Is Animal Experimentation REALLY necessary? Does it Benefit Anyone?

@pyewacket (43962)
United States
October 2, 2007 7:53pm CST
Okay I'm about to no doubt start another hot discussion here. My discussion about my being pi$$ed off by people who are against PETA opened up some heated replies, and this will probably too. One of the basic part of my premise of my other discussion was that since pet shelters are so overwhelmed with unwanted pets, many are put down (euthanized) which to my mind is better than turning the unwanted pets over to labs for experimentation. Now I'm a basic all around animal lover, and it is a tragedy how many pets are killed off due to lack of space...more keep coming into shelters on an almost daily basis...there just is no room for all the pets---period. But some responders seem to think that if it could benefit mankind for the animals to be experimented on for any kind of scientific research then this is all right. Sorry folks, it's NOT all right. As far as the idea of experimenting on animals to test new wonder drugs this is a complete crock...How can any medicines or cures for human diseases be found while experimenting on animals? The biological and physiological make-up between animals and humans is so radically different with perhaps the exception of those animal in the primate family which are the animals of choice for many experiments, and are unfortunately the most used. The next most commonly used animals are mice and rats...I'm sorry but would you trust the test results of a new medicine that had been tested on mice??? Does that make sense? Is it any wonder so many of the medications now in the market are being recalled due to detrimental effects they have on us humans? I hate to say it but some people have blinders on as to the cruelty that is involved with animal experimentation, and it's not only experiments for medications either. Go to any of the anti-vivisection websites and you'll see the photos of animals who have been experimented on, and believe me you have to have a strong stomach to see them. On one site for instance is the photo of a beagle that was purposely burned alive...why? To see the effects of burns..uh, like duh? Don't we kind of know already the effects of burns? And yes many of the photos were taken by PETA, but there are many that aren't and were taken by other animal groups against vivisection. http://www.novivisezione.org/mostra/pan1_en.htm "Panel 2" of the website listed above shows that beagle dog, and further down are a number of photos of cats Here's another website that is less extreme to view http://www.aavs.org/home.html So some folks were against me for saying that it would be better to put the numerous animals down in the overcrowded shelters rather than going to labs for scientific experiment--well after you see the photos, you just might change your mind
5 people like this
9 responses
@lilaclady (28270)
• Australia
3 Oct 07
I for one do not believe it is necessary these days, It is a known fact that no animal is exactly the same as humans anyway, I can understand why people are in favour of medical experimentation but for cosmetics and food no, the things that these companies are doing to animals is cruel and very painful. I don't believe animals were put on this earth for the exploitation of humans, and I go as far as saying for entertainment, sport, or experimentation, All animals feel pain, all animals have a will to live all animals have souls,and I firmly believe all animals have rights. Do unto to others to me covers all creatures.....
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
Thank you lilaclady. Yes animals do have feelings and souls, just because they can't verbally speak the way we do doesn't mean humankind has the right to be so heartless to any animal.
1 person likes this
@thefortunes (2368)
• Netherlands
3 Oct 07
Hi Pye, and you know I am one of those that doesn't have to be conviced, right? Whatever we do with the too much of pets the decision is and will be cruel, no matter what the decision is. If we only made sure there are not so many newly born pets, every kind of animals actually there we wouldn't have this problem at all. I am at times so at loss for why we do and act as beats instead of the elevated humans we think of ourselves, but no, cannot answer my own question, and it's a shame, such big shame on us TheFortunes
2 people like this
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
The worse are the breeders for the puppy mill industry...only adding to the problem when there are so many pets (dogs) that could be adopted from shelters Yes I'm at a loss why people can be so cruel too.
1 person likes this
@rosie_123 (6118)
3 Oct 07
No Pyewacket, I don't believe it is ever necessary. It has been scientifically proven that the skin, cell structures and other basic functions are different in animals and humans, - so just because something works on an animal doesn't mean it would have the same affect on a person. As you know things are very different in the UK from the way they are in the US, and I was shocked to read some of the things you have written recently. We don't have "kill" shelters for a start as you know, all animals are saved unless too ill to cure, and it would never, ever happen that unwamted animals would be sent for vivisection. Although we do still have some experiments here for medical purposes, they are very strictly controlled (I still don't agree with them of course),and there are certainly no experiments here for make-up or other cosmetics. I absolutely, totally 100% object to any form of animal exploitation, which is why I am vegetarian, and never use any cosmetics or persume, or evenhousehold products that can't come 100% guaranteed as animal product and testing free.
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
It seems that the US could learn a lot from the UK....you would just hate the idea of the most "famous" kill shelter here in America...the Animal Care & Control in which each shelter kills off thousands of animals a year to make room for the ever growing unwanted pets that come into those shelters. I just did a discussion listing the products that do test on animals and I was amazed --even the company that makes Fresh Step cat litter was among the listing...isn't that a contradiction??
1 person likes this
@rosie_123 (6118)
3 Oct 07
Well there is a well-known saying here, that England is a nation of animal lovers, and I think, to a great extent it's true. Of course, animal abuse and cruelty does exist here - I would be niaive to say otherwise, as evil exists everywhere - but laws are strict to protect animals here, penalties are harsh for anyone caught abusing them, and it;'s a well-known fact (that some find shocking), that English people give more money to animal charities each year, than they ever give to those for children or other human beings! YesI saw the list you published. A lot of te products are obviously different, or unknown here, but we have our own lists here as well. "Beauty Without Cruelty" products andlifestyles are quite "big busness" here is that makes sense - most people try to live an environmentally friendly life that involves a "greener" way, and kindness and non-exploitation of animals is obviously part of that.
