Animal testing

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766649' date='Jan 30 2009, 11:30 AM']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.[/quote]
lol sorry. I went back and edited it.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766554' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:30 AM']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]

For all animal lovers, especially those of us with pets, this is hard to understand and accept. What helped me was that animals have a [i]type[/i] of soul (as in, they are not little robots, which made me feel better ). Also, if my cat is going to Heaven, then the ant I just squashed is going to Heaven too. If you think of it like that, it just makes no sense - people can rationalize their beloved pet in the afterlife but would not be thinking like that for bugs. [b]Plus[/b] you need to be judged by God (and Christ only came for our salvation). An animal only knows the difference between right and wrong if they are trained (you yell when they go to the bathroom under your table but you give them kisses after using the litter). Therefore, they simply cannot choose to follow God (Heaven) or sin against God (Hell).

I once read a speculation that there [i]may be[/i] the [i]possibility[/i] of having our pets returned to us in "the new Heaven and the new Earth." This is purely theory though, I might have read it here on Phatmass. One could then say "Oh great, I will have 25 goldfish, 10 cats, 4 dogs, 2 lizards..." but then one could argue that God will give you your favorite pets - usually we tend to care more for cats and dogs.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1766669' date='Jan 30 2009, 12:16 PM']For all animal lovers, especially those of us with pets, this is hard to understand and accept. What helped me was that animals have a [i]type[/i] of soul (as in, they are not little robots, which made me feel better ). Also, if my cat is going to Heaven, then the ant I just squashed is going to Heaven too. If you think of it like that, it just makes no sense - people can rationalize their beloved pet in the afterlife but would not be thinking like that for bugs. [b]Plus[/b] you need to be judged by God (and Christ only came for our salvation). An animal only knows the difference between right and wrong if they are trained (you yell when they go to the bathroom under your table but you give them kisses after using the litter). Therefore, they simply cannot choose to follow God (Heaven) or sin against God (Hell).

I once read a speculation that there [i]may be[/i] the [i]possibility[/i] of having our pets returned to us in "the new Heaven and the new Earth." This is purely theory though, I might have read it here on Phatmass. One could then say "Oh great, I will have 25 goldfish, 10 cats, 4 dogs, 2 lizards..." but then one could argue that God will give you your favorite pets - usually we tend to care more for cats and dogs.[/quote]
I have had pets for 50 years and I have loved them dearly, but they are pets, and not equivalent to people. Some of them, however, has been much nicer than people.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766612' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:57 AM']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.[/quote]

As far as I know, plants and other non animal life do not have central nervous sytems, which would result in an inability to feel pain. I don't think one needs to have a high degree of self awareness to feel pain. Babies, the mentally retarded and those with dementia and other cognitive disorders do not have the ability to rationalize, yet they feel pain. Moreover, although animals may not have what we call "rationalization" many animals do have a high degree of intelligence and self awareness, including some form of language (dolphins), social hierarchies, etc. Many animals also feel emotion-loneliness, for example.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766612' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:57 AM']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]

That's the only difference between humans, animals and plant life? Humans share the state of consciousness with animals, plants do not.

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766612' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:57 AM']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]

As far as I know, one is not obliged to believe or not believe that animals have eternal souls. I believe that they do. God is, in essence, eternal and therefore it would logically follow, in my perception, that animals into whom he breathed his breath (this is in Genesis, not sure of the chapter/verse) must have some kind of eternal existence.


[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766612' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:57 AM']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.[/quote]

My point is, there ARE better, cheaper alternatives out there. Here's another good link from someone I greatly respect who does a far better job presenting this argument than myself. [url="http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/conservation/issues/in_research.asp"]http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/c...in_research.asp[/url] -Katie

Btw sorry, I didn't mean to hijack this thread, I was originally using my statement on animal testing as an analogy to how I feel about potential "humanimals" in response to what picchick said.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766535' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:51 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]

When you have the FDA regulating our pharmaceutical companies using antiquated laws and science, that's what you get. There are better ways and there are a lot of places that are using them. Harvard and Yale Medical Schools, for instance, no longer use animal testing. -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

Cmotherofpirl

I respect you and everyone else's opinions, but is there compelling dogma that requires I do not believe that animals have eternal souls? I don't see why I'm not free to believe this. I think my emotions are in check, although on many threads you have made reference to things I say and do as "emotional"-which is fine, however, I don't see that I've made an emotionally based argument. I've made an ethical argument. Yes, emotions enter into all of our arguments-part of being human is our wonderful capacity to become impassioned in standing up for what we believe to be right. I'm sorry if you think I'm too emotional, but I yam what I yam. -Katie

