ARGH! Disclaimer: I just got out of a very long car ride with my omni family and we had a very heated "discussion" about animal testing. They all stated, flat out, that a rat's life simply is not important, because they have short lives and reproduce quickly anyway. And lots of other things, like a rat is less important than a dog is less important than a human, mainly for sentimental reasons. They all assert that a human life is of more worth because a human is more intelligent. I am simply floored by the things some people can believe and still sleep with themselves at night.

Okay, so I defended myself and the animals as best I could, but it was one against four :wall: and a lot of the time I found myself just totally at a loss for words, either because I'd said everything already or because I was just in shock at the things I was hearing. How do you guys talk to omnis about animal testing in a way that makes them see the light? I'm afraid I didn't do a very good job of it. Sigh.

~Mollie~

Sounds like you did the best you could, generally you can't win these type of arguements, especially when you've got the minority opinion in a group. Hopefully they atleast admire your sense of compassion.

One angle I might of taken against what they were saying is that it's not "just rats" they experiment on, but cats, dogs, monkeys & rabbits for example. Those animals tug on the heart strings a lot more. The longevity of life doesn't matter, it's about causing intentional pain & suffering on sentinent beings. Maybe they don't understand that animals feel pain the same way or very similar to the way we do & that in your opinion it's morally reprehensible to create that pain on purpose.

"They all stated, flat out, that a rat's life simply is not important, because they have short lives and reproduce quickly anyway."

Short....what is short.......

African people live short (shorter than us) and reproduce quickly. Can we experiment on them?

When it comes to animal testing the best approch is to ask how test results can be translated to humans.
What is it that they share with rats/monkey's.

A lot of things that where tested on animals were "save", but when used on humans proved to be harmful (most people remember DES-hormones).

I usually start on the most absurd end of animal testing, using animals to test household cleaners and cosmetics. I live in Idaho, not the most enlightened place on the planet, and I have yet to find one person who could justify spraying Tide laundry detergent in a bunny's eyes (almost no one even tries). In fact, I think the image of the bunny getting soap sprayed in his eyes is really disturbing to the vast majority of people.

Once people have made the admission that some animal testing is wrong, it's easier to get them to logically follow the steps to understand why all animal testing is wrong.

That's also a good one.

I have never understood why it is so interesting to feed a rat or a rabit lipstick until it dies, I mean, what idiot eats lipstick ?

That's also a good one.

I have never understood why it is so interesting to feed a rat or a rabit lipstick until it dies, I mean, what idiot eats lipstick ?

A child between the ages of 1 and 5. However, usually it is only part of a tube - the rest is spit out on your favorite chair and wiped off on the carpet, the table, the tv..... :dizzy:

They all assert that a human life is of more worth because a human is more intelligent.


Then they won't have a problem if tests are done on mentally disabled people?

There are many nonhumans that are more intelligent than some humans. Should we put senile and mentally disabled people in a commercial shooting range for target practice? Should we do torturous experiments on them because they are not intelligent? Should we force them to live in cages too small to move in for months and then slaughter them? If we shouldn't, then we shouldn't to nonhumans either.

It's difficult sometimes being a member of the Round Earth Society when 95% of the population still belongs to and strongly believes in the Flat Earth Society. It is especially difficult when their perceived pleasures (like eating) are so wrapped up in those backward beliefs. There will come a time when, if humanity doesn't self-destruct sooner, people will wake up to the gross injustice of treating nonhumans as things.

Thank you all for your replies. You bring up many points, some that I thought of, some that I hadn't, though I doubt anything really would have made much a difference. This does raise a disturbing problem, however. I absolutely, completely believe that testing on unwilling animals for cosmetics/household supplies/other nonessentials is completely reprehensible. But what about medicine, things that save lives? I mean, honestly, practically, what is the alternative? It's quite a quandary and one to which I haven't been able to come up with an answer that will both help cure horrible diseases and end the wanton slaughter of inhabitants of this earth.

~Mollie~

hmm...I have mixed feelings regarding animal testing and the value of one life versus another. However, given the following options with no choice d:

a) shoot and kill a rabit
b) shoot and kill a person
c) shoot and kill myself

To me it's a no brainer. I would shoot and kill the rabit, although not without feeling great remorse. It would suck.

While I would never endorse animal testing for household products, I do think it's necessary to test potentially harmful medical treatments on animals before applying them to humans. But we should treat the animals with the utmost respect and make them as comfortable as possible. Their suffering and deaths are for our sakes after all.

For those who are against even that I ask you this. If you got cancer and there was only one treatment available, but it was developed through animal testing, would you take the treatment and live or stand your moral ground and die?

rigmarole

This does raise a disturbing problem, however. I absolutely, completely believe that testing on unwilling animals for cosmetics/household supplies/other nonessentials is completely reprehensible. But what about medicine, things that save lives? I mean, honestly, practically, what is the alternative? It's quite a quandary and one to which I haven't been able to come up with an answer that will both help cure horrible diseases and end the wanton slaughter of inhabitants of this earth.

~Mollie~

Fortunately, in most cases, people who have serious diseases can and do volunteer for research. Since medicine can have MAJOR differences in its effects between humans and nonhumans, it is much better to test on humans anyway. Also, many alternatives now exist to animal testing.

In (very?) rare cases where there is no? alternative, an animal's right not to be treated as property or a thing for human benefit needs to be taken into account. If this view is held, the chances of justifying animal experimentation vs. alternatives is greatly reduced.

hmm...I have mixed feelings regarding animal testing and the value of one life versus another. However, given the following options with no choice d:

a) shoot and kill a rabit
b) shoot and kill a person
c) shoot and kill myself

To me it's a no brainer. I would shoot and kill the rabit, although not without feeling great remorse. It would suck.

