Temp Debates #7

Discussion in 'General Off-Topic Chat' started by tigris, Sep 3, 2010.

?

Medical Research on animals. Does it do more good than harm

  1. By posting my argument below, I think it does good

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. By posting my argument below, I think it is harmful.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Sep 3, 2010

Temp Debates #7 by tigris at 7:04 PM (2,738 Views / 0 Likes) 35 replies

  1. tigris
    OP

    Member tigris Sentient Existential Anthropomorphic Sweet Potato

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    The Tibetan Himalayas
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    [​IMG]
    "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!





    Previous Debates
    Warning: Spoilers inside!

    Future Debates
    Warning: Spoilers inside!



    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
     


  2. bnwchbammer

    Member bnwchbammer GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    462
    Location:
    Illinois
    Country:
    United States
    It is hard to advance without some sort of experimentation, and when experiments need to be done it's better for an animal than a human. And generally there are ethical guidelines that don't make it torturous to the animals.

    All in all, I'll say better us than them.

    Also not like I'm saying it's good to torture animals or any sort of thing that makes animal cruelty acceptable, but hey, you've gotta do what you've gotta do.
     
  3. Overlord Nadrian

    Banned Overlord Nadrian Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    6,671
    Location:
    Riviera
    Country:
    Belgium
    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.
     
  4. giratina16

    Member giratina16 Born This Way

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    928
    Location:
    G.O.A.T.
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    This is a question I come across nearly everyday at college. The ethics and morals of animal testing. Although I'm a scientist I disagree with animal testing. If something is made for human benefits then it should be tested on humans. There are plenty of prisoners on death row that could be used. Of course the same holds true for the opposite, if it's for animal benefits then it should be tested on animals. My conclusion is that animal testing does more good than harm although most tests carried out on animals are inconclusive so it's pointless anyway. Of course it all depends on whose perspective we are looking at, from an animals point of view it does more harm.
     
  5. Overlord Nadrian

    Banned Overlord Nadrian Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    6,671
    Location:
    Riviera
    Country:
    Belgium
    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.
     
  6. soulx

    Member soulx GBAtemp Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,130
    Country:
    Canada
    ---
    I may be considered cruel but if testing on an animal can save a human life, I'm all for it.
     
  7. Overlord Nadrian

    Banned Overlord Nadrian Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    6,671
    Location:
    Riviera
    Country:
    Belgium
    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.
     
  8. tigris
    OP

    Member tigris Sentient Existential Anthropomorphic Sweet Potato

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    The Tibetan Himalayas
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Great, great. Let's get on topic then. I will have a suggest-a-debate one later. I purposefully avoided a religion one yet for a couple of reasons I will probably not say. Wait around. Anyways, back on topic.

    p.s about the asshole. Kill him, save the others.
     
  9. alidsl

    Member alidsl I am now a lurker

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Messages:
    2,823
    Location:
    Kanto - Pallet Town
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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
     
  10. liquidnumb

    Member liquidnumb GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Country:
    United States
    There are not enough people on death row to find conclusive evidence. Further, our legal system is not perfect and many people have been sentenced and later acquitted of their convictions, sometimes after they have been executed. Whether they are going to die or not is practically irrelevant since testing on them is cruel and unusual punishment and is therefor unconstitutional.

    Since there are basically no applicable alternatives, necessary medical testing must be performed on animals. I think the spirit of the question is in what is/isn't necessary. Testing cosmetics on animals seems especially dubious, however researching cures or treatments for widespread fatal diseases might be worth the moral compromise.
     
  11. injected11

    Member injected11 Crescent Fresh™

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    1,776
    Country:
    United States
    I think you're brilliant. No sarcasm.
     
  12. ball2012003

    ball2012003 Newbie

    Si senor.
     
  13. liquidnumb

    Member liquidnumb GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    Messages:
    142
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  14. pitman

    Member pitman Addicted to Magical Girls

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,080
    Location:
    Where rockets don't fall.
    Country:
    Israel
    Its not like mice are an endangered species and you can breed plenty of them so nothing will change because of the sacrifice of many.
    Like alidsl said as long it is only for medical reasons then I'm OK with it.
     
  15. tigris
    OP

    Member tigris Sentient Existential Anthropomorphic Sweet Potato

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    The Tibetan Himalayas
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Have you any idea of how some animals are suffering just to give us good medicines? Is it worth it?
     
  16. Overlord Nadrian

    Banned Overlord Nadrian Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    6,671
    Location:
    Riviera
    Country:
    Belgium
    That depends on the situation.
     
  17. tigris
    OP

    Member tigris Sentient Existential Anthropomorphic Sweet Potato

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    The Tibetan Himalayas
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.
     
  18. Phoenix Goddess

    Member Phoenix Goddess The Ninja's Protégée

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Away from civilization.
    Country:
    United States
    In a situation like that, people would find a way to keep the population thriving rather than killing them all off, especially to save more people from cancer in the future. Not really much of an argument there.
     
  19. Inori

    Member Inori GBAtemp Regular

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Location:
    泡沫の夢
    Country:
    Australia
    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.
     
  20. giratina16

    Member giratina16 Born This Way

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2010
    Messages:
    928
    Location:
    G.O.A.T.
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I know many people would be more than happy to be tested on. Me for instance, if I had cancer and a doctor asked me to test a new drug that could prolong my life then I would jump at the opportunity. I would be helping myself and others if the tests proved conclusive. Quite recently they've discovered a new anti body (I can't remember what it's called) a small number of people have. It actually fights off cancer. They mixed the anti bodies with what I think was breast cancer tissue and after 24 hours 90% of the cancer was destroyed. It's a shame that even after such amazing results it still hasn't been approved for public usage. With what I said about the death row thing, yes many countries don't use it anymore (UK for instance) but I bet these countries could use lifers for tests.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page