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766706' date='Jan 30 2009, 01:35 PM']Cmotherofpirl

I respect you and everyone else's opinions, but is there compelling dogma that requires I do not believe that animals have eternal souls? I don't see why I'm not free to believe this. I think my emotions are in check, although on many threads you have made reference to things I say and do as "emotional"-which is fine, however, I don't see that I've made an emotionally based argument. I've made an ethical argument. Yes, emotions enter into all of our arguments-part of being human is our wonderful capacity to become impassioned in standing up for what we believe to be right. I'm sorry if you think I'm too emotional, but I yam what I yam. -Katie[/quote]
Ok, I am not saying all this applies to you.
Animal rights activists and anti-testing people usually start with the assumption that humans are merely a variety of animal and on par with them when it comes to "rights". THis can lead to confusion on the importance of animals vs humans, and the idea that animal welfare is just as important as human welfare. This is fueled by the idea from the activists that science is somehow mean to animals by testing drugs , procedures etc them instead of humans. I have also actually had people tell me if their dog isn't meeting them at the pearly gate they are not going in!
I try to stick to catholic teaching.
Catholic teaching states that Man is created in the image and likeness of God, not man and animals. When Adam names the animals he finds none like him, he is unique. Animals are created to be subservient to man [Genesis 1:28]. We have permission to kill and eat animals. [Genesis 9:3-4] but not people [Genesis 9:5-6]
1 Cor 15 states"“All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes”".
Animals have souls in the sense they are animated creatures, but they are not immortal souls.
There is nothing wrong with emotions, but they must be subservient to reason. The line is becoming more blurred on a daily basis - like the people who want to give apes legal rights. Its good to stand up for what you believe in, but as a catholics we need to form our beliefs in line with catholic teaching. Teaching on animals should be based on the fact that God has told us to take care of them instead of the belief they have immortal souls like us.
However this doesn't preclude having our pets with us in heaven, since God can do anything and he does love us.

One of my favorite stories is the Great Divorce by C S Lewis where a person meets all the animals she loved in her lifetime.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']Ok, I am not saying all this applies to you.
Animal rights activists and anti-testing people usually start with the assumption that humans are merely a variety of animal and on par with them when it comes to "rights". THis can lead to confusion on the importance of animals vs humans, and the idea that animal welfare is just as important as human welfare. This is fueled by the idea from the activists that science is somehow mean to animals by testing drugs , procedures etc them instead of humans. I have also actually had people tell me if their dog isn't meeting them at the pearly gate they are not going in![/quote]

I don't think that humans are merely a variety of animal. However, I think we share the beauty of consciousness with our fellow animals. This does not diminish the unique human status; that is, being made in the image and likeness of God.

I[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']try to stick to catholic teaching.
Catholic teaching states that Man is created in the image and likeness of God, not man and animals. When Adam names the animals he finds none like him, he is unique. Animals are created to be subservient to man [Genesis 1:28]. We have permission to kill and eat animals. [Genesis 9:3-4] but not people [Genesis 9:5-6]
1 Cor 15 states"“All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fishes”".
Animals have souls in the sense they are animated creatures, but they are not immortal souls.
There is nothing wrong with emotions, but they must be subservient to reason. The line is becoming more blurred on a daily basis - like the people who want to give apes legal rights. Its good to stand up for what you believe in, but as a catholics we need to form our beliefs in line with catholic teaching. Teaching on animals should be based on the fact that God has told us to take care of them instead of the belief they have immortal souls like us.[/quote]

I don't think I've made unreasonable arguments here. I don't think that believing that animals have souls is a far off assumption, as God's "Breath of Life" given to them would seem to me in some way to imbue them with some immortal existence. Animals having immortal souls would not preclude human souls from maintaining unique status.

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1766764' date='Jan 30 2009, 03:08 PM']However this doesn't preclude having our pets with us in heaven, since God can do anything and he does love us.

One of my favorite stories is the Great Divorce by C S Lewis where a person meets all the animals she loved in her lifetime. [/quote]

I would of course love to have my pets in heaven with me, but I don't see why it's wrong to believe that all conscious beings have some form of eternal existance. I don't see that an all loving God, the source on creation, would "breathe life" into something that was not meant to exist for eternity-why bother in the first place? -Katie

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1766558' date='Jan 30 2009, 02:32 AM']That's a good point. Animal Labs are TREMENDOUSLY expensive.[/quote]

Another good reason to ditch them and promote more cost efficient, modern and ethical methods of testing. -Katie

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766896' date='Jan 30 2009, 06:26 PM']I don't think that humans are merely a variety of animal. However, I think we share the beauty of consciousness with our fellow animals. This does not diminish the unique human status; that is, being made in the image and likeness of God.

