The sections we went over for the week were all very interesting, and it wasn’t really difficult to understand most of the material we went over. I did find Module 1.3 interesting though, probably on a more personal factor since I’m not so sure where I stand on animal research. I’ll just explain what I’m taking from both sides just from what I read out of the text book. Scientist’s (Minimalists) are standing on the notion that such experimentation produces many benefits for humanity and deems it morally acceptable to harm a few animals. They claimed that the pain and suffering animals go through are minimized. They look to the three R's: Reduction, replacement, and refinement given by legal standards.
On the other side the Abolitionists are entirely against animal testing.They built their argument on the fact that testing on a large amount of animals and the level of suffering experienced do not give an ethical justification. I can see why people think animal testing is important, because I am not sure if we would be where we are today had we stepped back in time and never engaged in animal experimentation. I admit we need medications to survive an illness; there is no doubt about that and for that to happen testing needs to be conducted in order for us to make medications and see if they work. However, I am kind of leaning against animal testing but at the same time I'm not. I say this because the animals suffer, and the benefits that are claimed humans will gain are not even proven, and if there are benefits that come with animal testing for human beings it could be produced in other humane ways. Do you not agree?
With this information, I’m not sure I can actually pick a side because neither seems to have a win-win situation. If we continue testing on animals, we are doing an injustice to the animals, because they are the ones that have to suffer and sacrifice themselves for something that might not even work. However, if we get rid of animal testing, then we are doing an injustice to human beings by not coming up with ways to cure diseases that have yet to cure and protect people. Either that happens, or it would take an even longer period of time to actually come up with ways to find a cure or making medications without experimenting on animals. I found a couple of videos and a debate on youtube that kind of went into more detail about the ethics and animal testing that I thought you guys might want to look at.
Time currently: 6:40am
Mood: Tired
Edited on: 9/2/2012 at 8:55pm
Question of the day: If conditions and treatment of animals are improved would you be for animal testing or against animal testing?
5 comments:
I agree and disagree with you. Yes, animals get hurt but what if it was your life on the line? What if you had Leukemia but due to your stance on animal testing, or lack of, you couldn't get treatment? Or that of an 8 year old girl who won't ever ride a bike? Or experience a normal childhood, if it isn't for animal testing, she wouldn't have treatment, and maybe not see puberty. I would risk an animal's life to benefit that child - to man in general. What about your cosmetics you use to beautify yourself? Check. Chances are they are not "cruelty-free". OUr science, is advancing yes, but not at the rate we want it to be so we wouldn't harm innocent animals all together.
Woah, I got a little touchy there. It was a great post, and you really made me think. Your blog is cute! I am looking forward to reading more things from you!
p.s. your comment placement is odd. I would suggest to put it at the end of your post rather than the top. It is confusing, just a thought.
I thought about that as well, like if one my family members had an incurable disease and in order to find a cure testing on animals would have to be done, in that aspect I don't think I could refuse, especially when it comes to the life of a child. Then in that case I would probably go with animal testing, but maybe like I said in do the testing in a more humane way. That's just my opinion though lol.
and thanks for the compliment haha, I'm working out a new code format to place the coding for the comments and dates, I thought it would go at the end but I guess it went at the top lol xD
If animal testing would be improved, unfortunately it would still not help with the ethical debate on where I stand. There are some areas of animal testing that I do not agree with; such as toxicology and cosmetics testings. But when it comes to biomedical research and xenotransplantation, it makes you wonder; what would happen if you were stuck in that certain kind of situation?
I totally agree with you about this, it is definetely not a win win situation because yeah in a way they are doing all this testings to help ourselves but at the same time we dont know what other tests they're giving this poor, helpless animals that are to cruel for us to know about that wont help at all.
Hopefully we had better ways to find out about cures rather than continue harming animals...it seems like that will never happen but if all the testing has bee proving that we are advancing in fguring out cures than i cant complian about it. I guess its the circle of life, we have to fight to survive!
You made some good arguments, but I have one issue with your post. You mentioned that it hasn't been proven that humans gain anything from animal testing, but it has. The Polio vaccine is the first thing that comes to mind. Without animal testing, Polio would still be an issue today and think about how many lives would be lost. Of course, I agree with your sentiment that we shouldn't have to rely on animal testing, but unfortunately it's a necessary evil. There have been some advances in modern medicine that have reduced the need for animal experiments, but it obviously hasn't gotten to the point where it's not needed at all. We can only hope we get there soon, though.
Post a Comment