Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum

View Poll Results: ("AT stands for "animal tested" or "animal testing").

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • I wouldnft take AT (whatever the animal)medicine/treatments even if my life depended on it.

    0 0%
  • I would take AT (whatever the animal) medicine/treatments if my life depended on it.

    10 52.63%
  • I would take AT medicine/treatments if I was in great discomfort but my life wasnft at stake.

    8 42.11%
  • I would any AT medicines/treatments if I felt I needed them.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments even if they needed it badly.

    0 0%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments if they needed it badly.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support a loved one taking AT medicine/treatments depending on the situation.

    10 52.63%
  • I wouldnft use AT animal hygiene products whatever they were- would rather live in dirt.

    4 21.05%
  • I would only use some AT hygiene products but only if I really needed them.

    7 36.84%
  • I would use any AT hygiene products If they were good/I needed them.

    4 21.05%
  • I wouldnft support AT for warfare/weapons even if my countries survival depended on them.

    6 31.58%
  • I would support some AT for warfare/weapons if they would save loads of my peoples lives in war.

    9 47.37%
  • I would support AT for warfare/weapons if it enabled us to kick the enemies ass.

    2 10.53%
  • I would support any AT for warfare/weapons.

    0 0%
  • All AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved.

    3 15.79%
  • AT is only wrong if the animal is intelligent(like an ape).

    1 5.26%
  • Most AT is ok, but sometimes wrong.

    7 36.84%
  • AT is generally ok in my opinion.

    5 26.32%
  • Otherc

    1 5.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 156

Thread: Animal testing, your feelings?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Animal testing, your feelings?



    This is a poll/thread for all those out there that are concerned about animal testing and are against it to a certain extent for whatever reasons or in certain situations.
    Please answer the poll questions/options honestly.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Erik's Avatar
    Join Date
    05-02-03
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Age
    44
    Posts
    15


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Tokis-Phoenix
    This is a poll/thread for all those out there that are concerned about animal testing and are against it to a certain extent for whatever reasons or in certain situations.
    Please answer the poll questions/options honestly.
    Hopefully there will be more advances like this in all sectors in the future...

    http://www.drugresearcher.com/news-b...icrochip-could

    Just out of curiosity, what is this post for? Just raising awareness?

  3. #3
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Erik
    Hopefully there will be more advances like this in all sectors in the future...
    http://www.drugresearcher.com/news-b...icrochip-could
    Just out of curiosity, what is this post for? Just raising awareness?
    This is more of a curiosity thread than anything else. I have noticed there are quite a few animal rights/welfare activists on this forum who say they are strongly against animal testing, some would even be willing to do more extreme acts against animal testing like destroy scientists or companys property or try to make their lives a misery, but i am curious to see how far many of these people and other people who are against animal testing to certain degrees that are concerned about these things, would actually act on their word or opinions when it comes down to it and to what extent roughly.
    Practically everything you can think of that ends up in our shops, hospitals, armys or homes etc has been animal tested at some point- from noodles, to bleach, to shampoo, to mascara and perfume, biological weapons or viruses, genetic research to cancer treatments and alchohol and candy etc etc- almost everything has been animal tested at some point in its making. And just because it may have only initially been tested on animals when it first came out, does not mean the testing ends there- many animal tested products like Flash Bleach are regually re-tested on animals every couple of years to make sure they are still safe for human use.
    There are also many things done in the name of medical research on animals that are quite horiffic but have very little use in the real world when it comes down to it as well.
    Im generally against animal testing, but i am not sure to what extent or how far i would go to act on my opinions. Im not sure i could happily live in the comfort i know in a world without animal testing. But at the same time i disagree with alot of what goes on with it. So this thread is here to hear some of your opinions on the subject. I honestly do not think that even with the most extreme anti animal testing animal rights or welfare activists, would actually act on all of their opinions and refrain from consuming or buying or taking all animal tested products completely; this world has grown very dependent on such things...

