PDA

View Full Version : Human Experimentation and Animal Experimentation



Nachtengel
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 12:11 AM
When if at all is it acceptable to conduct human experimentation?

When the subject consents against a sum of money or for charitable reason?
When the subject is dead, and the family donates the body for research?
When the subject is a convicted criminal, in place of the death penalty?

Is animal experimentation more "ethical" than human experimentation? Why?
Should animal experimentation be allowed?

SwordOfTheVistula
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 08:22 AM
Any voluntary experimentation is fine, and criminals have no rights. If we can't find any people to experiment on, then I guess animals will have to do, though only for serious health things and not testing cosmetics on them.

Rainraven
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 10:29 AM
Well voluntary human testing is fine, if they are offered money for it than all the better for them though I must say if I was offered a large sum of money for some sort of medical experiment I would start to be rather concerned that they were somehow trying to buy me off.

There can be difficulties with families donating dead bodies, often even though people wish to be an organ donor the body cannot be taken without the families permission. It makes it quite important that people tell their families what they want done with their bodies, but if it hasn't been expressely wished that they want their body to be donated to science then the famliy shouldn't do it, it's disrespectful to the dead.

Criminals? Seems alot harsher than the easy death we give them with the death penalty (though I don't believe in that) but if it has to be tested on humans then I guess they are the best option.

I don't believe in animal testing
1) They don't have any sort of choice in the matter and
2) Unlike criminals they haven't done anything to deserve.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 11:26 AM
When the subject is a convicted criminal, in place of the death penalty?

I can agree with the other examples. The wish for your body to be experimented upon after death is a big decision when comparing the emotions of your loved ones you leave behind, but if proper attention and notification is offered by the donor to the family, and everything is acceptable and above board, then I cannot see what could stop it happening.



Is animal experimentation more "ethical" than human experimentation? Why?
Should animal experimentation be allowed?

Have the animals given their consent to being experimented upon? Do we as humans have the absolute dominance upon this world to dictate the ethics of experimenting upon other species?

I believe we don't. I believe the experiments conducted upon animals is wholly wrong and sickening.


Any voluntary experimentation is fine, and criminals have no rights.

I'm presuming the criminals are dead, right?

Anyway, who is to say the criminals have no rights? If the criminal has been executed or died of natural causes whilst serving their time within prison, then the moral punishment they were exacted to repay to society is null and void, or completed.

The body of any one is not for some unscrupulous system to grab and conduct experiments upon as they please!

The persons religious and cultural wishes should be met. The wishes of the family should also be met.

The person may have been a criminal, but the family should not be punished for that either.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 01:32 PM
If we can't find any people to experiment on, then I guess animals will have to do, though only for serious health things and not testing cosmetics on them.
But why should we sacrifice animals if we can't find humans? What's with this humanocentric, Christian beliefs in the world? Animals are more innocent than humans. Animals don't hurt anyone unless provoked. There are plenty of humans who cause much more harm than animals.


I'm presuming the criminals are dead, right?
I don't know if that's what he meant but it wasn't what I meant. I was referring to live criminals. We can't conduct all experiments on dead people now, can we? How will we know if some medication works against a disease if the patient is dead? Instead of giving the heinous criminals the death penalty, the state could allow them to be used for experimentation.

BeornWulfWer
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 02:16 PM
Animals are more innocent than humans. Animals don't hurt anyone unless provoked. There are plenty of humans who cause much more harm than animals.

You don't mind the termination of unborn children and/or the extermination of diseased and retarded people, but you draw a line at animal experimentation?



I was referring to live criminals.

In that case, NO!

If the world of science wishes to conduct live experiments upon Humans, then the world of science should provide its 'own' from its ranks.

Seems only fair.

Nachtengel
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 05:30 PM
You don't mind the termination of unborn children and/or the extermination of diseased and retarded people, but you draw a line at animal experimentation?
Yes. Animals kill their weak too, in case you haven't noticed. Some mothers abandon their weak cubs and let them die off. It's nature. Experimentation is a different thing. We do it for our own so we must use our own. Another thing is you can't compare animal to human. To know whether something works on a human, the most accurate is by trying it on a human.


In that case, NO!

If the world of science wishes to conduct live experiments upon Humans, then the world of science should provide its 'own' from its ranks.

