Animal Rights

[April]

OH CREATOR NO! There are horrific pictres I won't dare to look at, please no! Is there a version of this article without pictures? Please, reading the horrific article is terrifying enough!

 

I have read articles before about such horrifying acts being done in China, and it is just so disgusting it gives me nightmares!

 

 

Here, I'll copy and paste for you. I'll just try and not look at the pictures. :P

 

A horrific video shows the terrified creatures being put through terrible torture to fuel the vile trade.

 

The animals' coats are passed off as "Australian sheepskin" in fake copies of the trendy footwear.

 

Unsuspecting Brits could be buying the counterfeit boots as millions flood the market worldwide.

 

Animal rights campaigners filmed raccoon dogs — an Asian species related to foxes, jackals and domestic dogs — being farmed in appalling conditions in China.

 

One animal is shown being pinned to the ground by a boot before it is skinned alive and hurled on to a heap. It weakly raises its head despite having its skin and fur sliced off.

Mark Jones, UK director of Humane Society International, said: "The raccoon dogs routinely endure unspeakable suffering. They die a slow, agonising death, their bodies raw and bloody.

 

"There is no UK ban on their fur so it's possible these phoney boots could enter the high street."

ctivists are demanding a ban on the shocking fur trade.

 

Genuine Aussie Uggs can cost up to £200. But up to 40 unrelated products use the name. Lena McDonald, boss of Ugg Australia, said of the bogus firms: "Companies even cut off 'Made in China' tags and put on an 'Australian made' tag."

[Lady Lyuba]

Here, I'll copy and paste for you. I'll just try and not look at the pictures. :P

 

A horrific video shows the terrified creatures being put through terrible torture to fuel the vile trade.

 

The animals' coats are passed off as "Australian sheepskin" in fake copies of the trendy footwear.

 

Unsuspecting Brits could be buying the counterfeit boots as millions flood the market worldwide.

 

Animal rights campaigners filmed raccoon dogs — an Asian species related to foxes, jackals and domestic dogs — being farmed in appalling conditions in China.

 

One animal is shown being pinned to the ground by a boot before it is skinned alive and hurled on to a heap. It weakly raises its head despite having its skin and fur sliced off.

Mark Jones, UK director of Humane Society International, said: "The raccoon dogs routinely endure unspeakable suffering. They die a slow, agonising death, their bodies raw and bloody.

 

"There is no UK ban on their fur so it's possible these phoney boots could enter the high street."

ctivists are demanding a ban on the shocking fur trade.

 

Genuine Aussie Uggs can cost up to £200. But up to 40 unrelated products use the name. Lena McDonald, boss of Ugg Australia, said of the bogus firms: "Companies even cut off 'Made in China' tags and put on an 'Australian made' tag."

 

 

Oh thank you so much for this April. I just can't let myself view such a horrid picture or I'll have nightmares.

[April]

Oh thank you so much for this April. I just can't let myself view such a horrid picture or I'll have nightmares.

 

I know.

The pictures break my heart and make my eyes water.

[Solo M]

I find this debate very interesting but I'm a little confused on a few points.

What rights exactly are you advocating for animals?

A lot of what I've read here seems more along the lines of animal welfare as opposed to actual animal rights.

Personally, I believe animals deserve respect but would not go so far as to say they deserve equal rights as humans.

[Unstream]

Okay, all you people saying that animals are equal to humans, I propose this scenario. Say you have to magic buttons. One button will save the 30 pigs stuck in a burning barn. The other will save the two farmers trapped with those pigs. Unfortunately for you, you can only push one.

 

If animals were equal to humans, then pick the pigs. After all, 30 lives is more than just 2, right?

 

What if someone's house was burning down? They have two dogs and a cat. Who do the firemen save? The owner of the house or the pets?

