Animal testing

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1766064' date='Jan 29 2009, 08:01 PM']I was waiting for people to bring this up. Then it would of course depend on the cognitive functioning of the humanimal. What do you do for a person who is metally challenged? As the mentally challenged human being matures, we cannot hold them totally accountable for their actions. Does that cause them not to have a soul? If they were to kill another how do we hold THEM accountable. I think that we should treat the humanimals the same way. It would all depend on their cognitive functioning. After thinking about it, I do not think that humanimals will be able to function at the same intellectual and cognitive level that you or I do. You see who one gene mutation can cause a whole slew of cognitive dysfunctions. What happens when we had a whole set of animal genes to the mix?

I do not think that we would have to worry if they have a soul or not. I think that we should leave that up to God. I think that we educate them to the functioning capacity that they can be educated too and leave the rest up to God. I think that we care for them we would any other human because, despite being part animal, they still have that human entity and should be treated with dignity.[/quote]

I would use the same line of reasoning here as I use for my stane against animal testing-this is paraphrased from someone, can't think of who-the question isn't can they reason? It's can they feel? (pain, emotion, etc). -Katie

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766432' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:09 AM']I would use the same line of reasoning here as I use for my stane against animal testing-this is paraphrased from someone, can't think of who-the question isn't can they reason? It's can they feel? (pain, emotion, etc). -Katie[/quote]
Animal testing is preferable to human testing. Without animal testing there would be no new major surgeries, no new drugs and a lot more dead people. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766446' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:14 AM']Animal testing is preferable to human testing. Without animal testing there would be no new major surgeries, no new drugs and a lot more dead people. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal.[/quote]

I don't think we need either. Animal testing has contributed to advancements in science, however, that doesn't mean there aren't better ways. I think animal testing, aside from being unethical, is unscientific. I do believe human life is more valuable than animal, however, I don't think we need to inflict pain and suffering on other sentient beings. -Katie [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Pn0l6ddMw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Pn0l6ddMw[/url]

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766446' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:14 AM']Animal testing is preferable to human testing. Without animal testing there would be no new major surgeries, no new drugs and a lot more dead people. Human life is infinitely more valuable than any animal.[/quote]

I would also argue that we can contribute some deaths of humans [i]to [/i] animal testing-many of the drugs approved by the FDA (Vioxx comes to mind) are later found to have deadly side effects that cannot be learned through experimenting on a different species. -Katie

[HisChildForever]

Animal testing for the sake of medical advancement is fine by me, so long as it is done humanely. Animal testing for the sake of beauty products is unnecessary.

[picchick]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766476' date='Jan 29 2009, 11:27 PM']I would also argue that we can contribute some deaths of humans [i]to [/i] animal testing-many of the drugs approved by the FDA (Vioxx comes to mind) are later found to have deadly side effects that cannot be learned through experimenting on a different species. -Katie[/quote]

The efficacy of the chemo drugs we give on the floor can be contributed to animal testing. Furthermore, there are certain cancer medications that are derivatives of mice and men. Which is also a book by the way.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766467' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:22 AM']I don't think we need either. Animal testing has contributed to advancements in science, however, that doesn't mean there aren't better ways. I think animal testing, aside from being unethical, is unscientific. I do believe human life is more valuable than animal, however, I don't think we need to inflict pain and suffering on other sentient beings. -Katie [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Pn0l6ddMw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_Pn0l6ddMw[/url][/quote]
The purpose of testing is to save human lives, not to inflict pain and suffering. Labs and lab animals are emormously expensive. If it were unscientific we wouldn't be doing it. If there were better ways we would be using them.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766467' date='Jan 29 2009, 11:22 PM']I don't think we need either. Animal testing has contributed to advancements in science, however, that doesn't mean there aren't better ways. I think animal testing, aside from being unethical, is unscientific. I do believe human life is more valuable than animal, however, I don't think we need to inflict pain and suffering on other sentient beings. -Katie[/quote]

1) Qualify why animal testing is 'unscientific.' Seriously.

2) I'll grant that you think animal testing is unethical on the grounds of inflicting pain on an animal is unethical when not absolutely necessary (as in to fight back if an animal was attacking you or something). Animals feel pain just like any other creature with free nerve endings synapsed with afferent fibers to their CNS. Animals may be 'sentient' in the 'capable to perceive their external environment' sense, but they are [i]not [/i] self-aware rational creatures like so many activists claim. If being 'sentient' rests solely upon an individual creature's capacity to perceive and respond to external stimuli, then plants would in a limited way also be sentient. Heck, bacteria would be sentient by this definition. It's called chemotaxis. Should we cease sterilizing medical tools before surgery? The arguments upon 'sentience' claims are ludicrous in my opinion. Animals feel pain, they don't 'suffer.' Suffering requires a mental awareness and level of intelligence animals just don't have.