Seems only fair.
Some scientists did just that, experimented on themselves, however it's not a good idea. They need to be in perfect state to record the results and come up with new ideas.

Siebenbürgerin
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 06:20 PM
In my view, neither human experimentation or animal experimentation is justified except in the first case you mentioned, when there is consent. That excludes all animals since they can't give their consent.
In Europe, criminals still have some rights, human rights like the right to life, the right to be protected against cruel and unusual punishments like torture, so that excludes being turned into laboratory mice.
After death, the body should only be used if the person left it written in their will or somehow else desired. But the family can't decide for the dead, because it's not their body, only his.

Thrymheim
Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 06:28 PM
When if at all is it acceptable to conduct human experimentation?

When the subject consents against a sum of money or for charitable reason?
Yes it's a good system



When the subject is dead, and the family donates the body for research?

A body is only meat, I believe that the assumption should be that consent has been given and one should have to opt out, not in.



When the subject is a convicted criminal, in place of the death penalty?

More difficult here, most experiments do not kill. I would say that if you have a death penalty then you have decided that that person has done something so heinous that they have given up all their rights (as the right to life is surly the most important.) and therefore it would be ok to experiment, however I don't think I would be comfortable with sanctioning it.



Is animal experimentation more "ethical" than human experimentation? Why?
Should animal experimentation be allowed?

It is no more ethical, but I think it should be done for medical reasons, and when you say thats human-centric, yes it is but if I didn't believe that my species/race is superior and deserves protecting then I wouldn't be on this board!

Deary
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 01:20 AM
I support animal testing. Without it, we would never have come so far nor could scientific and medical research today advance at any efficient rate. Human test subjects are few. The cost for their participation is not cheap, and they are sometimes not very suitable for testing. Certain species of animal, however, are plentiful, inexpensive and can be learned from with less difficulty and time. Their use has assisted greatly in the acquirement of information, technologies and life-saving inventions for people as well as animals. If some dogs, mice, rats, monkeys, etc. have to be sacrificed so that we may have another treatment, medicine, vaccine or cure, so be it. The loss of animal lives, while saddening, is worth the betterment of ours. To halt animal testing would be inhumane and counter-productive because there simply isn't any better option currently. I also support testing on criminals, but it should be no substitute for the death penalty.

SwordOfTheVistula
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 05:45 AM
I'm presuming the criminals are dead, right

Well, people who ought to be dead-murderers, rapists, etc. Run of the mill prisoners can be experimented on if they consent, perhaps in return for early freedom.


If the world of science wishes to conduct live experiments upon Humans, then the world of science should provide its 'own' from its ranks.

Scientists are some of the most valuable members of society, we can't be wasting them on being test dummies for experiments. Criminals are the least valuable members of society, and the capitalist method of paying voluntary subjects would naturally attract those who have little else to offer society.


What's with this humanocentric, Christian beliefs in the world?

Because I am a human?



Animals are more innocent than humans. Animals don't hurt anyone unless provoked. There are plenty of humans who cause much more harm than animals.

Ture, and it should be a last resort, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should never ever be an option.

BeornWulfWer
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 01:41 PM
If some dogs, mice, rats, monkeys, etc. have to be sacrificed so that we may have another treatment, medicine, vaccine or cure, so be it. The loss of animal lives, while saddening, is worth the betterment of ours.

Is our species so great and so divinely correct that we can wantonly eliminate other species to the betterment of our own?

I wonder if the boot was on the other foot, you would be so willing to allow a species which thought itself superior to experiment upon you and your own?




Well, people who ought to be dead-murderers, rapists, etc. Run of the mill prisoners can be experimented on if they consent, perhaps in return for early freedom.

I can agree with your thought of experimenting on consenting criminals for an early release or greater privileges inside their respective prisons, but again I see this very quick assertion that people who have committed a great crime are unworthy of their lives.

I am all for capturing and incarcerating criminals of all sorts. I am a great believer that the sentence should reflect the crime committed.
But where is the beginning of your right to dictate their options for how their lives are conducted?

By all means make them work hard and have little time to relax. The onus is with us having cheap and abundant labour, but they are still humans who still have the basic of human rights.

