I should also point out that any future substitutes such as cell culture production and perhaps computer models will require vastly more animal experiments themselves in order to calibrate these models and ensure that they give the same results as real animal tests!
The whole question with this argument is:
Are those “new medications” even necessary.
(QUOTE]There is no substitute for animal experimentation today. By taking any medicine you are assenting to necessary animal experimentation. I, like you, wish that one day it becomes unnecessary. But by taking medicine I, like you, am proclaiming that animal experimentation is necessary.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree. It is only necessary for those who make it necessary.
A question: what is your position on stemmcel research and the use of human tissue (as in non-implanted IVF) for research purposes?
Salaam. A
Animals died to make headache tablets. Those deaths were necessary to make safe headache tablets. If you use a headache tablet to relieve a headache, you are one of the people who made those deaths necessary.
I advocate any and all research which does not cause unnecessary suffering. There is nothing to suffer in these tiny bags of water called stem cells. I regard even the slightest hindrance or retardation to stem cell research as tantamount to deliberately denying life-saving treatment to future patients.
If your wife or loved one, God forbid, were in future to develop a horrific degenerative disorder which could only be treated by medicines derived solely from stem cell research, what would you do? If you take headache tablets now, then by the same token surely you can say to yourself in future “Well, the medicine exists. I might as well allow my wife to live by using it, rather than condemning her to a slow death and utter loss of dignity by forbidding it her”.
You cannot hide behind “Well, other people did wrong things and so I may as well relieve my headache/save my wife’s life by using the product of their sins!”. That is blatant hypocrisy. The only morally justified action on your part is to forego all medicine that you believe to be derived by unnecessary means.
I think it is the right argument, since the discussion is about what we humans are entitled to do. I’m saying that self-preservation is a fact of life and nothing to be ashamed of.
Humans are animals. If you mean what distinguishes us from other animals, it’s our higher capacity of communication and analytical thinking, plus dexterity. These give us the power to exterminate or save other species if we choose to. So naturally it also forces us to make this choice while other animals do not need to. And the correct choice, in my view, is whichever benefits the human race more. I can’t think of any other standard for making such a judgement.
Well, I think it’s never in our benefit to exterminate any species. But killing individual animals? If it’s in our benefit in the long run, why not?
Only because you make the distinction between the two based on an arbitrary criterion.
Personally I don’t understand what you mean by “barbarian” - I don’t see hummans behaving any differently than animals. Many animals form communites for mutual benefit, and often sacrifice their own life in order to protect the herd or offspring. Some have a symbiotic relationship with other species, where one protects the other and receives certain rewards in return. But they never make sacrifices when it doesn’t benefit their own species. You accuse me of being egocentric, but I find it even more egocentric to think that we should - and can - behave any differently.
scr4
It is pure barbarism to defend use/exploitation/torture of others.
No matter who, no mather where and no matter if those “others” are humans or animals or other species.
And we are not talking about “to make a sacrifice when it doesn’t benifit their own species”.
We talk about sacrificing animals by humans for the benifit of only humans. That is indeed behaving very differently then most animals and plants and on top of it with using the intellect that should be used to behave responsible.
The greatest difference between us is that you approach everything purely from the idea that humans are better then every other species on this globe.
I say they are not. And I don’t even need to bring my belief in a Creator into this to defend that position, because of the logic that everything else on this planet has as much right to be there (and live there) as I have.
How do you come to your belief of the opposite.
Salaam. A
By use, are excluding consumption? Or are you asserting that eating animals is babarism?
And whats’s so bad about barbarism?
By “sacrifice” I’m including any resources or missed opportunities. When we have the option of performing experiments on animals, and choose not to do so, that is a sacrifice that does not benefit our own species.
How is it different from a carnivorous animal killing its prey? Or plants secreting toxins to kill off other plants in the vicinity?
No, I never said we are better than other species. I said that every species, including humans, has the right to do what is best for its own preservation. You are the one who is insisting that humans are inherently different from other animals, and has a different set of responsibilities.
If I were walking through the jungle and a tiger jumped out, killed me and ate me; would the tiger be wrong? No. I see it the same way. If I have a defendable need for the tiger, for food or to save lives, I will kill him too. I don’t take it lightly. It is sad. I don’t think arrogance is involved. I am not barbaric. I believe animals have the right to be here, just as much as I do. I would choose to save humans over animals. I have to take a medication that I will die without. I am grateful for the testing that went into it. I don’t fear death either, but I would like to live.
