UBC used nearly 212,000 research animals in 2010

Originally posted by ScottishBiker420

Originally posted by Evolutionsend
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

I'm not sure why we can't open the gates to humans who want to volunteer for these jobs. Many people would like to die but do not have the conviction to do it themselves. Why not just let them die for an animal's benefit? Many of them would do it.

Animals are more civil and caring than human beings nowadays. Stop killing them.

edit on 29-10-2011 by Evolutionsend because: (no reason given)

Yeah great idea man,but when we run out of volunteers why not use all the rapists,paedophiles and junkies!!!

Now that is a good idea, Rapists and Pedos should be involuntarily put forward for scientific experimentation, not sure about Junkies though, they dont harm anyone else, that much

My best mate works in a place where they test things on animals and he says he hates it and he gets upset sometimes but he says that if they find a cure for cancer and 1 million animals have given their lives to help humanity it is worth it.
I think all the people complaining about eating animals etc should think if we didnt eat meat how many cows,lambs pig's etc etc would their be?
These animals have done very well with their populations because they taste nice

Yeah this is normal, and wrong at the same time, Hitler tested stuff on babies and other people. I've even heard rumors of Hitler ripping of baby arms off and trying to implant them in the center of the chest. So honestly, its either the animals, or human infants.

Medical testing is a necessary evil.

sorry, as much as I love animals, I want a potential pediatric doctor doing their first routines on an animal, not a child.

Just about every medication, every cancer treatment, every injection was tested on an animal first.

reply to post by boymonkey74


You bring up a point, I wonder how many of the people who come onto ATS eat meat. Because there is nothing more inhumane, more horrifying, then the raising of animals for meat and their slaughter.

A former boyfriend's brother worked in a slaughterhouse and said they would stun the cows in the head before gutting them. But many times the stun didn't work but the machine still yanks the animal up by the hind legs and it is gutted alive.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by boymonkey74

 

You bring up a point, I wonder how many of the people who come onto ATS eat meat. Because there is nothing more inhumane, more horrifying, then the raising of animals for meat and their slaughter.

I'm not sure if you're trying to imply that we should all not be eating meat or not, but if you are: I disagree 100%. It really is "survival of the fittest" on this blue little dot we call home. There are plenty of animals that eat other animals (looking at you lions, tigers, cheetahs, birds, sharks, etc.) why should humans not eat meat from a different animal? Are you suggesting we should eat each other? The only thing I find odd about human eating ritual is drinking the milk from other animals, I believe we're the only species that does that...

I will, however, agree that some of our slaughtering practices are just plain wrong. I definitely think livestock farmers should find more humane ways to slaughter our food, but I can understand that the speed in which animals need to be processed may constitute in absolutely horrifying methods of slaughtering. Probably have quotas or something that the workers have to meat each day (see what I did there?). Will I stop eating meat if they don't find a more humane way to slaughter? Of course not. Animals taste good.

Most of these types of 'research' are mostly for job-creation purposes.
Tell me how many cures for disease how come out of all of it from all of these decades (in round numbers)?

I bet you wouldn't lose much sleep if the work done saved the life of your child/spouse/family member. The article says, "“Ninety-seven per cent of the animals that are part of these studies are rodents, mice, rats, fish and frogs, primarily,” It's not like they have 200,000 sad-faced monkeys sitting in electrified cages.

The article also says "“Every animal, if it's anticipated that there will be painful procedure, they are administered anesthesia or pain medication,”" It's not like the scientists are heartless monsters that relish in the suffering. Sure, you have to be de-sensitized to some extent, but that doesn't make you less human.

The ends justify the means if it can lead to saving 1 person imo. If you don't agree, then you shouldn't take any medication whatsoever because there always has to be a precursor to human trials for any commercial drug.

Originally posted by TypeSH2001
Most of these types of 'research' are mostly for job-creation purposes.
Tell me how many cures for disease how come out of all of it from all of these decades (in round numbers)?

Wow as a matter of fact lots and lots
check this site out it explains alot
www.the-aps.org...
people also forget we test on animals to help the animals thenselves.

Animal-based research has helped provide cures and treatments in those case and many more. Biotechnology companies have depended on animal research to develop more than 160 drugs and vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, according to the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Those discoveries have helped hundreds of millions of people worldwide and prevented incalculable human suffering.
thats from here...wtnnews.com...

I think the issue is are the animals in pain etc well what little reading I have done, the researchers say that they make sure the animal goes through as least pain as possible.

Originally posted by MeesterB
The ends justify the means if it can lead to saving 1 person imo. If you don't agree, then you shouldn't take any medication whatsoever because there always has to be a precursor to human trials for any commercial drug.

You can't please everybody.

If we stopped testing new drugs on animals first,and just went straight to human testing, then more people would be dying as a result, and somebody would complain about that too.

There is simply no pleasing some people.

It sounds to me like the scientists are trying to be humane to the animals by administering anesthesia, so they don't suffer. And I can't say I'd feel all that bad if rats went extinct, I don't really like them, so test away, as long as it's done humanely which apparently it is.