[color="#4169E1"]Consciousness refers to a moral conscience and personal identity which is not something we share with animals. [/color]

I don't think I've made unreasonable arguments here. I don't think that believing that animals have souls is a far off assumption, as God's "Breath of Life" given to them would seem to me in some way to imbue them with some immortal existence. Animals having immortal souls would not preclude human souls from maintaining unique status.

[color="#4169E1"]Sure it would, because our soul immortal soul is what distinguishes us from the animals.[/color]

I would of course love to have my pets in heaven with me, but I don't see why it's wrong to believe that all conscious beings have some form of eternal existance. I don't see that an all loving God, the source on creation, would "breathe life" into something that was not meant to exist for eternity-why bother in the first place? -Katie
[color="#4169E1"]
It goes against Catholic teaching. And remember we get a new heaven and earth, so that everything here except humans is destined to be replaced, so therefore it can't be eternal.[/color][/quote]

[Tinkerlina]

Conscious doesn't mean conscience. It means some level of awareness of self and others. Like I said, I don't think that the fact that our souls are immortal is soley what distinguishes us from animals. Two souls can have different natures and both be immortal. I don't think the reference to all things passing away definitely excludes animals-it's somewhat vague and open to interpretation, imo. My case against animal testing has nothing to do with whether or not they have a soul, but the fact that they feel pain (and, of course, I believe it is often detrimental to human safety) but in any case, I do believe that animals have an eternal soul. -Katie

Edited January 30, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[picchick]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766607' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:11 AM']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[/quote]

They test first on individual cells. Then on animals to see systemic effects. Then they do human trials.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1766934' date='Jan 30 2009, 08:17 PM']They test first on individual cells. Then on animals to see systemic effects. Then they do human trials.[/quote]

But systemic effects on biologically different creatures are going to be different. There have actually been several cases of harm done to humans using drugs that were considered safe after testing them on animals.

[i]
Countless drugs for strokes have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and harmed patients in clinical trials. An Alzheimer's vaccine was withdrawn in 2001 when it caused serious brain inflammation in patients after proving safe and effective in tests on monkeys. The track record of primates in predicting drugs' dangerous side-effects is abysmal. [/i] -Dr. Ray Greek Source: [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/05/publicservices.humanrights"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/de...ces.humanrights[/url]

I don't have a source for this as it's an anecdote, but my cousin's husband died as a result of treatment for renal failure that was tested on animals and therefore "safe" for him to use. It was also animal derived, can't say for sure whether or not that was related, but it crosses my mind.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating ditching medicines/treatments that have already been tested. Although I think better ways should be used now, I realize that we can't change the past.

I posted a link w/ the same info earlier, but this is a better format, if anyone's interested. [url="http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html"]http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html[/url] -Katie

Edited January 31, 2009 by Tinkerlina

[picchick]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1766957' date='Jan 30 2009, 07:40 PM']But systemic effects on biologically different creatures are going to be different. There have actually been several cases of harm done to humans using drugs that were considered safe after testing them on animals.

[i]
Countless drugs for strokes have been developed and tested in primates and other animals, yet all of them have failed and harmed patients in clinical trials. An Alzheimer's vaccine was withdrawn in 2001 when it caused serious brain inflammation in patients after proving safe and effective in tests on monkeys. The track record of primates in predicting drugs' dangerous side-effects is abysmal. [/i] -Dr. Ray Greek Source: [url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/dec/05/publicservices.humanrights"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/de...ces.humanrights[/url]

I don't have a source for this as it's an anecdote, but my cousin's husband died as a result of treatment for renal failure that was tested on animals and therefore "safe" for him to use. It was also animal derived, can't say for sure whether or not that was related, but it crosses my mind.

Just to clarify, I'm not advocating ditching medicines/treatments that have already been tested. Although I think better ways should be used now, I realize that we can't change the past.

I posted a link w/ the same info earlier, but this is a better format, if anyone's interested. [url="http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html"]http://vivisection-absurd.org.uk/50dis.html[/url] -Katie[/quote]

After animal testing is done, there are trials in humans. It doesn't go straight from animals to the market.

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='picchick' post='1766990' date='Jan 30 2009, 09:17 PM']After animal testing is done, there are trials in humans. It doesn't go straight from animals to the market.[/quote]

True, sorry for not clarifying, a lot of the side effects have occured in clincial trials, not mass market. -Katie