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I must have a bit of the British in my way of thinking --uh, actually I do..remember? I'm part English, Scottish, Irish and Welch--LOL--I've actually gotten arguments or seen arguments here as to why people will have more compassion and give to animal related charities and organizations more and not for people...my view is if you don't have compassion for animals who can't speak for themselves, then people won't have compassion for people either.
@gmakesmoney (2923)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I am totally against any product or company that tests on animals. People need to understand that life is life and all life has value (even crappy exboyfriends). Personally I don't think my lipstick needs to be tested on a mouse and neither does medication that is intended for human use. Medications for humans need to be researched better and tested on humans, yes some lives will be lost in the process but honestly it is the only way to really know every effect a medication will have and to stop them from potentially harming others. I've taken a lifetime of medications that weren't tested well enough and have made me very ill and cause me to not be able to carry a baby to full term. Nobody ever told me that would happen, I found out time and time again on my own sadly and finally one doctor said "ohh yeah, that's because you're not supposed to take that for longer than a week or so and you've been on it for 20+ years". Had that been tested further and long-time studies made, I wouldn't have suffered so many losses. For me animal testing isn't just cruel but pointless and really doesn't help us understand how anything will truly benefit or harm humans.
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I could never understand the principle behind experimenting medications on animals when humans are so different in biological make up...no wonder we're having so many recalls....And why didn't that sh*t doctor tell you, you weren't suppose to take that medication for more than a week...gee how wonderful...NOT Look at all the medications that have warnings that women shouldn't take the medication if they are pregnant or MIGHT become pregnant...like how is a woman supposed to know if she might become pregnant...duh???
@ElicBxn (60147)
• United States
3 Oct 07
There are a lot of unneccesary experiments on animals, the animal group I was involved in years ago, was against that. But there are times when, at an advanced point in the work, that there is some reason for doing it. While I say I'm against most of it, the study of HIV using cats lead to the discovery of FIV in cats. Before that they were just wondering why FLuk was sometimes so contagious and other times it only affected one cat. I know because I lost 2 cats to what they thought was FLuk but didn't affect the 2 other cats I had at the time, probably FIV. They also did pacemaker work on dogs before humans, now they use pacemakers IN dogs when the batteries aren't long enough for human usage anymore.
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
How the heck did feline HIV come about anyway--I've had cats all my life and never heard of it before until only a few years ago
@Lakota12 (42794)
• United States
3 Oct 07
well I saw no pics but still better to just put them down
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
Yes I agree Lakota..it's so cruel
@anniepa (27121)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I couldn't bring myself to look at the pictures either. I literally become sick when I think of innocent animals being hurt. I agree with you totally, I can see no sense to testing human medicines on animals because they wouldn't learn aything from it anyway. And to test cosmetics, as in putting shampoo or anything else in a rabbit's or cat's eyes to see if it burns, that's just plain horrid! I've read that many animals have been blinded by those kind of tests because they don't just use the finished product, i.e. the shampoo or cleanser, they put the pure chemical they suspect "may" cause discomfort or damage into the eyes of the test subject. I can't see how this kind of testing benefits anyone and even it there were some small benefit to the human race I'd still be against it wholeheartedly! Great discussion. Annie
1 person likes this
@pyewacket (43962)
• United States
3 Oct 07
I don't blame you for not seeing the pictures...But too bad people think that testing on animals don't see them--they're the ones to need to see them to see how cruel animal experimentation is
@Katlady2 (9925)
• United States
3 Oct 07
Those pictures on the first site broke my heart. I couldn't even go to the other site. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Experimentation on animals is cruel, heartless, and so wrong as far as I'm concerned. You've already voiced everything I feel, so I'm just going to finish by saying that I second everything you said. I hope the point gets across to others that read this as well. Thanks hon.
1 person likes this
@MsTickle (25007)
• Australia
6 Oct 07
I don't know why I went to look but I did. I feel so sad for these animals. I think by looking it's given me a better sense of my own heartfelt attachment for animals in pain and also more feeling of responsinbility. I just feel so helpless sometimes. People round here that truly care for their animals won't take them to the vet when they need to go. Recently I noticed a little goat up the road from me holding up her front leg. She couldn't hobble and when she tried to put it down you could see the pain. She gave me a look and If I'd realised then what I know now I would at least have given her some comfort. Apparently some dogs got to her and ripped her leg open, the wound wasn't visible. Then it became fly blown. I asked the owner about it and he was telling me this. He said .."I had some stuff there that I put on it and she's ok now" and I thought bull sh*t, you need to take her to the vet. He could have put her in a shady comfy spot with water and grass/hay so she didn't have to graze....these people really think they are doing right by their animals....a lot of it is ignorance and a rotten choice of priorities. While this all may seem off topic the point I'm trying to make is in regard to people's ignorance or lack of education on the subject. We who call ourselves animal lovers have to be prepared to speak out more at any opportunity so that others can hopefully learn something or become more aware. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.