If the punishment is death by execution, then make it death by execution, but do not become God by invoking a right to treat them like you would a common lab rat.



Scientists are some of the most valuable members of society, we can't be wasting them on being test dummies for experiments. Criminals are the least valuable members of society, and the capitalist method of paying voluntary subjects would naturally attract those who have little else to offer society.


I wouldn't say scientists are the most valuable members of society, but I get your reasoning.

As I said, I would agree with testing on consenting adults. Criminals or not criminals.

DanseMacabre
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:02 PM
When the subject consents against a sum of money or for charitable reason?

Yes.


When the subject is dead, and the family donates the body for research?

Yes.


When the subject is a convicted criminal, in place of the death penalty?

Yes. I have no problem with experimenting on inferior humans. And the majority of criminals are inferior. Animals are above them. It doesn't matter to me whether it is done after or before their death.


Is animal experimentation more "ethical" than human experimentation? Why?

Absolutely not. Why experiment on helpless animals and cause them suffering? They act on instinct and not malice. They wish only to be left to exist in their areas. We have an abundance or worthless humans for experimentation. Animals are noble creatures that should be protected. By contrast only a relatively small amount of humankind deserves preservation. I am fine with hunting and eating animals. This is natural law that all animals operate under. But subjecting them to horrific sadistic experimentation just so we can save humans is absurd. Besides we can gain more knowledge from human experimentation than animal.


Should animal experimentation be allowed

No. In fact, it, like all other animal cruelty, should be a criminal offense with harsh penalties. Perhaps the guilty party could be sentenced to experimentation.

Volksdeutscher
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 08:13 PM
In my view, neither human experimentation or animal experimentation is justified except in the first case you mentioned, when there is consent. That excludes all animals since they can't give their consent.
In Europe, criminals still have some rights, human rights like the right to life, the right to be protected against cruel and unusual punishments like torture, so that excludes being turned into laboratory mice.
After death, the body should only be used if the person left it written in their will or somehow else desired. But the family can't decide for the dead, because it's not their body, only his.
Exactly the same view here. If I were suffering from an incurable disease and a scientist offered me money to test a cure on me, I would accept immediately. I'm thinking there would be many others that would. Hey, I'd probably accept it even for free, if I had a chance to survive. It's a better option than deliberately infecting "test subjects" as some call them with diseases to test cures.

To those approving of human experimentation on criminals and "inferiors", remember we are all someone's inferiors. I wouldn't think you'd like to be on someone's experimentation table.

Nachtengel
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 09:19 PM
Because I am a human?
The relation human-animal isn't the same as human-human. :| We live in different environments. We can peacefully coexist. Animals do us no harm in their environment, they don't kill people without reason or act like parasites in our countries. They don't try to conquer our countries. We aren't obligated to support them financially. Or anything else to warrant a conflict. Besides like I and DanseMacabre both mentioned, a fact which is true is that we can gain more knowledge from human experimentation than from animal experimentation. There would be enough humans to experiment on, we don't need to do it with animals.


To those approving of human experimentation on criminals and "inferiors", remember we are all someone's inferiors. I wouldn't think you'd like to be on someone's experimentation table.
Only if it was Dr. Mengele's experimentation table. :P
Seriously what kind of argument is this, huh? The old "don't do to others what you don't like being done to yourself"? If we followed this proverb, we wouldn't be where we are today. Not all humans are equal, therefore not everyone should be treated equally. Do you think the other peoples who view us as inferiors philosphically ponder "fairness"? They follow their interests. Only the Aryan man worries about the things you mention, to his disadvantage, because the others won't play fair. When someone wants to shoot the ball in the net, you don't sit and watch. You defend the net, you know? ;)

Patrioten
Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 09:49 PM
I have no problems with animal testing, just as I have no problem with hunting, meat eating or fur wearing. Animals do not have the same rights as humans, and all humans don't have the same rights either (foreigners do not have the same rights as natives, criminals do not have the same rights as law-abiding people to name two examples that I can think of right now).

