​

"What's bright red, puffy and hangs from your pussy?" Post below (Thanks Brett Erlich)

Debate 7 Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm? ​

How to debate

Warning: Spoilers inside!

We will be debating about a question, make your point heard.
If the question is: Can we live without air?

A response can be: No, because air sustains life.
Another can be: No, that point is wrong because we can live on Oxygen alone, not air.
Another can be: No, because plants need CO2 which is in air to live, and without plants, we would die.
^ I love this debate fail...

and so on.
OK.

You will find today's debate title at the top of this post/in the topic description. Happy debating! I am impartial to this and will ignore the posts I have made to count the final score, as they were made solely to get the debate up and running. I will judge which side has won at the end, however will join the debate.

The debate will last as long as I think it should last

Previous Debates

Warning: Spoilers inside!

Can we live without modern technology? The 'Temp says we can.
Will the world end in 2012? The 'Temp says 'fuck no'.
Genetic/DNA Manipulation on humans. Should it be legal in the UK? The 'Temp thinks that it should be legal
Media Censorship? Protective or Restrictive? The 'temp believes media censorship is restrictive - but only just!
Health and Safety laws. Protective or restrictive? Protective, 13 to 7
Cannabis (plant) should be legalized. Oh really? The 'temp says yes, 21 to 8, but it's use should be enforced like tobacco.

Future Debates

Warning: Spoilers inside!

8 Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm?
9 Should fascists be given a platform to speak? ~Suggested by TrolleyDave
Suggest-A-Debate thread
10 Suggest-A-Debate-Debate
...

Description:
Medical research. Dissecting animals. Killing them in various ways including cyanide gassing like in the holocaust, stretching and sometimes causing grievous bodily harm and pain to animals to find medicines and cures. Life-saving medicines and drugs are however drawn out from this process, and many drugs wouldn't even exist today if animals hadn't been used for research. What comes first for you? Ethical treatment or saving your own life. You decide on this Temp Debate.

3381 -t7, uC TrolleyDave stat G

 

The animals will most likely not benefit from being used in the experiments at all, and the only ones benefiting will be us because we have found that medicine X works in situation Y, but not in situation Z, and so forth.

There shouldn't be any line between whether experiments are only done on lab rats or on monkeys. Either do it on all possible (and of use to the situation) animals, or don't do it at all. Many people complain about monkeys being used in experiments, because they resemble humans most, but why are they any different from rats? Sure, they cannot reproduce as fast, but they're both animals and should therefore be treated the same. Of course, you can't say anything about using flies and mosquitos because they can reproduce so fast that there is no need to think about what you're doing (but I'm not sure if they actually do conduct experiments on little insects; probably not).

So, I believe tests should be allowed, but only when really necessary, and when enough research has already been done (that didn't involve the use of any animals, obviously). No testing should be done when not every aspect of the product has been looked at yet (eg: a combination of certain products could ensure death; if it is possible in any way to know that beforehand, no tests should be conducted).

Oh, and I forgot about some debate suggestions:
1. Religion: yay/nay
2. Abortion: yay/nay
3. Social networking: yay/nay
Also remove the PM block because I tried PMing you and it wouldn't work.

 

That's a fairly interesting argument. I don't think many countries still have death penalties, but if those people are doomed to die anyway, why not conduct any tests on them? Sure, ethically and morally it might not be the best thing to do, but then again, you could say exactly the same about conducting tests on animals. Of course, animals lack 'family' that will do anything to stop the tests and death penalties, but even the families of the prisoners will have to realise that all that is being done to their son/daughter/father/etc is for the greater good of humanity and is very likely to help them (so, in fact, by committing a serious crime, the criminals are in a way helping out society instead of just being killed).

Nice ideas man.

 

Though, would you want the life of a dumbass/asshole/criminal saved? I wouldn't.

I had religion in the list, because I want people to start raging. It is a topic on which I think I have sufficient knowledge and can at least convert some diehard theists to atheists.

 

One life of a mouse can save thousands of humans from dying, Animal testing is good for us and we should continue to test animals, but ONLY for medical reasons

 

I think you're brilliant. No sarcasm.

 

I'm inclined to agree with your position, however I think it's only fair to mention that almost nothing of significance can be learned by sacrificing the life of a single mouse. A properly controlled experiment would require testing to be done on many, many mice. In terms of data, the more the better.

 

Have you any idea of how some animals are suffering just to give us good medicines? Is it worth it?

 

OK. Scenario #1.
1mg of a special serum has been found in a dolphin. It has been identified to cure cancer and could potentially save millions of lives worldwide. But at least 100mg of this serum needs to be used in a single shot of this revolutionary new drug, which will mean killing 100 animals by extracting this serum. This could both potentially cause a whole species genocide if the drug was created, but it definitely would save many people.

 

Hmm, humans are selfish by nature, so it would make sense that we would do such a thing. I do believe that to a certain extent, medical research conducted on animals is more agreeable to me than testing on humans (in the initial stages of developing some kind of medicine, at least) because of the aforementioned reason.

But even so, I kind of disagree with the "but it could save millions of people" argument. Yes, it could. And because it can, why not test it on humans, then? Shouldn't medical research aimed at benefitting humans be tested on humans? Rather, I hate the argument because people just don`t want to admit how selfish they really are.

Also, ridiculous experiments such as those fluorescent puppies just makes me wonder why they aren`t doing anything better with their time and resources.


Sorry for this big pile of contradiction.