  4. #4
    DON'T PANIC! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tsuyoiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    10-03-05
    Posts
    979


    Country: United Kingdom



    You're really good at devising these polls Tokis!

    I think testing on animals is wrong, but I would put those principles aside in certain circumstances, much as it would upset me. I always buy cruelty-free toiletries and cosmetics. I only use medicines if I absolutely have to - I always try to find a cruelty-free alternative as I believe in alternative remedies anyway. If my life was threatened or my quality of life severely impaired I would take medicines that have been tested on animals - I think that is just self defence.

  5. #5
    Banned Achievements:
    1 year registered
    nurizeko's Avatar
    Join Date
    19-01-05
    Location
    aberdeen, scotland
    Age
    34
    Posts
    149


    Ethnic group
    Half scottish half Germanic, i got blood from austria, germany, scotland england, im a mongrol.
    Country: United Kingdom



    As long as all measures to lower suffering are taken i support animal testing for medicines and if the case arises, to save ass loads of my people, as the thread poll suggested.

    Everything else (cosmetics and stuff) is unjustified, i think.

    But no, i aint going to become an eco-terrorist over it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Tsuyoiko
    You're really good at devising these polls Tokis!
    I think testing on animals is wrong, but I would put those principles aside in certain circumstances, much as it would upset me. I always buy cruelty-free toiletries and cosmetics. I only use medicines if I absolutely have to - I always try to find a cruelty-free alternative as I believe in alternative remedies anyway. If my life was threatened or my quality of life severely impaired I would take medicines that have been tested on animals - I think that is just self defence.
    Thanks .
    This a link to an article that was released last year on how much animal testing and on what has been done over the years in England;

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4177200.stm

    The statistics sound relatively positive, but it is only showing a very small part of the big picture of things as far as animal testing goes- two points i would like to rbing up that were discussed in the article are;

    a. Until a law was made in 1986, only animal experiments fell under the catogory of animal testing, rather than animal 'procedures' as well, which although the two are very similar, rarely fall under the smae catagory- which means many other countrys still only count animal experiments in animal testing rather than 'procedures' as well, so the statistics are very misleading..
    b. In 1998 animal testing was banned over here for cosmetics, but...That does not mean that like the bulk of other animal testing, we do not buy animal tested products from other countries. This is an important factor to take into consideration. While we may have laws against certain forms of animal testing over here, but it is well known that we strongly support the particular forms of animal testing that we cannot legally do, in other countries that can.
    I think this actually makes things worse, because, is it really better that we now even more financially support animal testing in countries that have less awareness or morality over animal testing even more freely? Would it be better, if only to a small or certain extent, that we support more animal testing in our own country/ies just so we can keep a closer eye and tighter control over it rather than let other countries, who we have even less influence over, get away with far worser acts of animal testing ? Hmm...

  7. #7
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    I am to an extent annoyed by the emphasis many AR activists place on animal testing. Although first let me say that regardeless of how effective animal testing is on medical research I would consider that too little is being done to reduce the number of tests on animals.

    First of all Animal testing in the name of medicine, can be suported by arguments that it helps save human lives. This means that the issue is not clear cut, like say eggs from caged hens, but that it actually has a real argument supporting it.

    As a result of this drawing attention to animal testing is only going to win support of people who are already vegetarian or eat free range, and infact drive many of the people we are trying to reach further away. To take an example at a protest outside McDonalds the other week one lady came over to our group and said something down the lines of 'let me tell you, I'm a nurse and without animal testing many people would be dying'. It doesn't matter that our protest had no connection at all to animal testing, because of that issue she wasn't willing to listen.

    On the other hand, campaigns about fatory farming can have real success. Many people still do not know how badly animals can be treated there, and I find that many people are generally suportive, but too lazy to find convinient free range meats. Especially with the enviromental issue of overfishing at the moment I feel that progress could be made there too. I think the scale with this issues is different too, in terms of the number of animals.