Animal testing may not always be as efficient as human testing. Many times however, it is efficient enough to benefit us humans. In many cases, testing on human subjects in the early stages of creating a cure of some sort, could lead to horrible side effects, even death for the subjects. That's something we'd want to avoid and that's why we use animal testing in the first place. They serve a purpose, it's not for nothing that we use animals to test on. Given, we could use prisoners, but it is not something I would prefer to see. As a civilized society, we need boundaries to uphold our moral superiority and the destinction between us and them. I will strongly support the death penalty, but I will never accept torture as a form of punishment. Human testing and the possible side-effects could very well be considered torture.

ChaosLord
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 06:08 AM
Personally, I don't think we should be testing on animals, because there's enough problems with animal disrespect as it is. Though, I do agree with Dreary in the fact that animal testing has brought us insight into medical "cures", along with cosmetics and their effects. Though, the medical testing is nothing more than a viscious cycle to keep up with the current trends of viruses and diseases. Regardless of the numerous tests and the numerous animals tested there will never really be a cure. Diseases and viruses alike mutate which requires a new vaccine; hence the cycle is started over again and more tests are needed.

I'm not opposed to human testing either because the tests can actually determine more accurate results since it will be effecting human DNA rather than animal DNA. As to whom to be tested is a question worth debating. A person who consents to be tested is justified, along with a body donor. Criminals on the other hand should be tested on if they get the death-sentence, because they're going to die regardless.

Deary
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 10:43 PM
Is our species so great and so divinely correct that we can wantonly eliminate other species to the betterment of our own?

I wonder if the boot was on the other foot, you would be so willing to allow a species which thought itself superior to experiment upon you and your own?

Which do you care more about: saving animal lives or saving human lives? If saving hundreds of thousands of human lives meant the loss of some animal life, would you think it is just? If your child, wife, mother or father was on their deathbed and the cure for their illness meant experimentation on chimpanzies, would you refuse their chance for survival to save the chimpanzies instead? If you said no, then you are already aware that animals are not equal to us and don't deserve to be treated as if they were. Any healthy society values human life more than animal life. That's why animal testing exists. Sorry, but the boot isn't on the other foot. Every one of us, in some way, is dependent upon animal testing.

Hamar Fox
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 11:20 PM
Which do you care more about: saving animal lives or saving human lives? If saving hundreds of thousands of human lives meant the loss of some animal life, would you think it is just? If your child, wife, mother or father was on their deathbed and the cure for their illness meant experimentation on chimpanzies, would you refuse their chance for survival to save the chimpanzies instead? If you said no, then you are already aware that animals are not equal to us and don't deserve to be treated as if they were. Any healthy society values human life more than animal life. That's why animal testing exists. Sorry, but the boot isn't on the other foot. Every one of us, in some way, is dependent upon animal testing.

Value is wholly relative, though. If I had to choose between the life of, say, my cat, or ten thousand Afghans, I'd choose to save my cat. If I had to choose between my mother, or ten thousand animals, I'd choose my mother.

The truth is that there's no necessary instinctive bond between one human and another. Outside of the context of one's group-consciousness of choice -- whether that be familial, ethnic, religious, national, or ideological -- the worth of a fellow human drops sharply to zero. Of course, we can choose to group ourselves with the whole of humanity and extend out affection universally, but humanity is too expansive and all-inclusive a concept to satisfy our tribal instincts; thus the bond between two men who hold such beliefs will be forced and entirely unnatural.

The human consciousness is designed to think in terms of "us" and "them". It tends to be the case that when the "us" is humanity as a whole, the "them" becomes nature, which explains why most extreme Christians and humanitarian right-wingers become furious at the mere mention of animal rights.

My point is that there's no natural law that dictates that it's healthier for us to care about unknown, foreign, potentially dangerous fellow humans, than to care about animals. "Humanity" is an unnatural universalism that a healthy society would reject. Value should never be dispassionate and dictated by concepts fundamentally alien to Germanics and most cultures, but something above all felt. Only then can it be considered wholesome.

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, September 20th, 2008, 11:41 PM
Which do you care more about: saving animal lives or saving human lives?

Are the human lives worth saving, and are they of my kith and kin?


If saving hundreds of thousands of human lives meant the loss of some animal life, would you think it is just?

Again, I would think about the worth of the humans which are being lost and weigh the scale to see if the animal deserves to die just for them.


If your child, wife, mother or father was on their deathbed and the cure for their illness meant experimentation on chimpanzies, would you refuse their chance for survival to save the chimpanzies instead?

