Biology states that Insects aren't Animals.
Don't think Lions are any thing like bees. Unless there is a flying lion with a stinger.

Exactly. Not that you would just decide to go to the doctor for the hell of it, but rather, you were feeling sick, sprained an ankle, etc, or otherwise had a legitimate reason to go, and they gave you a flu shot, painkiller, or other type of medication.

But, let me rephrase it to make it even more simple. If PuX- 80 has ever taken an aspirin or Tylenol for a headache, ever taken a cough drop or cough medicine, the argument is invalid. It doesn't even require going to a doctor, all it takes is to ever voluntarily taken a drug in order to ease any sort of symptom.

What I find even more sick is that when I've spoken to people about animal testing, many would rather subject humans to testing than animals because animals are 'cute, harmless little things.' I'm sorry, yes it is slightly heart wrenching to watch apes being tubed and tested in videos (with accompanied symphony music to emphasise the dramatic emotion evoked), It would be beyond heart wrenching to watch innocent humans suffer in their place.

Humans over all other animals, in terms of medical testing (not cosmetic), for the good of humankind. End of discussion.

^^ are animals not innocent either? I don't really see how that can be sick; humans are animals.

Insects are animals. Animals are a diverse group, and vertebrates are not the only type. I've got a degree in animal science, so I know what I'm on about. For the person that suggested that animals don't share the same 'insides' as humans - your school is wrong. Many animals are good models for research. I love animals, but sometimes it's a necessary evil. Most medical procedures, tests and drugs have been tested on animals. So if you don't agree with it, it's best you don't visit a doctor again.

The link you showed for insects proves your statement to be wrong, Insects are in the kingdom Animalia, any creature within this kingdom is an animal.

The lack of education and rational independent thought in this thread is astounding. If people have such strong thoughts, they should first research and then formulate an informed opinion.

That's a bit presumptuous; Everyone is debating just like you...it's interesting to see other people's views on things.

Yes, but some are displaying complete ignorance. I have no problems with people expressing their opinion, but I think it's important for people to understand what the are debating first.

Yes insects are animals. They are under the kingdom of animalia, as are all breathing things (excluding plants). Insects are just under a different phylum than us chordates.

I don't want to come off as insensitive or condescending, but humans are above animals in more than one sense. We are smarter, we are self aware (at least more than other animals who are), and we have a developed sense of morals. Animals are probably more innocent than most humans, but that is simply because most animals only think of eating, sleeping, and mating.

EDIT: >.< I type slow. Someone beat me on what i said.

Ok, I have a question for you. How does intelligence or aesthetic appeal give one species more rights than another? You can't say a certain species has more rights just because it is more intelligent than other. I suggest you google 'Peter Singer'. By your logic, we should be able to get rid of sub-intelligent humans. The right to live is not based on intelligence, aesthetics or cognition. Every animal, whether ugly or beautiful has the same inherent right to life.

That doesn't give us a right; as I stated before Animals have rights also...believe it or not.

They do. But like I said, research is a necessary evil. I've undertaken research on animals, and it's depressing. I have tremendous respect for the animals that were used, but we live in a utilitarian society - the greatest good for the greatest number. The animals used greatly contributed to vital medical research. They didn't die in vain.

I think as long as the research is necessary, and the animals are treated with respect and are not taken for granted, research is acceptable.

That is very true; however most animals used are not treated with such respect. Take the video I linked for example.

How do you know this? The vast majority of animal tests are performed appropriately. No one puts videos of respectful trials on the internet - only the bad ones in order to get a reaction from people. Being in the industry, I can guarantee that these days, it is rare for testing to be done poorly in most countries (such as Australia, where I'm from.. and most developed countries).

I do agree with your main points.

That depends on the context. If you believe that we humans should not eat animals than the following I am about to type will be irrelevant and you should not even bother reading as I will not change your mind.

Every animal does have that right to life. We as animals also have that right to life. In order to survive an animal must do whatever they can to stay healthy and safe. Animals fight for land and food. Many animals eat other animals. It is nature for an animal to prey on another animal for consumption and in the process an animal's life is taken. This is all in the process of surviving.

As humans became more educated, we began improving our lives through medicine. As you said this is our right to life. Eventually animal testing enters the field, allowing many drugs to be entered into the public and allowing us to live up to our right to life. Eating animals can keep a person alive, and so can using said animal to create drugs help keep a person alive

I personally don't like the idea of animal testing. I love animals. But because alternative methods are not cost or time effective, animals will have to take one for our team.

I'm not a vegetarian. I understand how the world works, and I'm not arguing with you. My point is, your excuse for using animals in research is contentious. Intelligence doesn't give us the right. I don't think we have a RIGHT to use animals in research, but I am ok with it if it is undertaken properly, and the three R's are implemented.