 

All my scenarios seem to contain fire o_O. Sorry, I guess I'm not that original :P

 

Anyway, my point is I don't think animals are better than us, or even equal to us. No, they shouldn't have the same rights as us. Why? Simply because we're better than they are. It's our minds, our intellect, that sets us apart. Sure, animals are aware, but not to the extent that we are. And in the end, I think the fact that we are sentient is really all that matters when looking here. That's why animal testing is more humane than human testing. That's why we can eat other species but not each other. If pigs started their own complex language and their own writing system; if birds started forming communities and began trading between themselves; if gorillas started figuring out geometry and experimenting with the basic laws of physics, then I do believe we'd treat them more like humans. It all boils down to intellect.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate animals. Torturing them, needlessly slaughtering them...that's just not cool. But sometimes we need to treat them the way we do out of necessity. If we didn't use them for testing, then science wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is now.

 

I personally am vegetarian (not vegan, I guess the technical term would be ovo-lacto-vegetarian, since I eat egg and milk products), but I realize that as omnivores, having animal foods in our diet is 100% natural. The thing which isn't natural, is how we obtain said animal foods. If a deer lives it's happy-go-lucky life in the woods and then one day a hungry human shoots it and gives it a quick death, then actually uses it, without waste, that's a different story. But the things that go on behind closed doors at these "factories" is disgusting. And the only reason I still eat animal products at all is because I'm always anemic and I need the protein and iron.

Um, just thought I'd mention how plants are mass produced in similar ways, with growth hormones, genetic modifications, and pesticides, just to name a few.

[April]

Okay, all you people saying that animals are equal to humans, I propose this scenario. Say you have to magic buttons. One button will save the 30 pigs stuck in a burning barn. The other will save the two farmers trapped with those pigs. Unfortunately for you, you can only push one.

 

If animals were equal to humans, then pick the pigs. After all, 30 lives is more than just 2, right?

 

What if someone's house was burning down? They have two dogs and a cat. Who do the firemen save? The owner of the house or the pets?

 

All my scenarios seem to contain fire o_O. Sorry, I guess I'm not that original :P

 

Anyway, my point is I don't think animals are better than us, or even equal to us. No, they shouldn't have the same rights as us. Why? Simply because we're better than they are. It's our minds, our intellect, that sets us apart. Sure, animals are aware, but not to the extent that we are. And in the end, I think the fact that we are sentient is really all that matters when looking here. That's why animal testing is more humane than human testing. That's why we can eat other species but not each other. If pigs started their own complex language and their own writing system; if birds started forming communities and began trading between themselves; if gorillas started figuring out geometry and experimenting with the basic laws of physics, then I do believe we'd treat them more like humans. It all boils down to intellect.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate animals. Torturing them, needlessly slaughtering them...that's just not cool. But sometimes we need to treat them the way we do out of necessity. If we didn't use them for testing, then science wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is now.

 

 

Um, just thought I'd mention how plants are mass produced in similar ways, with growth hormones, genetic modifications, and pesticides, just to name a few.

 

The reason people would save humans is because of what we're taught. Honestly, I love my animals more than anyone in the world.

I think it's cruel that we think we can use them to benefit us when I find humans to be a disgusting race.

 

Animal testing isn't even as accurate as they want you to think.

 

And there have been cases where Firemen have saved animals as well. But also, most animals are smart enough to get out on their own. In fact it's been so common that animals are the ones to wake people up when a fire comes.

 

Sometimes they get stuck but for the most part, Animals get out themselves. I hate humans and love animals. There are very few humans that I respect.

 

With that said, I am fine with humans eating animals, as long as the animals are killed in a humane way. Some animals would eat us.

 

I'm just NOT okay with humans killing animals just for fun. For sport, which happens a LOT more than you think.

 

Of course being an Animal Rights activist, I have to defend animals. I don't propose equal rights for Animals. But you have no idea what humans do to them behind closed doors. And I am against Animal Testing.