3) Human life is not just 'more valuable' than animal life, it is infinitely more valuable. Every cute little white seal on the planet isn't worth the life of a single human being. I'd push the button to drive the blue whale to extinction if it meant I could save the life of a patient. Animals do not have souls, humans do. Humans are rational, sentient, creatures endowed with immortal souls destined for a life beyond the flesh. Animals live and die in the flesh. There is no dog heaven.

4) Do humans have the right to needlessly inflict harm upon animal life for no reason? Of course not. This is clearly unethical. The real question is whether animal testing is a necessary before human testing. I think the resounding opinion of the science community and the general public is 'yes.' Because a human life is infinitely more valuable than an animal life.

5) Have you ever taken a college level Ecology course? Botany? Zoology? Genetics? Animal Physiology? Comparative Anatomy? Vertebrate Anatomy? Microbiology?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766535' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:51 AM']The purpose of testing is to save human lives, not to inflict pain and suffering. Labs and lab animals are emormously expensive. If it were unscientific we wouldn't be doing it. If there were better ways we would be using them.[/quote]

That's a good point. Animal Labs are TREMENDOUSLY expensive.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1766521' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:16 AM']The efficacy of the chemo drugs we give on the floor can be contributed to animal testing. Furthermore, there are certain cancer medications that are derivatives of mice and men. Which is also a book by the way.[/quote]

I realize there have been advancements in medicine as a result of animal testing, my belief is that there are better ways and that we don't necessarily have to be using animal testing. -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:30 AM']1) Qualify why animal testing is 'unscientific.' Seriously.[/quote]

I believe, as the link I posted explains, that there are more advanced and potentially more useful methods and that utilizing human cells (I'm not endorsing embryonic stem cell research btw) is more logical as medicine for humans is probably going to be more accurately tested this way as opposed to on species which are biologically different from us. Another link I think is relevant: [url="http://people.tribe.net/forest_defender/blog/4c0b6024-667b-465a-ad11-ac80e5f30c69"]http://people.tribe.net/forest_defender/bl...11-ac80e5f30c69[/url]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:30 AM']2) I'll grant that you think animal testing is unethical on the grounds of inflicting pain on an animal is unethical when not absolutely necessary (as in to fight back if an animal was attacking you or something). Animals feel pain just like any other creature with free nerve endings synapsed with afferent fibers to their CNS. Animals may be 'sentient' in the 'capable to perceive their external environment' sense, but they are [i]not [/i] self-aware rational creatures like so many activists claim. If being 'sentient' rests solely upon an individual creature's capacity to perceive and respond to external stimuli, then plants would in a limited way also be sentient. Heck, bacteria would be sentient by this definition. It's called chemotaxis. Should we cease sterilizing medical tools before surgery? The arguments upon 'sentience' claims are ludicrous in my opinion. Animals feel pain, they don't 'suffer.' Suffering requires a mental awareness and level of intelligence animals just don't have.[/quote]

I equate sentience with feeling pain, I equate pain with suffering. I never said that they were rational creatures, nor is that the argument any animal advocate I know makes. The issue, for those who share my belief, is the ability to feel pain, not the ability to rationalize. Sentience is not soley ability to respond to external stimuli.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:30 AM']3) Human life is not just 'more valuable' than animal life, it is infinitely more valuable. Every cute little white seal on the planet isn't worth the life of a single human being. I'd push the button to drive the blue whale to extinction if it meant I could save the life of a patient. Animals do not have souls, humans do. Humans are rational, sentient, creatures endowed with immortal souls destined for a life beyond the flesh. Animals live and die in the flesh. There is no dog heaven.[/quote]

I would respectfully disagree with you on the issue of souls. However, my point isn't that human lives should be sacrificed to save animals, it's that I believe we don't need to sacrifice animals for the sake of humans.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:30 AM']4) Do humans have the right to needlessly inflict harm upon animal life for no reason? Of course not. This is clearly unethical. The real question is whether animal testing is a necessary before human testing. I think the resounding opinion of the science community and the general public is 'yes.' Because a human life is infinitely more valuable than an animal life.[/quote]

I agree that the value of human life exceeds that of an animals, my point is that we have and are developing non animal methods of scientific testing that I believe should be utilized in place of animal testing.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:30 AM']5) Have you ever taken a college level Ecology course? Botany? Zoology? Genetics? Animal Physiology? Comparative Anatomy? Vertebrate Anatomy? Microbiology?[/quote]
No.
-Katie