    Additionally, the argument is often brought up that by closing animal testing in the UK the testing will only be carried out abroard in courtries with weaker animal welfare. Assuming this to be true, campaigning should then be on changing people's attituteds and on the government, rather than on closing individual labs. (Although making examples of labs with bad practices wouldn't be a bad thing)

    To answer the actual poll Most of AT is wrong whatever the animal involved, but I consider it acceptable to chose to take medicines tested on animals. Even if it contributes to more animal testing, I'm not sure a boycott would be so effective at the moment, and we could do so much more for the cause by living and being healthy than dying for an ideal.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    KrazyKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-01-06
    Location
    England
    Age
    33
    Posts
    47


    Country: United Kingdom



    By the way, does anyone have an idea of the ratio of animals killed to humans saved concering animal testing? I know it would acually be impossible to estimate beacuse it would be hard to judge the effecitiveness of alternative methodes that were never used/developed but I was just wondering if anyone had any numbers?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    "Bump".
    Plus, if you are around, strongvoicesforward what are your opinions on this poll since you seem to be a strong animal rights supporter?

  10. #10
    THE CRAZY OLD GUY !! Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Frank D. White's Avatar
    Join Date
    21-05-03
    Location
    State of Maine/So.Portland
    Age
    69
    Posts
    359


    Ethnic group
    German/French/Scottish
    Country: United States



    Hummmm??

    My cat tested well on her SAT's.

    Frank

    TAKE WHAT I SAY WITH A GRAIN OF SUGAR !!

    I USED TO BE FUNNY, BUT MY WIFE HAD ME NEUTERED!

  11. #11
    Exiled Warrior Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    08-06-05
    Posts
    13


    Country: United Kingdom



    AT is okay in my eyes, their many lab rats or rabbits that are bred for lab testing so i think no one will miss and its just the way things are.

    And to the people who think that is cruel, why don't you go become a test subject? nah didnt think so ;)

  12. #12
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Ermac
    AT is okay in my eyes, their many lab rats or rabbits that are bred for lab testing...
    Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?

    so i think no one will miss and its just the way things are.
    The world doesn`t have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.


    "Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."
    --Albert Einstein

  13. #13
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Tokis-Phoenix's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-09-05
    Location
    England, Somerset
    Age
    34
    Posts
    290


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?
    The world doesn`t have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.
    You treat the world like america, the rest of the world is hardly like america. Many things are imposible to change simply because of the balance of wealth between countries- if you ban animal testing here(i live in england, but i take it you are an american) or in america, our governments will just support it in another country that has even less choice or awareness of animal morality.
    Change isn't about not accepting everything in the world you don't agree or feel happy with, if you don't look at the world realistically you will change nothing.
    What does the realisation feel like, that if you ever banned animal testing in a place like america, we would just support and finance it even more in a place like China? Or do you refuse to comprehend that fact?
    I take it you have also voted in the poll?

  14. #14
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Whether I agree with it or feel happy with it, there are few other methods pharmaceutical corporations, food product developers and consumer safety organizations can use to ensure that human pain and suffering (and lawsuits) do not occur. The capitalist dollar is on the side of animal testing.

    I am generally hopeful that the animal testing that goes on is necessary and follows a set of ethics that ensures that the pain and suffering these animals recieve is necessary to prevent possible pain and suffering in humans. I am also certain that we need to keep an eye on the guys in lab coats. I would much rather find out from lab tests that a certain product is harmful, dangerous or presents some sort of risk, then to know that humans are suffering or dying becase it went untested. The days of radium water, x-ray shoe fitters and thalidomide should remind us that a few well designed tests could have saved thousands of human lives. Companies like Merc that lost hundreds of millions of dollars because some extra measure of testing was not done will never stand for the elimination of all testing.

  15. #15
    Exiled Warrior Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    08-06-05
    Posts
    13


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Have they been bred to not feel pain or suffer?
    The world doesn`t have to be static, and accepting things the way they are never would allow for change.
    So say if you took the rabbits and rats outta ATing.
    Would you be ready to be tested?
    Humans are higher then a simple rabbit or rat which is why their in the labs being tested on and where living our lives.
    ofc its cruel but its how the chain of command and life is.