 

Go test on criminals like Charles Manson but do not test on an innocent creature who hasn't done anything for you. The pictures from the testing are sick. Even from just make up and shampoo testing.

 

It's disgusting if you've really seen the pictures.

 

If you MUST test, test on serial killers for one.

But LOTS of places don't test on animals. Finally, so since they are not testing on animals I just feel why should anyone test on animals when they don't need to?

 

 

I am sure my post makes no sense, I just woke up within the past 5 minutes. Lol

[Unstream]

So you're saying you'd save the pigs and let the farmers die?

 

And of course, in my hypothetical firemen situation, they can only save one or the other. Saving both with defeat the moral question the scenario proposed :P

 

And another interesting question: Do you value your own life over the lives of 100 chickens?

 

So, the problem I'm seeing with your perspective is that you seem to be focusing only on the bad things humans do and the good things animals do, when honestly animals do tons of terrible things too.

 

And again, I bring up the point of intellect. The point is that we don't test on other humans, no matter how "bad" they are, because they are aware beyond the point an animal is aware. Animals only focus on one thing: survive. Humans have so much more potential. We pay attention to survival, yes, but we also create, learn, and form complex relationships that you just can't find among animals. And I think that has more inherent value that still puts humans above animals even if the human is a serial killer.

 

Btw, what defines a serial killer? A person who's killed multiple people? God, send half the military to jail then. They're all serial killers. It's just that the military is condoned killing.

Now you can say that people in the military are killing for a just cause, but that's what terrorists think when they're setting off bombs.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

Not that I'm supporting serial killers or terrorists. Just presenting another point of view.

 

And the problem is that many people who are convicted of serious crimes end up getting their convictions overturned. So a person you're so sure is evil could actually have been misunderstood, and end up being innocent. If we started testing on them, we'd be no better than the Nazis. (I'm also against the death penalty, fyi).

 

And I'm hoping to pursue a career in pharmaceuticals, so I'm fairly confident when I say animal testing is actually very important. While animals aren't exactly like humans, certain parts of them are like ours. Take a pig for example. Their heart is very similar to ours. So if I had a medication that affected the heart, I could test it on a pig and figure out whether or not it'd likely be safe for humans or not.

[April]

So because animals aren't aware of the cause it's okay to hurt? They can comprehend the pain. They can hurt emotionally and physically.

 

And humans do so much bad I can't ignore it. I'm the type of person that hates my own species. I really do. I've been the victim of lots of bad and the good can't even compare.

 

Animals don't do bad things for the fun of hurting others like many other humans do. Animals can also learn and I actually form complex relationships with my pets.

 

And there's also the Death Penalty in America. I bet LOTS of innocent people have been put to death. That's a main reason Canada got rid of theirs. And I mean guilty without a doubt.

 

I admit, I am more bias towards dogs, wolves and animals I generally like better than chickens. I would give up my life to stop the animal testing and save thousands of animals. But not just chickens.

I don't value my life that much so that is not a fair judgement for me to agree upon. But I can admit to my bias towards certain types but I know I am bias and believe that all animals should get equal rights to each others, not to us.

 

And if I saved the people over the animals, would depend on the person. If I had a choice between a rapist and a dog, I'd save the dog. For me, value of my own kind depends on the person.

 

I am not a fan of War or the Military but I do respect them as they are doing it for their country. So by Serial Killer, you should know what I mean by that. People that kill other people for fun or to fulfill their sick need. And lots of serial killers had an illness that can NOT comprehend. So that argument that it's because animals can't comprehend is invalid in most cases. They are not always aware.

 

Sure there have been stuff humans have done that is good. But not much.

 

And my MAIN point is. There are MANY companies and places that do NOT test on animals. So why is it needed at all? They have found other ways.

 

I am not all for equal rights but I do not have faith in humanity and believe animals deserve more rights than they're getting.

[Unstream]

Are you saying you're as emotionally developed as any animal? That the relationships you form with your friends is the same as a bird forms? Y'know, where partners are solely for the sake of reproduction and keeping the species alive?