Consumption is not “use” if you take in mind that only very rare exceptions can survive without eating.
Yet “producing” animals for consumption the way it is done in so many societies (= under barbaric conditionswith no respect at all for the animals in question and their well being) is in my book use, exploitation and torture at the same time.
About barbarism… You may choose for such an attitude if you like. Many people do.
What is “bad” is the hypocrisy of someone claiming to be civilised while his actions and reasoning are barbarious.
Salaam. A
I got out of it that you were talking about “sacrifice yourself to save yourself or the group”.
In my opinion there isn’t even a comparison possible.
Killing to eat in order to survive has nothing to do with abusing and killing defenseless others for your own benifit.
You didn’t explicitely say it. Yet your posts make it very clear. And I already said that there are already too much humans on this planet. So your argument for killing animals in order to “preserve” the human species is invalid. One could even say it is contra-productive in the long run.
I do. We are animals with an intellect that makes us capable to become aware of our responsibilities towards our own kind and everything else on this planet (and even beyond).
You come across as one of these animals with an intellect that misses this capability and thus doesn’t seem to be aware of that responsibility yet.
You only see a form of responsibility towards other humans and in that reasoning you completely neglect the rights of other creatures.
Salaam. A
I can’t quite follow that reasoning.
How is a person making use of such medication participating in the previous animal testing and even, as you claim, make it necessary?
I can take other medication with no animal testing involved or I can simply wait until my headache is over without any medication.
The simple truth is that there is an abundance of uneccessary research done that makes the same amount of animal testing necessary, just to produce a “new” medication from which yuou can find hundreds with just the same effect.
The keyword here is profit. Not “help the poor human race to survive possible extinction”.
My view on this issue is that there should be (urgently) some worldwide accepted set of rules for this type of research.
As for the rest of your comment… Sorry, but I don’t know what you are getting at with that.
I think you wrongly got into a “defense” position where I merely asked a question about this issue.
Salaam. A
Name some.
Yes, but do you? If you don’t, and you take medication which has been tested on animals, you are a hypocrite. Do you understand?
Name some.
I assumed you disagreed with stem cell research as well as animal experimentation. I ask again: If your future loved one would die without medicine made possible ONLY BY TODAY’S EXPERIMENTATION WHICH YOU DISAGREE WITH, would you deny it her? If not, ie. if you declared your opposition to such experiments and then used their products, you would be a hypocrite. Do you understand?
Killing to eat is not “killing for your own benefit”?
So what exactly are those responsibilities, and who says we have those responsibilities? I firmly believe that we are responsible for our descendants, which is why we should care about the environment. But other animals don’t have any rights, beyond the right to do what they’ve always done: try their best to survive and procreate. I see no higher being enforcing other rights on those animals, and I see no benefit in artificially giving them rights.
By the way I’m well aware of the repercussions of our actions. I recognize that humans have done a huge amount of damage to our planet. This is detrimental to the survival of our own species, and we really should be more careful about excercising our powers. But it’s for our own benefit. Not only do I think this is a reasonable view, I think it’s the only view we are capable of. We are survivers of a long process of evolution, which means competition with other species. It’s natural for us to value our own species above all else.
And how do you think this will be possible? Are you volunteering to try drugs which have not been tested on animals?
We’re talking about consumption of animals, not consumption of food in general. You can very easily survive without eating animals, so I’m not sure how your reasoning makes it ok to eat animals but not ok to experiment on them.
SM
Maybe you have no knowledge about plants and their medicinal use? Those recipies are sometimes centuries old and in I choose to use them above anything else.
Your screaming that I’m a hypocrite holds no ground.
Prove it to me that whoever uses a product that required animal testing is actively taking part in this testing and even making it a necessity. That is twisting reality in a way I couldn’t invent.
As for uneccesary products that are developped while there is already one with the same effect.
Are you joking? Or do you live in a society where for every single little cold, or headache or muscle pain or whatever, there is only one single medicine available.
If so… May I invite you to come and live where I live to explore the necessity and the undoubtable benefits of an abundance of such similar products.
Why did you “assume” out of the blue that I disagree with stemm cell research?