  16. #16
    •Ï‚ÈŠOl Achievements:
    1 year registered
    Thor's Avatar
    Join Date
    15-07-04
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    104


    Country: United States



    I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.

  17. #17
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Thor
    I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.
    How do you know that?

  18. #18
    Regular Member Achievements:
    1 year registered

    Join Date
    28-07-05
    Posts
    601


    Country: Japan



    Good question there sabro san...one that I apply in other cases too.

    Anyway, I would tend to think that there would be a ceiling on AT, where up to some, for lack of better knowledge, necessary level it is natural--above that would be waste and cruelty.

    I did not vote regarding AT for military purposes because it only gave regard to 'my' people, where as I vouch for a non-boundry world.

    You are good at making the polls, Tokis-Phoenix san. Nice!!

  19. #19
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Thor
    I don't really like animal testing. I would rather they test on humans. Animals aren't here to be our test subjects.
    We agree, Thor.

    We do to animals what we do merely because we can. It is "might makes right," and when people point to treatments which come from animal testing they are supporting, "the end justifies the means." Both of these outlooks are unethical.

    What I find amusing is scientists will decry "the end justifies the means" argument when they are the target of Direct Action. Direct Actionists will destroy a lab to close it down to win their end. Logic has a funny way of biting both ways.

  20. #20
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Quote Originally Posted by Ermac
    So say if you took the rabbits and rats outta ATing.
    Would you be ready to be tested?
    Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.

    We`ve already discussed this before in the Animal Rights thread, but a system using prisoners could also be put in place (before you address this, please go look at the AR thread to view the discussion about this. Mycernius and I posted more than several messages on this rebutting each other).

    Today there are alternatives to animal testing. Just because they don`t cover every possible scenario does not mean it should lead us to use animals. In fact, even animals can`t cover every possible scenario -- but that doesn`t lead us to use humans. Ethical lines should not be crossed and justifying doing so, while may seem logical, still should not be crossed.

    Humans are higher then a simple rabbit or rat which is why their[they`re] in the labs being tested on and where[we`re living our lives.
    lol. Funny logic and observation.

    Is a species which wars against itself, causing some of the most suffering and pain, and often taking delight in that for greed and pleasure "higher"? -- not to mention degrading its environment, removing many of the natural things meant to keep our populations from overwhelming the environmental carrying capacities. If I were a betting man, I would bet that the cockroach will be here long after we are gone. Perhaps there is value in modesty.

    ...ofc its cruel but its how the chain of command and life is.
    huh? You mean "might makes right"? If that is your logic, I am sure you will find many people who have been in weaker positions and were exploited by a stronger person or group of person who will not agree with you.

  21. #21
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    You make a good point about humans being "higher" creatures. I do however ascribe significantly higher value to human life than I do to any other life. And although I agree that ethical lines should not be crossed, I do believe that because I ascribe a higher value to human life, animal testing is justified.

    If my house was on fire, the four humans take precendence over the four cats...and the dog. And the fish... the last forrest fire that had us evacuate had my little aquatic friends sadly abandoned for eleven days.

    The bigger question that you raise is why do I ascribe a higher value to human life than to my cat, his fleas, or the mites on the fleas. I think that is the major question... I don't give any other animal equal consideration with humans... people matter more than animals to me, and I can actually get myself upset over the billions that we spend pampering our beloved pets while humans suffer in various places. Why are people more special then pets, livestock, mammals, birds, eukaryotes, or bacterium... I can't think of a good answer to that at this moment... but give me time.