Emotionally. I'm not one to really call loyalty emotion. That topic is completely subjective, and it'll be a dead end for this conversation.

 

And the thing is, you're forming those relationships with the animal. You're initiating it. Not the animal.

 

So by your reasoning, it'd be okay for someone to bomb an animal testing facility? After all, the scientist's lives aren't as important, and animals would be saved. Would you do the bombing?

I think no. I think you'd find this inherently wrong. Because I think that deep down you believe that humans have more inherent value than animals. I think everybody does.

 

And say you don't know the people at all. They're just farmers. Would you still save them? Over 30 pig-lives?

 

And serial killers don't always kill for fun. They have motives. To them, it makes sense, what they're doing.

 

Not much that humans have done that are good? Are you kidding me?

How about you? You probably think you're just as bad too, don't you? Or are you better than those other humans?

 

Anyway, you have to check what those companies do. If they're knitting sweatshirts, then of course they don't need animal testing. (Okay, that was an over-exaggeration, but many companies don't need animal testing because the experiments they're conducting don't need them).

[Naamah D.]

Animals and humans are equal. And honestly, if we're the ones using the products WE are the ones who should be testing it. Who puts lipstick on animals if you have a tad of sanity?

[April]

Are you saying you're as emotionally developed as any animal? That the relationships you form with your friends is the same as a bird forms? Y'know, where partners are solely for the sake of reproduction and keeping the species alive?

Emotionally. I'm not one to really call loyalty emotion. That topic is completely subjective, and it'll be a dead end for this conversation.

 

And the thing is, you're forming those relationships with the animal. You're initiating it. Not the animal.

 

So by your reasoning, it'd be okay for someone to bomb an animal testing facility? After all, the scientist's lives aren't as important, and animals would be saved. Would you do the bombing?

I think no. I think you'd find this inherently wrong. Because I think that deep down you believe that humans have more inherent value than animals. I think everybody does.

 

And say you don't know the people at all. They're just farmers. Would you still save them? Over 30 pig-lives?

 

And serial killers don't always kill for fun. They have motives. To them, it makes sense, what they're doing.

 

Not much that humans have done that are good? Are you kidding me?

How about you? You probably think you're just as bad too, don't you? Or are you better than those other humans?

 

Anyway, you have to check what those companies do. If they're knitting sweatshirts, then of course they don't need animal testing. (Okay, that was an over-exaggeration, but many companies don't need animal testing because the experiments they're conducting don't need them).

 

In response to your Serial Killer comment. I am aware sometimes it makes sense to them. It does not make it right.

I believe scientist lives are important. I believe there is importance in every life.

Am I not allowed to value Animal lives without having a debate over whom I'd save?

 

I do make relationships with my animals.

My dog saved my life on a couple occasions.

 

You see, I have seizures, a lot.

When I have been alone or with someone who has been sleeping my dog has woken them up. Even gone as far as jumping through the window and running next door.

 

Perhaps you can see why I admire them so much. When you are saved by one, it really does make a difference.

When I was 11 I ran away from home, I live in Canada where it gets really cold and the snow was fierce. I got trapped and I almost froze to death but the Search and Rescue dogs found me.

 

I admire animals and I always will.

 

And that's not really true about the companies. They have found a substitute. While some make up companies test on animals, others use this substitute which I do not know how to explain.

 

Perhaps I have just had bad experience with people. My parents won't talk to me when I have a seizure. They say I clearly do it for attention when I can't control it.

 

It is animals I have relied on.

 

Clearly we both come from different views. While you may argue that you would save a human.

I would save an animal. And yes I am bias and don't treat them equally. Let's put it this way. I would save a Dog or Cat. For any other animal it would depend. I am bias and I admit it.

 

I don't think either of us is going to win the other over but I do find your views interesting. While I do not agree with them.

