Cymro. 14:05 09 Dec 2007

On a wet cold boring Sunday afternoon when I can`t get out of the house for various reasons I wonder if I could liven things up on the forum by bringing up what is usually the very contentious subject of vivisection.

Like most of us I have heard all the arguments for and against medical experiments on animals. What I want to know is just how do antivivisectionists justify putting the life of an animal before the life of a human.

I dare say that this is a very complicated subject and I am rather over simplifying it, but I do have an personal interest in the subject as in fact all of us should have.

  Si_L 14:08 09 Dec 2007

I wrote an essay on vivisection, to which my conclusion was, to put it very simply: for cosmetics, no, for medication, yes.

  Cymro. 14:17 09 Dec 2007

Good thinking Si_L just how I see it.

  Forum Editor 14:35 09 Dec 2007

do antivivisectionists justify putting the life of an animal before the life of a human."

They justify it by saying that people are more important than animals, and that without animal research millions of people would still be killed by diseases that are now curable. Using animals for research in the cosmetics industry is pretty difficult to justify, but as Si_L has said, it's not that difficult to make a good case for vivisection in medical research.

  Earthsea 15:08 09 Dec 2007

Si_L has it in a nutshell. I understand some medical research can be done without animals but unfortunately a lot can't. Humans naturally give their needs greater priority than those of animals, and use intelligence to achieve it. Having said that, veterinary medicine also benefits from it.

Vivisection is necessary but unpleasant, similar to butchering animals for food.

Merry Christmas!

  Legolas 15:13 09 Dec 2007

Can't argue with what has been said and I go along with the consensus, for medical research yes although it still has to be as humane as possible, for cosmetic research no way I can't think of one reason why animals should be put into any discomfort for the sake of our beautification. Cymro afraid your not getting much of an arguement, well not yet anyway.

  JanetO 15:19 09 Dec 2007

I remember all those beagles who sacrificed their lives so we knew smoking was bad for us.

I think medical research is possibly acceptable but who sets the standards by which the tests are administered?

  Diemmess 15:36 09 Dec 2007

Three of several heavyweight bodies that set very rigid standards:-

click here
click here
click here

  Legolas 15:47 09 Dec 2007

Good links, although making the rules is the easy part making sure they are adhered to is more difficult

  spuds 16:11 09 Dec 2007

Perhaps slightly off the animal side, more on the human side.If you want a varied response or attitude problem, then you have to look no further than some anti-vivisection circles. Some of these people have caused more harm than good, including leaving released animals to suffer, or cause mayhem to others.

  interzone55 16:26 09 Dec 2007

On a side point, but related...

Exactly why does Japan need hundreds of whales for "scientific" purposes?
And why does most of the catch end up in shops and cosmetics, are the scientists studying retail?

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

WPA2 Hack Latest News: How Secure is your Wi-Fi?

Photoshop CC 2018 released with new Curvature Pen and better brush tools

Best kids apps for iPhone & iPad

Comment utiliser Twitter ?