Personally and yes, hypocritically, I think everyone in this thread who condones the torture of another life (be it animal or not) should be the first ones in line to get sent to one of these "testing facilities".

www.iamscruelty.com...



Nothing like that warm, fuzzy feeling you get from watching a dying dog twitching and doped up on the floor while he watches as his brothers get splayed open on a table so you can know that we are all safe from the products being pushed on us.



Happy with your work?



Have any of you geniuses that support this ever watched the life fade from a beautiful, trusting animals eyes? Have you ever seen an animal be injected and then just thrown on the floor with a sickening neglect and no compassion of life? This fills me with a barely controllable rage, right now my hands are twitching from the adrenaline running through my body and the sight of something so unjust happening in the same world I have no choice but to live in with all your moronic solutions.

Instead of looking for a better, less convenient answer to our problems, JUST KILL THEM? Are you a fool?

The human population on Earth is going, or just did hit 7 billion. You want to apply the same solution as overpopulation of domestic animals in cities? These same people are the ones that go on and on about innocent deaths in war.

If a society can only be measured by its citizens, a leading species of a world can only be measured by how it treats its inferiors.

I'll see you in hell, idiots.

reply to post by RSF77

Yes there is always going to be bad place's out there whether they are testing or butchering that is why we it should be monitored to make sure it doesn't happen.
But without animal testing would you prefer to watch one of your loved ones die from any of these?
diphtheria
cholera
polio
small pox (the animal in question was a 8 year old boy)
rabies
syphilus

All have had cures found by testing on animals.
We are not just killing them for sport (some do I dont like that) we are using them to make sure millions of children don't die.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I don't think its necessary to mutilate animals to determine if a drug does what it is intended to do. Torturing animals is not the righteous way of doing this, its the easiest and the cheapest.

In most cases, why not use the individuals that are already suffering and dying to perform tests on? That would seem to get the most accurate results.

In ANY case, denying an animal of life in cold blood is not acceptable if its only for some minor convenience that happens to be marketable.

I am not a perfect being either, I need to eat meat from animals and sometimes I even kill it myself. However, I always respect the animal I kill and/or eat and acknowledge that what was that animal, lives on in me. The thing died so that I may live, so I become a vessel of respect for that which has supported me. The animal I ate is the very foundation of what makes me a living, breathing intelligent human being and I won't stand by and watch others be pointlessly tortured and killed.

I will NEVER accept the killing and torture of any animal on this planet as an acceptable practice, unless it is parallel with the natural order of life. (aka sustenance, not torture)

I think a minimum standard of living needs to be set and legally enforced for both humans and animals, all life that humanity influences.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Why would you need to burn anything living? Psychopathic much?

Great. Next time you get a serious burn - I'll just grab something that looks nice to put on it. Italian dressing has lots of Vitamin E - which is in a lot of skin creams.... I'll just throw some Italian on your 3rd degree burns.

reply to post by RSF77

Personally and yes, hypocritically, I think everyone in this thread who condones the torture of another life (be it animal or not) should be the first ones in line to get sent to one of these "testing facilities".

You seem a bit confused. Any facility conducting tests in a way that can garnish useful results will not amount to "torture." "Sacrifice" - if it leads to the death of the animal, sure. "Torture," no.

That said - not every research institution out there holds itself to meaningful standards.

Have any of you geniuses that support this ever watched the life fade from a beautiful, trusting animals eyes?

I watched several people in my family dye rather slow and agonizing deaths from diseases. I've seen the eyes of someone go from a person I know and trust to a completely detached, blank stare when they have bipolar shifts that are beyond their control.

You have to compartmentalize. A pet is like a person to me - an offense against a pet of mine is an offense against me and will likely send me into a homicidal rage. Some animal I have not made a bond with - or a person I have not made a bond with - is not really something I am all that concerned with.

In animals used for testing - you avoid building trust or a relationship until that animal has completed its tour of duty.

This fills me with a barely controllable rage, right now my hands are twitching from the adrenaline running through my body and the sight of something so unjust happening in the same world I have no choice but to live in with all your moronic solutions.

I've always argued that there's no substitute for a human cadaver, and argued that there are far too many stupid people on this planet to be healthy for society.

But then I get odd looks and get called a psychopathic supremacist advocating eugenics.

Instead of looking for a better, less convenient answer to our problems, JUST KILL THEM? Are you a fool?

Such as?

Like I said - a person I have no bond with is about as meaningful to me as an animal I have not made a bond with - so I'm not at all at odds with doing these tests on humans, instead - but I can guarantee we'll need an armed group of professionals to acquire said human cadavers. Not that I'm opposed to that, either - it's just a reality that you're going to need a military force to enact this plan, eventually.

If a society can only be measured by its citizens, a leading species of a world can only be measured by how it treats its inferiors.

I'll see you in hell, idiots.

I'm not sure I see a logical connection between your statements.

In either case - plenty of people have pets and care for them, while simultaneously understanding the necessity of animal testing.