[Unstream]

I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to differentiate between a serial killer and a soldier. Both kill with conviction, and nowadays both are constantly harming innocent civilians. I guess that's another debate about the morality of the military.

 

Okay, so I've been assuming that you think animals and humans are equal, like Naamah'sWorstCostumeEVER's comment above yours (who, by the way, doesn't seem to have actually read what's going on in the debate xP). If the lives of animals and humans are equal, then wouldn't it make sense to kill 5 scientists to save hundreds of animals?

 

Well, I guess that's a different debate really, but it makes sense from a utilitarian point of view.

 

And it's not about whether you value life. It's about which you value more. I think you'd save the farmers because their lives have more value than the 30 pigs. If animals had the same value as humans, then pigs would be the logical choice.

Again, according to an utilitarian point of view.

 

I'd just like to point out that had there not been someone for the dog to wake up, you wouldn't have gotten help. If someone hadn't organized the search and rescue squad that came with the dogs, you wouldn't have been saved. I think it's important to note the human aspect of those events.

 

Plus, your parents are an awfully small sample size to be judging the rest of the world from.

 

Okay, once again, I'm talking about differentiating between the different functions of the animal testing. Screw make-up companies. They're not doing anything to further science - nothing useful, at least. I'm talking about medication. Like beta blockers. These drugs, in a large enough dose, can actually cause your heart to stop pumping. Killing people that way is inhumane, because you're alienating all the relationships they've formed, and leaving a hole where they used to fit in society. On the other hand, take lab rats bred for testing. Personally, I think they're a much better alternative than sacrificing human lives to develop these new medicines.

 

I mean, once these drugs seem to work for animals, then they actually start testing on humans. This stage is known as clinical trials, and it's usually filled with volunteers that are desperate for money or people who are really sick desperate for a cure.

 

Personally, I just think there's value in being human. Animals are nice and all, but when it boils down to it, I do believe we are more important than them. And maybe it's partially because I am a human, but it's largely because I think humans have a greater potential to achieve so much more than any other animal possibly could.

[April]

I guess what I'm saying is that it's hard to differentiate between a serial killer and a soldier. Both kill with conviction, and nowadays both are constantly harming innocent civilians. I guess that's another debate about the morality of the military.

 

Okay, so I've been assuming that you think animals and humans are equal, like Naamah'sWorstCostumeEVER's comment above yours (who, by the way, doesn't seem to have actually read what's going on in the debate xP). If the lives of animals and humans are equal, then wouldn't it make sense to kill 5 scientists to save hundreds of animals?

 

Well, I guess that's a different debate really, but it makes sense from a utilitarian point of view.

 

And it's not about whether you value life. It's about which you value more. I think you'd save the farmers because their lives have more value than the 30 pigs. If animals had the same value as humans, then pigs would be the logical choice.

Again, according to an utilitarian point of view.

 

I'd just like to point out that had there not been someone for the dog to wake up, you wouldn't have gotten help. If someone hadn't organized the search and rescue squad that came with the dogs, you wouldn't have been saved. I think it's important to note the human aspect of those events.

 

Plus, your parents are an awfully small sample size to be judging the rest of the world from.

 

Okay, once again, I'm talking about differentiating between the different functions of the animal testing. Screw make-up companies. They're not doing anything to further science - nothing useful, at least. I'm talking about medication. Like beta blockers. These drugs, in a large enough dose, can actually cause your heart to stop pumping. Killing people that way is inhumane, because you're alienating all the relationships they've formed, and leaving a hole where they used to fit in society. On the other hand, take lab rats bred for testing. Personally, I think they're a much better alternative than sacrificing human lives to develop these new medicines.

 

I mean, once these drugs seem to work for animals, then they actually start testing on humans. This stage is known as clinical trials, and it's usually filled with volunteers that are desperate for money or people who are really sick desperate for a cure.