When a lion starts to respect the right of the gazelle to live, I will accept your argument, Dreamdre15. Since that will never happen, I would point out that there is a reason they are called basic human rights, not basic animal rights. I refuse to accept the vegetarian argument that it is cruel to eat meat until such a time as animals stop killing each other for food. I refuse to accept that animals have "human rights" until such a time as they can convince me they are in fact, "human". When they learn to speak, develop mathematics, written language, etc.

Forgive me for having a human-centric view, but dammit, only humans have the capability of looking at the world that way. Only humans have the intelligence have a discussion on animal rights, therefore humans are set apart from the entire rest of the animal population. BR-Fl is absolutely right. We are smarter than animals. We are self aware. The fact that we can even have a debate online regarding this topic, showcasing thousands of technological advances we all take entirely for granted demonstrates the remarkable gap in intelligence between humans and our nearest relatives. Technology for us is figuring out ways to get people to Mars, technology for gorillas is using a stick to fish ants out of an anthill. Slight difference. You may not like it, but in the intelligence division of the evolution department, there is mankind, and then everything else. Think about it...the fact that humans are in a position to grant animals rights is proof of our evolutionary superiority. If we weren't, who the hell would we be to presume that we can grant rights to other animals? The only way they have rights is if we are in a position of authority over them to be a grantor of those rights. You won't admit that, of course, but the very fact that you want to give animals rights shows you believe you are superior to those animals. Lesser beings do not grant rights to superior beings, do they? Perhaps you could say that equals can grant rights to equals, such as humans granting rights to other humans, however animals are not capable of understanding concepts such as rights, we are, therefore we cannot be equals with them. The relationship between humans and the rest of the living creatures on this planet is one of dominance. You don't have to like that, but, you cannot change that it is the fundamental truth.

Are they?
If the animal is treated right, is it something they are supposed to go through?
I think not.
I wouldn't want to be probed/stabbed/poked/needled/touched just to make sure someone elses life isn't ended.
I would think that's what animals think also.


I'd start respecting her arguement.
Lions kill the sick/hurt/dying. Not the healthy.

Depends what you mean by breathing

Anyway, I'm off to an animal ethics course. I have to learn how to ethically kill a newborn mouse.

Your fundamental argument is correct, but this still doesn't mean that animals have less of a right to life than us. Of course we are more intelligent. But like I said before, if we are going to base the right to live on intelligence, we should be able to euthanase people who are unintelligent and do not support society.

There is no right answer to this question. This exact debate is used in schools in order to provoke thought and debate, and develop an understanding of philosophy.

Like I've said - I have a degree in animal science, and currently do research (I'm undertaking field research on echidna's for their benefit, not harming them). I know what goes on in the industry. There are strict laws and protocols in place, particularly in Australia. You seem to think that all research involves needles and pain etc. It doesn't.

And lions will not only attack sick animals.

Okay, a couple of questions for those of you who feel that animal testing is wrong no matter what the circumstances.

What do you see as a viable alternative? It is all very well to say 'test on inmates' or 'get people to volunteer', but these are not viable options. As I said earlier, the practicalities of using human beings for early stages of testing render the idea impossible - even if you had more than enough people volunteering. At this stage, really there are none. In vitro testing has its uses, but ultimately most things will need an in vivo model well before they reach human trial stage. Until such time as we can create an 'artificial' model, we are left with animals.

Also, a hypothetical situation for you - a new chemotherapy drug ('X') has been developed using an animal model through the early stages of development and testing. The drug has been shown to be highly effective and unlike most chemo agents, it has almost no adverse effects. You've just been diagnosed with a highly aggressive cancer - without treatment it will kill you, but it just so happens that it is highly responsive to treatment with X. I would bet that every single one of you would take the drug, yet how can you justify doing so given your stance on animal testing?

I can only second this. I have a degree in veterinary science, and I too know what goes on in the industry. As I already said:

But hey, the various links are from PETA or PETA-influenced. They must be representative, impartial and factually correct </sarcasm>

PAFC2004, I am not suggesting we go kill animals just for the hell of it...the reckless slaughter of animals for no reason is, and should be abhorrent. But, this is not "for no good reason". There is a definite purpose involved. When it comes down to the choice between doing research on animals and doing research on humans, its a no-brainer. You experiment on the animals first, and only begin experimenting on humans after it has been determined that whatever is being tested should be safe. I would much rather have a group of monkeys be test subjects on a brand new experimental drug than a group of people. By the time drugs get to the human testing phase prior to FDA approval, they have already gone through countless previous tests just to get to that point. Let the guinea pigs be the guinea pigs, if you get what I am saying.

Please tell me, does an animal want to be experimented on?