And about your last question (need to take my reading glasses of in order to be able to read all those bolded caps, but whatever, I grant you the honour of me making this incredible effort) :
In such a situation I shall let my loved one decide if yes or no a treatment is wanted and which one is preferred.
You sound as if you prefer to rule other persons life and make decisions for them?
Salaam. A
This is a strange twist of the argument.
How is eating animals in order to consume your daily needed portion of food to be compared in making animals suffer in order to eventually stay able to go on eating animals for this reason?
Salaam. A
Let’s say you frequent a Chinese restaurant and order shark fin soup every time. Each time you say to yourself: “The shark is already dead, and the fin is already in the fridge. If I don’t eat this, someone else will. I’m not an active participant in the death of this shark.” Would this also be justified?
Every time you use a product that required animal testing, you are rewarding the company partly for the testing. The company will have the funds to conduct further testing, and they also gain the knowledge that their animal testing resulted in profit. If that doesn’t make you an active participant, I don’t know what will.
**
Yes. Let’s.
A conviction is not a absolute declaration of guilt. Innocent people have been sentanced to the death penalty. Fortunately, our appeals process gives them a chance to right the wrong. There is no appeal from the AIDS virus, or any other experiment which leaves lasting damage to the test subject.
**
What smoking bodies? “Witches” were not burned in the United States. They were hanged.
In this sort of case an experiment would be “cruel” because the *inmate himself * recieves no benefit. A root canal is cruel, but it keeps me from losing a tooth: thus I get benefits if I have one done.
Lifetime incarceration is not cruel, because the inmate recieves medical care, food, shelter, clothing-- all of the necessities of life, plus mental stimulation and human interaction. To even compare this to vivisection or infecting them with a disease is illogical.
Secondly, just because we made mistakes in the past is no excuse to return to barbarity. We have moved forward.
**
We’ll just have to disagree, then. I, for one, am heartily glad that we do not sink to the level of criminals. It’s called “moral superiority.” It’s called “decency.”
**
I don’t think that the repulsive nature of a crime is relevant.
Even the most disgusting child rapist/murderer does not deserve to be experimented on in the way you’re suggesting. This is the United States, not Nazi Germany.
**
Your point?
And it would equally “suck” to be accused of an axe murder, and tortured because of it, if one is not truly guilty of the crime.
Your glib response disturbs me.
My husband works in corrections. Every day, I hear from him stories that litterally sicken me. Some of the most evil humans to crawl the face of the earth are in his prison. I see these people when I go to visit him at work. I know what they are. I have looked into the face of pure evil-- men who would savage and kill me in a moment if they had the chance.
Yet, I would do everything in my power to prevent them from being experimented upon in the manner you suggest. Why? Because I’m a *decent human being, * dammit! Decent human beings simply do not do things like that to other human beings.
**
But so are you. Actually, you’re probably a better test subject for some diseases, if you haven’t abused drugs and alcohol in the way that some inmates have. And we’ll need some “normal” brains to compare to those of the violent criminals. Will yours do?
**
Even if it only happens once, it would be far too many.
You’re ignoring the possibility of the mentally ill, who confess just to get attention. You also ignore the people who plead guilty because they probably won’t be able to clear their names. Most criminal cases end in a plea.
And you know what? Even if a man is as guilty as sin, it doesn’t matter. He’s still a human being and we are bound to treat him as such.
Simply put, I feel that you’re just posting from the knee-jerk desire for “revenge” when you see violent crime. I don’t feel that you’ve really thought this through-- thought about what doing this sort of thing would make us.
Or, maybe you just don’t care. Either way, I find the entire idea of experimenting on criminals to be utterly abhorrent.
I did not say people who take medicine participate in testing, I said they justify it. If nobody bought medicine which was tested on animals, animal testing would not take place. If you use medicines which have been tested on animals, you are part of the reason animal testing takes place. Futher failure to understand this point will be interpreted as deliberate obtusity.
I ask you again to answer this question “yes” or “no”: will you refuse all medicines which have been tested on animals from this day forth?
New agents are developed which can help treat different ailments. The same agent which produces a new, perhaps unnecessary, muscle balm may also treat heart disease. We cannot know until we have tested the new agents.
Your other herrings are as red as Chairman Mao’s curtains.