well as psychotic behavior in 1 out 4 users statistically.

This could be due to lack of study in which i think more strict regulations and more money put into alternate forms of research like human and animal testing as well as computer simulations.

Marijuana has been prooven here in Canada by independant studies in our science community to Supress cancers, cure depression and anxiety to help rid chemo and radiation patients nausea and cause the growth of new brain cells and increased brain activity. (both animal and human testing)

Sugar is as addictive as heroin and isput in almost all manufactured foods. The stuff is responsible for tooth decay, diabetes, liver and kidney problems, and heart attacks. the stuff kills thousands world wide. Aspertame is a 100 times sweeter and causes cancer as well.

the fact is illegal substances are only illegal cause they don't have a pharma name on them and because they are used to keep people scared of them.

A dog will drink a beer and alcohol and tobacco kills more people a year then all substances illegal or legal in any givin year.

I use marijuana because the benifits for me as a medicine out weigh the risk to my body.

More animal testing is required to ensure that the cattle i mean consumer gets what they pay for i also agree with human testing as well i think we need more of that.

What person would be willing to be tested on by a government or company you ask? Lots of people mostly people who don't really have anything the poor people who want to make a quick 4 or 500 dollars quick and easy.

Pzatchok · Joined: 15 Nov 2004 Posts: 7811

I beleive in animal testing.

No animal shall be left behind. How else will we find the smart ones that we could train to do their own lab tests for us?

Korimyr the Rat · Joined: 11 Jan 2006 Posts: 983 Location: Wyoming

Posted for discussion: From From Property to Person: The Case of Evelyn Hart.

It's a Supreme Court brief in which Robin Lane, acting as Guardian Ad Litem for "Evelyn Hart"-- a chimpanzee-- makes a case for the extension of limited rights to species of the genus homo on the grounds of their similarity to humans.

I think it's particularly compelling, but I haven't yet figured out what it means for my own moral framework, especially considering my looser standards of "personhood".

Matthew18 · Joined: 10 Feb 2006 Posts: 236

Test mice,rats to the sun blows up! They are pest in get killed any way.

THEXRATED · Joined: 13 Jul 2004 Posts: 2866 Location: Tuonelan Virrat

Well, did not read the whole thread, but I voted "Yes" because I honestly do not see much difference eating or testing on animals, as long as those animals are not made needlessly to suffer.

Lost_In_Ambivelence · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 108 Location: USA

THEXRATED wrote: Well, did not read the whole thread, but I voted "Yes" because I honestly do not see much difference eating or testing on animals, as long as those animals are not made needlessly to suffer.

Well then you could flip it around and wonder why we don't eat humans. Afterall, we test drugs on them and there isn't much difference in testing or eating. :roll:

Perhaps you in the pro animal testing group are right. It is a jungle out there and if you can't survive, so-be-it. But the argument could be used in defence of no pharmas at all. Afterall, if you can't survive without them, perhaps you just weren't meant to make it. The human gene pool gets successively weaker as more and more people survive with dibilitating diseases. Not only that, but thanks to a thriving sex industry, many of them even manage to procreate. Perhaps we should follow the natural order of things and let the weak die off and the strong thrive.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

revolution_reversal wrote: some concerns:

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/AnimalModels_SCI.html
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Comment%20NRC.html
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/2042302.htm
http://www.stopeuchemicaltests.com/sci.html
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/eands.html#2.
You will have to summarize those. :wink:

Then explain how a ban on animal testing won't cripple the medical fields.

Canadian_Patriot · Joined: 14 Feb 2006 Posts: 323

They eat babes in china all the time and cannibalistic behavior is documented since the dawn of civilization.

anselfir · Joined: 16 Apr 2005 Posts: 23116 Location: ZzZzZzZz

So?

Btw all "concerns" are irrelevant without addressing the relevant point of animal entitlements.

Lost_In_Ambivelence · Joined: 11 Nov 2005 Posts: 108 Location: USA

Wolverine wrote: revolution_reversal wrote: some concerns:

http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_2_1990/AnimalModels_SCI.html
http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vol_1_1989/Comment%20NRC.html
http://www.freewebs.com/scientific_anti_vivisectionism9/
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldselect/ldanimal/999/2042302.htm
http://www.stopeuchemicaltests.com/sci.html
http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/eands.html#2.
You will have to summarize those. :wink:

Then explain how a ban on animal testing won't cripple the medical fields.

Has banning drug testing on criminals crippled the medical fields? What about banning human testing in psychology? Has the field of psychology seen irreversible damage?

The answers are NO. We can and will find another way. You really think that all these people are just going to give up on curing diseases that can make them billions of dollars? HELL NO!

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 11171 Location: Podunk, Colorado

Quote: Has banning drug testing on criminals crippled the medical fields? What about banning human testing in psychology? Has the field of psychology seen irreversible damage?
No it hasn't, we found a better way, testing on rats.

Quote: The answers are NO. We can and will find another way. You really think that all these people are just going to give up on curing diseases that can make them billions of dollars? HELL NO!
Do you really think people will take untested medicine?

ieatfood · Joined: 28 Mar 2005 Posts: 6505

Lost_In_Ambivelence wrote:

Has banning drug testing on criminals crippled the medical fields? What about banning human testing in psychology? Has the field of psychology seen irreversible damage?

The answers are NO. We can and will find another way. You really think that all these people are just going to give up on curing diseases that can make them billions of dollars? HELL NO!

you clearly have very little knowledge when it comes to biological science
why dont you try and stick to topics you know about, whatever they may be.