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I equate sentience with feeling pain, I equate pain with suffering. I never said that they were rational creatures, nor is that the argument any animal advocate I know makes. The issue, for those who share my belief, is the ability to feel pain, not the ability to rationalize. Sentience is not soley ability to respond to external stimuli.[/quote]

Pain does [i]not [/i] equal suffering. I think that is the fatal impasse of this whole discussion. Suffering is a subjective emotional experience that requires the rational faculty of self-awareness and rationality. If there is no true rational awarenes to the experience of pain, then it remains simply pain. You say that sentience "is the ability to feel pain" but pain is precisely a response to external stimuli. That [i]is [/i]what pain is. Stimulus applied, stimulus perceived by sensory sytem, stimulus converted to an electrical impulse, stimulus triggers a reflexive reaction to minimize the negative stimulus. The setup is no different with humans, except that our ability to process and be aware of pain is far more sophisticated because we can reflect upon and give subjective qualifications to it....that is suffering. Add to this the concept of a rational, immortal soul in humanity which merits respect and protection under a natural law by kind.

Just because an animal squirms in response to a painful stimulus does NOT mean that it 'suffers'...just that it has a more sophisticated response to pain. I mean this places whether something deserves protection or not on the premise that a quick response to pain means they 'suffer' while a slow response to pain means they 'don't suffer.' That seems like an arbitrary qualification.

I stand by my previous argument upon the necessary inclusiveness of what then experiences 'pain.' Plants when placed in the shade will perceive this stimulus, convert this stimulus into a chemical impulse, and begin shifting its growth and internal fluid system such that the leaves of the plant will avoid the negative stimulus (shade) in favor of a more positive stimulus (light). The plant is not 'aware' that it experiences pain by being taking from that energy source most dear to it. But it perceives the deficit and responds biologically to decrease the 'pain' of insufficient light. Just because you don't see it 'squirm' does not mean that it isn't experiences pain. Play a video of a plant moved to the shade in high speed and you'll see it squirm.

And again, bacteria growing in a culture broth experience 'pain' by this definition as well...perhaps more accutely than do plants. Take bacteria growing in a homogenous beaker solution. Add a drop of highly concentrated sulfuric acid and the bacteria start swimming away from it. They perceive the 'pain' of the noxious chemical, they adjust their behavior and 'squirm' away.

The only difference between plants, bacteria, and animals is our ability to be moved (subjective, rational experience unique to humans, btw) by watching them squirm in response to pain.

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I would respectfully disagree with you on the issue of souls. However, my point isn't that human lives should be sacrificed to save animals, it's that I believe we don't need to sacrifice animals for the sake of humans.[/quote]

You cannot believe that animals have immortal souls and be kosher with the Catholic Church as far as I know. Feel free to correct me on that anyone qualified or knowledgable enough to cite something and show me otherwise.

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I agree that the value of human life exceeds that of an animals, my point is that we have and are developing non animal methods of scientific testing that I believe should be utilized in place of animal testing.[/quote]

I hope some day there is a cheaper, more effective means of appropriately testing human pharmaceuticals and food products than by subjecting animals to the pain of testing. But I do not think an extra dollar should be taken from the jar available to fight human world hunger or disease in order to decrease the number of deaths of animals. But I'll let the Catechism of the Catholic Church say it much more eloquently for me.

"2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons. "

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I equate sentience with feeling pain, I equate pain with suffering. I never said that they were rational creatures, nor is that the argument any animal advocate I know makes. The issue, for those who share my belief, is the ability to feel pain, not the ability to rationalize. Sentience is not soley ability to respond to external stimuli.[/quote]

Pain does [i]not [/i] equal suffering. I think that is the fatal impasse of this whole discussion. Suffering is a subjective emotional experience that requires the rational faculty of self-awareness. If there is no true rational awarenes to the experience of pain, then it remains simply pain. You say that sentience "is the ability to feel pain" but pain is precisely a response to external stimuli. That [i]is [/i]what pain is. Stimulus applied, stimulus perceived by sensory sytem, stimulus converted to an electrical impulse, stimulus triggers a reflexive reaction to minimize the negative stimulus. The setup is no different with humans, except that our ability to process and be aware of pain is far more sophisticated because we can reflect upon and give subjective qualifications to it....that is suffering. Add to this the concept of a rational, immortal soul in humanity which merits respect and protection under a natural law by kind.

Just because an animal squirms in response to a painful stimulus does NOT mean that it 'suffers'...just that it has a more sophisticated response to pain. I mean this places whether something deserves protection or not on the premise that a quick response to pain means they 'suffer' while a slow response to pain means they 'don't suffer.' That seems like an arbitrary qualification.