While I would never endorse animal testing for household products, I do think it's necessary to test potentially harmful medical treatments on animals before applying them to humans. But we should treat the animals with the utmost respect and make them as comfortable as possible. Their suffering and deaths are for our sakes after all.

For those who are against even that I ask you this. If you got cancer and there was only one treatment available, but it was developed through animal testing, would you take the treatment and live or stand your moral ground and die?

rigmarole

I totally agree with you on the "rabbit dies" dilemma.

In the cancer case, I would not avoid the treatment since the damage was already done. However, if someone said we can give this pig your cancer and try to cure it with this questionable medicine that may kill you before the cancer, I would absolutely reject that option, spare the pig, and try the medicine myself.

For those who are against even that I ask you this. If you got cancer and there was only one treatment available, but it was developed through animal testing, would you take the treatment and live or stand your moral ground and die?

Like Mountainvegan noted, the use of a treatment already tested before would not necessarily cause more deaths/suffering. You could simply ask: "You get a terminal disease, but you would live if such an animal would be killed or painfully experimented on that would not otherwise be killed / painfully experimented on. Would you accept the killing (experimenting on) of this animal?" And the answer to this latter question, from anyone serious about the rights of animals, would be "of course not". Gandhi said (at least I've seen such a quote) that if our existence required the torture of other beings, we should be able to cease existing. (And also: "become the change you want to see in this world").

"the use of a treatment already tested before would not necessarily cause more deaths/suffering."

afaik medications etc., are regular re-tested.

Medications, food-aditives etc.
So after the invention of something, the suffering continues.

When the medical research question is asked of me, I like to quote a statistic I had read a few years ago that said in the previous year something like 150,000 people died because of complications from the medications they had taken (whether the exact number was accurate or not I guess is questionable but I'm sure that alot of people do die every year from medications, although some from human error I'm sure). Tell the families of those people that died, "But the medicine was tested on a rat first with no problems", and see if that comforts them.

first off I'll say that I know virtually nothing of animal testing practices, results, etc. But if 150,000 people died from meds that were animal tested I would have to guess that the number of human deaths would be drastically higher if not first tested on animals. :confused: that sound reasonable?

*edited to say* which isn't to say that 150,000 deaths is by any means an insignificant number.
**

rigmarole

first off I'll say that I know virtually nothing of animal testing practices, results, etc. But if 150,000 people died from meds that were animal tested I would have to guess that the number of human deaths would be drastically higher if not first tested on animals. :confused: that sound reasonable?

*edited to say* which isn't to say that 150,000 deaths is by any means an insignificant number.
**

rigmarole

Believe it or not, the number of human deaths may not be higher. There have been drugs that have tested fine on nonhumans and been quite lethal to humans and the other way around. The best way to test is directly on humans, if it's necessary at all, which due to advanced technology, it's usually not necessary.

Also, whether 150K is significant or not depends on the circumstances, such as age of drug consumers, population of drug consumers, disease severity, drug severity, etc. The number by itself means next to nothing.

Some resources to help w/ responses and w/ correct info on testing using nonhumans:

http://www.pcrm.org
http://www.navs.org

The USDA requires that medicines be tested on nonhumans. There isn't a medication that hasn't been tested on nonhumans. We don't really have a choice in terms of medicinal products. Of course, said testing is pretty useless and should never be supported. It's simply not necessary.

Some resources to help w/ responses and w/ correct info on testing using nonhumans:

http://www.pcrm.org
http://www.navs.org

The USDA requires that medicines be tested on nonhumans. There isn't a medication that hasn't been tested on nonhumans. We don't really have a choice in terms of medicinal products. Of course, said testing is pretty useless and should never be supported. It's simply not necessary.


Thanks for the links. I will check them out asap. I hope and am sure I will learn something.

rigmarole

There isn't a medication that hasn't been tested on nonhumans. We don't really have a choice in terms of medicinal products. .

I have something for allergic reactions, and it is not tested on animals.

There are more (homeopathic) medications that aren't animal tested.

There are more (homeopathic) medications that aren't animal tested.

You're right. I wasn't clear. I was referring to allopathic drugs.

I use homeopathy and botanicals nearly exclusively, avoiding the animal-derived homeopathic remedies.

Here's another link that might be helpful:

www.animal-rights.com
Click on the piglet to enter, then click on the pig for a pretty good FAQ.

I often refer people to this page when they apply to join my AR list and don't know the difference between AR and AW. It helps them determine where they are and where they want to be. (My list is only for ARAs and those ready to move in that direction.)

Way I see it, we can all use help coming up with responses. Although there are times when only silence and walking away will do, as when a neighbor told me that it was okay to shoot squirrels because "they're only rats with fuzzy tails".

www.curedisease.com

Ray and Jean Greek are married. He's an MD (anesthesiologist, I think) and she's a veterinarian. They explain how animals and humans often don't react the same way to medications, and how this causes problems for researchers when they try to use an animal to find a cure for a disease in a human.

I read their first book, and I'm going through their references in it (it has a lot of them). I've heard people complain that the Greeks aren't researchers, but I'd say the Greeks have pretty impressive credentials. As to whether they are correct in saying that animal research is useless for curing human disease, I haven't decided yet.

About the comparative value of human and animal life... I say all sentient life is valuable just for itself. But I don't have a problem putting humans first, as a rule... mostly because animals can act pretty savagely, and I believe that the human capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and restrain themselves from doing wrong, makes humans "higher" than animals. I just wish more people would cut animals more slack than they usually do. Heck, I'd enjoy the taste of meat and fish if I chose to eat it. But it isn't worth the cost in animal life to me- a cow needs his/her flesh a lot more than I need a steak. And being veg isn't all that hard. I've even reduced my milk and egg consumption a lot.