At the end of the day - you can choose to have respect when you do something, or you can choose not to. Perhaps it's the dab of Native American in me - but I do what I can to be respectful and mindful of the sacrifice another form of life has given to further my own existence. As someone in the military - I've adopted a mindset that works to put things in perspective: for whatever reason - the other guy is on 'the other side' and currently stands as a risk to those I do care about. I don't have to hate him/her - and the act of taking their life is not done out of judgment or valuation of their own. It is done because, as circumstances would have it, we stood as opposing forces.

I apply the same to animal testing.

If you can't put ideological conundrums into some kind of context that allows you to think clearly - then you will have a lot of trouble finding a peaceful existence in this world.

reply to post by RSF77

Yes its ok saying lets test it on people who already have it but alot of these disease's you can't do that,
Remember a lot of the cure's are vaccines what was brought about many many years ago and they didnt have the modern techniques we have now.
We still need to see how these vaccines work on living tissue etc and thats why we use live animals (unless you wanna swap with them).
You have to weigh up the pro's and con's and yes it isnt nice killing anything but without the animal testing's many cure's vaccines wouldnt be about now.
I agree with you to a point but as long as they are treated well and given as little pain as possible I think its a what we have to do.
Like I said a mate of mine works in a lab looking after the animals, he make's sure they are treated with respect.

Originally posted by boymonkey74
I think all the people complaining about eating animals etc should think if we didnt eat meat how many cows,lambs pig's etc etc would their be?
These animals have done very well with their populations because they taste nice

And there's a really big difference between localized farming and corporate factory farming. You think the millions of animals who live in squalor in factory farms are happy to have been birthed in isolation, raised in prison cells, and then processed by machines? And what does this produce for us? Tasteless, bleached meat that we must pay out of the ass for at a store while the establishment makes it legally harder for us realists to go out and shoot and eat our own real meat.

MeesterB-
The ends justify the means if it can lead to saving 1 person imo. If you don't agree, then you shouldn't take any medication whatsoever because there always has to be a precursor to human trials for any commercial drug.

I would like to see you tour these research facilities. These creatures have souls, just like the one that you take for granted by making such heartless statements. Genocide is taboo, but speciesism is just dandy if we benefit from the misery of "lesser" creatures. Pathetic

And guess what? Commercial drugs are garbage. Pharmaceutical companies don't give a crap about your life or the lives of the animals that they test, and they deliberate hold back on medical progress if it means more profit. I certainly don't use any commerical drug anymore because I realize that they just create zombies out of people, along with dependencies to keep paying for more of their garbage drugs.

Do you even watch commercials for commerical drugs? I was watching one earlier, forgot what mundane thing it was for, but it listed side-effects as ranging from heart disease, increased risk of cancer, inducing a rare brain deteriorating disease, etc etc. I wonder what they had to do to animals to discover these side effects, and I am baffled if anyone is stupid enough to buy and use this product.

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Why would you need to burn anything living? Psychopathic much?

Great. Next time you get a serious burn - I'll just grab something that looks nice to put on it. Italian dressing has lots of Vitamin E - which is in a lot of skin creams.... I'll just throw some Italian on your 3rd degree burns.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Man, I can't believe how arrogant people are on this issue. I guess most of you were raised in your sterilized cities where you barely ever saw wild animals (you know, real animals in nature, not ones in the pet store or zoo) so you don't have any understanding of what life means to them.

I grew up in a rural place and experienced nature and its creatures all the time. They are not stupid experimental objects for us to deprive life from. They are living creatures.

And you want to tell me about how I should treat ailments? I've gone for months with open wounds (including burns) and I still maintain the scars because I would rather have my body deal with healing rather than buying BS pharmaceutical products. The only medical equipment that I've ever needed was dressings, stitches and alcohol. I don't even take painkillers anymore because I'd rather take some pain than destroy my liver.

Tell me, when dealing with sickness, do you depend on immunization shots and flu drugs or your own immune system to combat hostile bacteria/virus in your blood? I choose the latter and I'm damn fine with that, and guess what? Animals in the wild do the same, and I don't have to torture or kill them to survive just as they do.

reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi


Animals don't have souls. Everyone knows that. Your love for them is not evidence of a soul. I bet you think the good frogs go to heaven and bad frogs go to hell. Ridiculous.

reply to post by MeesterB

Have you ever looked into the eye's of a gorilla? do that and come back to me and say animals don't have souls.
In fact watch this vid posted today
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If you say no animal can get into heaven, I don't wanna go there if I can't meet the many animals I have know and loved.

Originally posted by MeesterB
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

 

Animals don't have souls. Everyone knows that. Your love for them is not evidence of a soul. I bet you think the good frogs go to heaven and bad frogs go to hell. Ridiculous.

Disgusting.

What does heaven or hell have to do with a soul?

If you have no comprehension of what soul actually is, then who are you to determine the fate of the lives of other organisms? You might as bloody well be working in Auschwitz, since the Nazis on the ground level there were lead to believe that the "inferior" humans had no souls, thus justifying their torture, experimentation and execution of "inferior" humans.