 

Personally, I just think there's value in being human. Animals are nice and all, but when it boils down to it, I do believe we are more important than them. And maybe it's partially because I am a human, but it's largely because I think humans have a greater potential to achieve so much more than any other animal possibly could.

 

I have stated several times I don't think Animals should get equal rights but deserve more rights.

I do notice the human parts too.

But no one ever notices the animal parts in these arguments/debates. Since it's more of a debate than an argument.

 

I think we are both very difference as I think humans have the potential to do great but are failing. Who's polluting our world?

Humans are more powerful and more adapt at making decisions. But they are making bad ones. I am not saying if an Animal was more dominant it would make better decisions but I am just saying, with the power humans use it for, it wrong a lot of the time.

 

So while humans achieve more, they also achieve more bad.

 

Without humans dominating the world, the world would still run. Humans don't run the world. Animals would still hunt and be alive and be a lot more balanced.

 

They don't need us. But we need them.

 

Just my two cents.

 

I would save farmers over pigs but come down to 30 dogs? I would be torn.

Like I said, I am bias for certain animals so using that one will keep getting the same answer.

 

With 30 dogs and humans, I would be at lost.

 

And killing scientists won't stop animal testing. More will just ge tjobs. That would be pointless.

 

And like I said, there are other ways to test products without animals. Lots of make up companies do and several others. My point is, why are we testing on animals still when there are alternate routes?

[Unstream]

Yeah I know. My initial response was to everybody who was saying that though, and there were quite a few.

 

Anyway, this isn't a debate about how good humans are. My point is that there is value in the potential of humans (as well as the intellect and heightened awareness I mentioned earlier).

 

And you can argue that humans don't run the world. However, you can say humans ultimately control the world. After all, we have the power to make it or break it.

 

And I don't think it's a fair comparison to make. For one, without humans, many domesticated animals will die. I mean, I'm sure you have plenty of stories of abandoned dogs making it on their own and surviving and so on, but the thing is there are plenty of times when pets are abandoned and starve because there isn't a human to feed them. Most dogs and cats have lost their hunting capabilities because of their domestication.

 

And your assumption of balance is wrong too. Where I live, hunters are very important, because otherwise the deer in our area eat too much of the flora. We had a short period of time when we stopped hunters around this area from hunting, but then the deer became overpopulated, ate too many plants, and starved themselves as well as other animals that depended on those plants. And of course, it had terrible effects on the ecosystem.

 

Humans have become integrated with nature. We depend on it, but many aspects of nature depend on us as well.

 

And I think it's silly to say that all of nature doesn't need us but we need all of nature. It's an unfair comparison. I mean, of course, if every other living thing in the world disappeared, we'd die. You're saying the removal of one species has less of an effect on the world than the removal of every other species in the world. Like I said, it's not a fair comparison.

 

And like I've said, you've only mentioned make-up companies. I'm talking about drug companies. They're very different, and unless you can explain an alternative to me, I'm still going to believe animal testing is very necessary.

 

I think animal testing should only really be used for medicine. And make-up isn't medicine. Medicine requires something organic to be able to test it, and animals are certainly a better option than humans, at least to be the first ones tested. With medicine, there is no alternative.

[Russ]

I'm obviously against animal cruelty, and I also find hunting for sport to be unnecessary and disgusting, but I'm in favor of testing on animals to try and find cures for diseases because a lot of medical breakthroughs have been made that way and the life of a human is always worth much more than the life of an animal.

 

PETA is an absolutely disgusting organization, though, and I absolutely detest that the hypocritical, animal-killing, terrorism-supporting attention-mongering freaks behind that organization are considered the face of the animal rights movement. :|

[Aalnius]

i don't think animals should have the same rights as us but i do believe mistreatment of animals for no reason should be against the law (it is in england) but medical research does work it just depends what animal they test it on i mean pigs are pretty much the same as humans biologically so they are good for things like skin rashes etc

[Welcome Back Apathy]

I'm obviously against animal cruelty, and I also find hunting for sport to be unnecessary and disgusting, but I'm in favor of testing on animals to try and find cures for diseases because a lot of medical breakthroughs have been made that way and the life of a human is always worth much more than the life of an animal.

 

 

I dunno...I think that some animal lives are worth more than human lives. How about instead of the death penalty, we test products on inmates proven to have committed horrible crimes? Ooh, let's put some mascara on them...

[April]

I dunno...I think that some animal lives are worth more than human lives. How about instead of the death penalty, we test products on inmates proven to have committed horrible crimes? Ooh, let's put some mascara on them...

 

Exactly what I said earlier in this thread!

 

I find it crazy how it's all right to put innocent animals through torture who have done nothing to us but it's not morally acceptable to test on criminals whom have been proven without a doubt.

[Unstream]

I dunno...I think that some animal lives are worth more than human lives. How about instead of the death penalty, we test products on inmates proven to have committed horrible crimes? Ooh, let's put some mascara on them...

How many times do I have to say this? We're not talking about make-up when we're talking about animal testing. We're talking about using animal testing for medical purposes. Like a new antibiotic that could potential trash your liver if you take a certain amount of it. It's good not to be testing those on humans, and well, it ends up falling on the animals.

 

It's significantly less moral to be testing inmates with untested medications that could easily cause them an extremely painful death than it would be to test a lab rat.

[April]

How many times do I have to say this? We're not talking about make-up when we're talking about animal testing. We're talking about using animal testing for medical purposes. Like a new antibiotic that could potential trash your liver if you take a certain amount of it. It's good not to be testing those on humans, and well, it ends up falling on the animals.

 

It's significantly less moral to be testing inmates with untested medications that could easily cause them an extremely painful death than it would be to test a lab rat.

 

 

We never really specified whether we were talking about make up testing or medication testing.

 

I am firmly against both. But some people are against one.

[Welcome Back Apathy]

How many times do I have to say this? We're not talking about make-up when we're talking about animal testing.

 

I made exactly one joke at the end about mascara. I know that the research in animals is a lot more painful and invasive when it's medical testing. However, I think you need to change your sentence. "We're not talking about make-up when we're talking about animal testing." No, you personally--one person--are not talking about it. The rest of us CAN include it because it CAN kill animals or put them in pain--and for what purpose?

 

So please don't say we aren't talking about it. It IS included in the discussion, even if you want to ignore it.

 

Anyway, these animals ARE innocent, whereas criminals are not. I just made a joke because imagine how humiliating mascara is to gang members. Forget jail time--this might actually scare people straight. But anyway, if someone is on death row for doing something that has been proven beyond a doubt, I have absolutely no problem with performing tests on them. Painful. Torturous. I don't even care. On animals? Unnecessary.

 

It is not "slightly less immoral" to perform on criminals than on animals--it is infinitely less immoral. Animals feel pain as much as humans do. Animals, for the most part, are innocent. It is a horrible thing to torture an animal, although I know the good outweighs the bad. But a criminal who has tortured others? I have no qualms about that whatsoever. I don't think it is immoral in the least to torture someone to punish them for a horrible, horrible crime they did. (It would just be difficult to enforce.) I don't think it's immoral to torture them EVEN IF THERE IS NO MEANS. By killing, torturing, whatever violent crime they did, they gave up their human rights. They gave up their ANIMAL rights.

 

Also, a relative of mine got leukemia back when there was no treatment. She lived because of experimental treatment--experimental on humans. It was risky, but it ended up saving her life. She otherwise would have died.

[Unstream]

Yes, but I think the discussion of make-up companies allow people to avoid the issue of medical animal testing, which is much more a controversy than whether or not make-up should be tested on animals.

 

And no, I stand by my use of "we", because by "we" I'm talking about the proponents of animal testing. The majority of those who support it do not consider make-up testing really valid, only medical testing.

 

Sorry if the use of "we" was ambiguous. The "we" doesn't mean this forum here on TDNF.

 

But my question is where do we draw the line with criminals? What about a drug dealer? Whether or not he has done something morally incorrect and belongs in jail is going to be different from person to person. What about people who are convicted murderers? There are cases where they've been given the death penalty, only for us to find out later that they were really innocent the whole time. Plus, according the Declaration of Independence, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are all unalienable rights. So those criminals actually haven't given up their rights, simply because they can't.

 

And, um, animals kill all the time.

 

And you can say that it's just for food and survival, but then is cannibalism acceptable? Is murder to feed your family acceptable?

 

And that experimental treatment your relative received would've already been well tested on animals. No drug can be tested on humans without first being thoroughly tested on animals. Regulations here in the U.S.

[April]

Animals do kill all the time but it is normally just food and survival. Its their instincts. Humans for the most part have overcome ours. Cannibalism wasn't that uncommon many years ago. In fact humans used to act much like animals. They have become the dominant species though.

 

Animals aren't innocent but I believe they shouldn't be forced to under go tests. And as for regulations, I believe it should be Criminals that under go the medical testing and other testing isn't needed. In fact for other testing there are many companies that no longer test on animals because they have found other ways. So why do so many still test on animals?

 

I believe morally, we should test on criminals for medical testing and use whatever other means for make up testing that other companies have found.

 

Sometimes, I think death row is too easy for these criminals.

 

And honestly, most of the animals tested on are stray dogs and cats. I am not saying that dogs and cats are better than others but I am saying that those two species are very different than wild ones.

 

What happens if your dog managed to run away from home and become a street dog and he was taken to be tested upon? Then I bet you would have a problem with it.

 

So to sum it up.

 

Make up and other product testing on animals? - Should never happen.

Medical research for humans? - Should be tested on criminals. And I don't mean people that robbed banks or manslaughter but people like Charles Manson and Robert Pickton. In Canada we don't use the death penalty but do you know how much money it takes to keep murdered safe in prison and fed? They've ruined their lives and others. By testing on them at least they are contributing.

 

I may sound harsh but it is how I feel and I am sure it is how many other's feel though they would not admit it.

[Unstream]

I had a cat, and she always caught birds for us. She was very well fed, and she definitely didn't need to kill the birds. Sure, she meant it as a gift, but still, how can we justify murder for a gift? My cat was a murderer, because she killed to please, not to survive. Why aren't cats held to the same standard as humans? If my cat were a human, she'd definitely be a criminal.

 

No, random strays aren't taken for animal testing. They couldn't do that because there would be too many other facts: the animal could be injured, sick, malnourished...all of which would skew results. No, animals that are tested on were grown up in a lab, bred specifically for testing. Your scenario with a pet getting taken in for testing would never happen.

 

But that's dehumanizing. Imagine yourself in their shoes. Do you think it'd be right for someone to subject you to testing various medications?

I think even criminals have more value than animals.

[April]

Strays are taken in as a matter of fact for different kinds of tests.

 

Most of the dogs sent into outerspace were strays.

 

And here we have heard a lot about it in doing our research for our campaign. It is easy to test animals for disease.

 

The cat can't really tell right from wrong. We, as humans can. So what's our excuse?

 

And criminals do deserve to be subjected to be tested.

 

They deserve much worse than that.

 

What about a serial killer who took children, did unspeakable things to them and then murdered them.

 

Don't you think the parents go through more torture than medication testing could ever do to that criminal?

 

Criminals like that deserve nothing.

 

If someone robbed a bank but didn't hurt anyone, I'd feel differently about that type of criminal and be satisfied with them getting jail time.

 

My dogs are my life. We had a house fire yesterday and one of my dogs was trapped inside and I still ran back in to get her.

 

I value an animals life more than most people. So much so I didn't stop to think.

 

I don't value criminal lives. That is why I don't care what they endure.