I stand by my previous argument upon the necessary inclusiveness of what then experiences 'pain.' Plants when placed in the shade will perceive this stimulus, convert this stimulus into a chemical impulse, and begin shifting its growth and internal fluid system such that the leaves of the plant will avoid the negative stimulus (shade) in favor of a more positive stimulus (light). The plant is not 'aware' that it experiences pain by being taking from that energy source most dear to it. But it perceives the deficit and responds biologically to decrease the 'pain' of insufficient light. Just because you don't see it 'squirm' does not mean that it isn't experiences pain. Play a video of a plant moved to the shade in high speed and you'll see it squirm.

And again, bacteria growing in a culture broth experience 'pain' by this definition as well...perhaps more accutely than do plants. Take bacteria growing in a homogenous beaker solution. Add a drop of highly concentrated sulfuric acid and the bacteria start swimming away from it. They perceive the 'pain' of the noxious chemical, they adjust their behavior and 'squirm' away.

The only difference between plants, bacteria, and animals is our ability to be moved (subjective, rational experience unique to humans, btw) by watching them squirm in response to pain.

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I would respectfully disagree with you on the issue of souls. However, my point isn't that human lives should be sacrificed to save animals, it's that I believe we don't need to sacrifice animals for the sake of humans.[/quote]

You cannot believe that animals have immortal souls and be kosher with the Catholic Church as far as I know. Feel free to correct me on that anyone qualified or knowledgable enough to cite something and show me otherwise.

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:25 AM']I agree that the value of human life exceeds that of an animals, my point is that we have and are developing non animal methods of scientific testing that I believe should be utilized in place of animal testing.[/quote]

I hope some day there is a cheaper, more effective means of appropriately testing human pharmaceuticals and food products than by subjecting animals to the pain of testing. But I do not think an extra dollar should be taken from the jar available to fight human world hunger or disease in order to decrease the number of deaths of animals. But I'll let the Catechism of the Catholic Church say it much more eloquently for me.

"2417 God entrusted animals to the stewardship of those whom he created in his own image. Hence it is legitimate to use animals for food and clothing. They may be domesticated to help man in his work and leisure. Medical and scientific experimentation on animals is a morally acceptable practice if it remains within reasonable limits and contributes to caring for or saving human lives.

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. [i]One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons[/i]. "

Edited January 30, 2009 by Veridicus

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766608' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:25 AM']I believe, as the link I posted explains, that there are more advanced and potentially more useful methods and that utilizing human cells (I'm not endorsing embryonic stem cell research btw) is more logical as medicine for humans is probably going to be more accurately tested this way as opposed to on species which are biologically different from us. Another link I think is relevant: [url="http://people.tribe.net/forest_defender/blog/4c0b6024-667b-465a-ad11-ac80e5f30c69"]http://people.tribe.net/forest_defender/bl...11-ac80e5f30c69[/url]

[color="#4169E1"]CMOM:But there are not. You can only play with chemicals in a lab for so long until you actually have to test the stuff in living tissue. Mammals are NOT that biologically different from us which is why we must them.[/color]

I equate sentience with feeling pain, I equate pain with suffering. I never said that they were rational creatures, nor is that the argument any animal advocate I know makes. The issue, for those who share my belief, is the ability to feel pain, not the ability to rationalize. Sentience is not soley ability to respond to external stimuli.

[color="#4169E1"] CMOM:But pain is not the same as suffering. Pain is a body's response to a stimuli. Suffering is being in pain and knowing it. Animals can be in pain, but they don't suffer. Humans suffer.[/color]

I would respectfully disagree with you on the issue of souls. However, my point isn't that human lives should be sacrificed to save animals, it's that I believe we don't need to sacrifice animals for the sake of humans.

[color="#4169E1"]CMOM:People have souls, animals have spirits. Souls last forever and their ultimate goal is eternity with God. Animals are born, die, and gone. We can dearly love animals, but they are nothing compared to a single human life. If you don't think animals should die for humans you are putting way too much value on animals and not nearly enough on human beings. THere is no comparison.[/color]

I agree that the value of human life exceeds that of an animals, my point is that we have and are developing non animal methods of scientific testing that I believe should be utilized in place of animal testing.
[color="#4169E1"]
CMOM:But sooner or later the product, chemical, drug, procedure etc must be tested on animals before people. It is our job to do it safely and humanely, but we must always keep our priorities and not our emotions in control. [/color]

-Katie[/quote]

[Veridicus]

Cmother,

I thought you were re-posting things that she said...and I was like "wow did I not read that? I think she is agreeing with me and I must have not seen the post"

The blue text is YOUR response....I got it now.