  22. #22
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by strongvoicesforward
    Many in the advanced stages of a desiese who do not have time to wait for years of animal testing would volunteer. Yes, I would if I had the pressing need to do so.
    So your answer to saving fido is to play on the desperation of the hopeless and dying. Wow I never though of that. Considering the legions of impoverished masses in the third world, we could probably buy the children out of the crowded slums for a fraction of the cost of the average rhesus monkey. What do you think? There are billions of poor throughout the world, orphans, plus prisoners, crimanals, drop outs, the mentally unfit, the religious (Christians!), and others who could be persuaded to risk all for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Where do I sign up?

  23. #23
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    12,000 children were deformed due to administering Thalidomide to women during their pregnancies. The drug was tested on animals before being given to women. Testing various dosages on mice, rats, and guinea pigs showed no negative results. Animals are not accurate models for humans. So, what do you say to all those kids who had limbs grow out of them as nubs?

    gSorry, but you are collateral damage in the animal testing world.h And then, do you expect them to say thanks for the honor and shake your hand with one of their nubs?

    If someone accepts those numbers and risks of the unknown for medical advancement in order to benefit a larger portion of the population, then one is promoting the idea that the majority can rule tyrannically over the minority so long as the majority continues to get the benefits. That is not ethical -- either for the animals or for those who are deformed by drugs because animal models are not accurate models for humans.

    But hey, I would guess a few women got some benefit from the Thalidomide -- I guess that justifies all the other miseries derived from it. Perhaps the nubby armed kids are now old enough to appreciate the benefit and are trying to make their hands reach so that they may clap for those ladies.

  24. #24
    Banned Achievements:
    Recommendation Second Class1 year registered

    Join Date
    22-04-04
    Posts
    1,720


    Country: United States



    I don't know how thouroughly Thalidomide was or was not tested. Perhaps this horrible chapter in history illustrates that the testing done was inadequate. Not testing on animals would not have made the drug any safer. Fortunately, as you have previously pointed out, the human species is part of the animal family, and the comparative anatomy and physiology is perfectly valid. To suggest that people would want desire that horrible outcome is indeed a bitter and sad thing to do.

    The strawman argument you give about what we in the rational world might say would be hilarious if it were not so cruel and misguided. You would have to be truly heartless to view humans as collateral damage or to make light of their suffering. It would have been far better to have visited this suffering instead on lab animals, and it would have saved humanity entirely from this dark chapter. Their misery would have saved us from ours. I find that emminently acceptable. Certainly if one more round of animal testing could have prevented this horrible occurance from happening, it would have been well worth it.

    I also don't think comparing animals to human minorities is appropriate.

  25. #25
    I'm back. Achievements:
    1 year registered
    strongvoicesforward's Avatar
    Join Date
    25-12-05
    Posts
    1,298


    Ethnic group
    The primordial soup
    Country: Japan



    Thoroughness will be the cry of those who want to consider bringing drugs to the market that are animal tested. The thing is, lack of gthoroughnessh is noticed when the damage has been done. Ask the pharmeceutical company that developed Thalidomide and their experts/FDA administrators at the time will tell you it was gthoroughlyh tested or else they would not have brought it to market.

    Furthermore, it is unrealistice to think that one kind of every animal in the world should be tested on each drug to ensure "thoroughness," but that would be the only absolute way of accounting for doses or chemicals that may kill one kind of animal but not another and then have the same or lack of same reaction in humans.

    Thalidomide was a disaster just waiting to happen. It had no affect on commonly used lab animals. So, should all drugs be tested on all animals? domestic and exotic? It could not realistically happen.

    Whether the term collateral damage is liked or not, to continue using animals as a model for humans, knowing that gcompleteh thoroughness can never be achieved and that their will be failures resulting in misery and death for those who are the recipient of animal tested drugs, one is putting forth the argument of accepting the risk of collateral damage.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-03-19, 14:12
  2. Animal Rights
    By Tsuyoiko in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 20-10-13, 22:41
  3. Fighting Animal Exploitation/Cruelty
    By strongvoicesforward in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 173
    Last Post: 17-06-06, 15:28
  4. Animal speech
    By RockLee in forum Nature & Environment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 22-05-06, 09:06

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •