Very well put. Like I've said, I don't disagree with testing provided people don't think it's their 'right' to use them. PETA are a joke. Their stance on mulesing proves this.

How does that relate to the argument? In order for an animal to 'want' and make an informed choice, they must display cognition. The existence of cognition in the animal world is still widely debated. Let's say they are cognitive beings and do not want to. My original argument still stands - I think it is acceptable as long as we do not think we have the right to use them.

Like I said before, Why don't we experiment on those people in Death Row?
They are going to die one way or another, aren't they?

PuX- 80's, I don't think that an animal 'wants' either way. It doesn't have the capacity for that depth of thought and understanding.

In any case, as I've just asked - what do you see as viable alternative options? Read what I've already said about the practicalities of human testing

How come people can't be picked up from the street and probed, but animals can be?


Animals aren't humans.
Our systems are way different then theirs. Yes, we both have the same basic organs, but I might react different than Billy the Donkey.

I'll start off by reiterating - not all experiments involve probes and needles. You obviously have a narrow minded view and ill-informed opinion on such research.

As for your question - that is very difficult. At first it may seem like I am contradicting my own thoughts, but I'm not. People off the street have the exact same rights as the researchers. If people are willing to participate, I don't see a problem with that. Animals can't give consent. I've said that there is no definitive answer to this, it is a philosophical debate that I don't think can ever have one answer.

so, you would rather experiment on you know, actual humans with human rights, rather than animals, who you only want to pretend have human rights. That makes sense. But, from a simple legal standpoint, before that could ever occur, you would have to settle the question as to whether medical experimentation counts as cruel and unusual punishment or not, any damages the prisoners might get as a result of side effects, because, you are aware that inmates on death row can be there for 20 years or more, right? Complications from those drugs could damage them and cause them die before they can be executed. If that happens, the medical company would be liable for their deaths, as it is not a state sanctioned execution that killed them. The amount of money needed to overcome all of the hurdles would be cost prohibitive, and would prevent many incredibly useful medications from ever happening.

Plus, you never answered my questions from earlier, not really. You never mentioned if you had ever taken any medication or gone to a doctor because you were sick, in reference to your arguments drugs make humans weak and we shouldn't take them, and you never answered my question about whether or not you would volunteer to be test subject on those experiments you are adamant about not performing on animals...I suspect its because you know damn well that you wouldn't volunteer for those any more than I would. You don't want animals to be experimented on, but won't volunteer to take their place. I guess that shows the level of your conviction, doesn't it?

The video is also PETA propaganda, PETA tends to only show what's bad and not commonplace.



But humans are animals.

A donkey is too big and takes too long to grow to be used as a test animal, but anyway....There are enough similarities between humans and mice, and other model organisms (like frogs, zebrafish, fruit flies). Sure, there are limitations to animal research, and for that reason no medication gets onto the market without clinical trials on humans.

The key point is that initial trials are often for safety more so than effectiveness, and without the use of animals in these trials, humans would be harmed. It would be quicker and more effective for humans to be used as test subjects in every trial, but it would also result in many human deaths and human suffering. And, as the key premise of everyone here seems to be, a person's life is more important than that of a non-human animal (in general, I agree with that too).

Safyre420, I suspect an entirely new thread could be devoted to PETA, its hypocrisy towards animal euthanasia, its scare tactics, its sheer lunacy, for lack of a better word...

Sorry I don't want to type 'experimented' 200 and 93 times.


Yes. I find 'experimenting' on people that will die- one way or another is logical.
They can die for human-kind or rot in a cell/be electrocuted.

All animals die, one way or another as well, so, what is your point?

The key point is not to reduce harm to humans. It usually is a case of determining the efficacy of the procedure/drug. Mice are commonly used due to their short generation interval. Mice breed often, therefore tests can be conducted on a larger population in a much shorter time. There is variation in any species, so it is important to use as many individuals as you can in order to determine how the trial effects the majority of participants. This is why mice are used quite often, along with the fact that they are good models for many diseases, particularly gastrointestinal diseases.

Well, everyone dies Pux. And I'm not for the death penalty anyway. But I see your point.

There are a certain few situations where the most benefit can be obtained for the least risk by forcibly testing on humans. Offering such trials to prisoners, in exchange for their sentence being lessened, seems like a good idea in those cases.

*headdesk* Our systems are NOT way different from theirs. Take it from one who spent far too much time studying comparative anatomy and physiology. Our organ systems are homologous, and many of the important cellular and biochemical mechanisms are similar enough as to provide a reasonable model.

We are not identical, nor are any other two species - that is why later phase trials must be carried out using humans before a drug or procedure is granted approval. Animal trials are used, amongst other reasons, to ascertain efficacy and to gain a baseline idea of safety. Human clinical trials are used to refine this further. Also read what I've already said about population sizes and generations...

Isn't the reason pigs are used in cosmetics testing because their skin is an almost perfect match to humans in texture, etc? I don't know for sure if that is the reason, I only have a vague recollection of hearing that somewhere. I do know that there is usually a specific reason that some animals are used for certain tests, and other animals for other tests, and that it isn't random at all...

Doddibot, PuX- 80 isn't talking about inmates volunteering...rather the forced experimentation that the Nazis became so good at. If you can get human volunteers, being of right mind and body, uncoerced, willing to sign away ALL liability claims, that's fine. But, prisoner volunteers isn't what Pux is talking about.

I would doubt that any cosmetics companies use animals in their testing these days. The public is far too conscious about this, and it would be poor business practice.

No argument there. Just that no procedure/drug that showed notable side-effects in animal trials will be approved for clinical trials (unless it was so effective that the side-effects are less in comparison).

My answer: I've always been orced to go to the doctor/ take medicine or been given placebo(sp?) (water on a spoon):P


Why would I want to be possibly killed for the person next to me.
I don't use animal tested things.

I thought so. Nonetheless, there are some situations where compulsory experimentation on humans may be useful. But, animal trials would still be needed, and hence I feel it is too off topic for this thread's focus.

Essentially, yeah. What some people obviously don't realise is that research is undertaken before any trials are conducted. Any adverse affects are minimised through this research. An animal ethics committee will not authorise a trial unless the research team can demonstrate they have researched it, and the risks are both minimal and justified.

Can you honestly say that you have never used anything that involved testing on animals? You would be surprised.

Without being forced.
Honestly, I have not.
Unless food and cotton clothes are tested on animals.

My point is, many things are tested on animals without you realising it. Some fabrics are, yes. Some things in food, yes. Have you ever taken any form of medication?

I very highly doubt that you haven't used something that was tested on an animal. Chances are if you've ever used any kind of lotion or sunscreen it was tested on an animal. Do you shave? I bet your shaving cream was tested on animals. Soap? Yep that probably was too.