I cannot truly answer that question. I do think about my own mortality and the mortality of my loved ones, but the day I face a decision that tough, I will hope to have the strength of a thousand ancestors to guide me to the correct decision.

I seem to be full of movie quotes of late, but my true belief in death can be summed up in one:


"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back."

Death and illness will always look upon me and my family. It is one of natures certainties. Who am I but a mere man to try and weigh one life for the life of another?

Am I that important; that I have this authority?


If you said no, then you are already aware that animals are not equal to us and don't deserve to be treated as if they were.

I would sincerely love to find out where you achieved or attained this knowledge that we are above and beyond the rest of life's creations of Earth!

Thrymheim
Sunday, September 21st, 2008, 05:38 AM
Death and illness will always look upon me and my family. It is one of natures certainties. Who am I but a mere man to try and weigh one life for the life of another?

Am I that important; that I have this authority?


Of course you do it may not save them but not trying would be much worse.
otherwise you could say that hunger will always be with my family, but do I have the authority to feed them?



I would sincerely love to find out where you achieved or attained this knowledge that we are above and beyond the rest of life's creations of Earth!

All animals, us included, do what they can to survive the knowledge here is simply that might is right, we will do what we can to survive and if that kills things then that is what we will do.

Mother Earth
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 05:29 PM
When if at all is it acceptable to conduct human experimentation?

When the subject consents against a sum of money or for charitable reason?
When the subject is dead, and the family donates the body for research?
In the first two cases, despite finding it sort of gruesome, it's really their decision and who am I to contest it. As long as they aren't forced...


When the subject is a convicted criminal, in place of the death penalty?
It is absolutely unacceptable to experiment on a human being against his will.


Is animal experimentation more "ethical" than human experimentation? Why?
Should animal experimentation be allowed?
No, it is not more ethical. Some people seem to think whatever nature has is theirs to take, but it's not so. Human kind used to do well without animal experimentation for many centuries. I don't think we need to prolong our lives at any cost. Remember we are billions, and the more we are, the less space we have. I wouldn't like every corner of the world to look like India or China.

Blod og Jord
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 06:53 PM
What about the animal experiments which are done to find out more information about animals, their ways of living and their habitats, so they can be helped and preserved?
When they catch sharks or whales, crocodiles or other animals and install tracking devices, to see where they go, how far they migrate and when they return?

Angus
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 07:02 PM
It is absolutely unacceptable to experiment on a human being against his will.

Even criminals, who have no rights or freedom to decide what to do on their own because they decided to throw it all away?

Mother Earth
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 07:04 PM
Even criminals, who have no rights or freedom to decide what to do on their own because they decided to throw it all away?
Yes, even criminals. Experimenting on them would be torture, and then we prove to be no better than them. Savagery characterizes them, not normal people.

Angus
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 07:06 PM
Yes, even criminals. Experimenting on them would be torture, and then we prove to be no better than them. Savagery characterizes them, not normal people.

As the old saying goes.. An eye for an eye.
If they want to murder, rape, etc, etc, they deserve to pay for it. The moment they pulled the trigger on the person they lost their rights.

Mother Earth
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 07:09 PM
As the old saying goes.. An eye for an eye.
If they want to murder, rape, etc, etc, they deserve to pay for it. The moment they pulled the trigger on the person they lost their rights.
Maybe when they murdered and raped they thought they were entitled to it too, or paying someone back for what they did, "an eye for an eye". No, I still don't think it's alright. I think they should pay, but not by being tortured.

Nachtengel
Monday, January 11th, 2010, 07:11 PM
Not all experimentation is torturous for the subject. In some cases, it might cure some diseases, etc.

Bleyer
Friday, January 15th, 2010, 12:44 AM
So no more dissection of frogs and other animals in medical school? How do you suppose students will learn then? I'd understand the concern about taking animals from the wild in great numbers, and disturbing the balance of the biosystem, but they do actually breed animals especially for the purpose of experimentation.

Mother Earth
Saturday, January 16th, 2010, 11:52 AM
I see it very wrong to use even criminals, yes, even them, for the purpose of experiments, even if they're not physically torturous. Have you ever heard of emotional torture? I guess you have... :oanieyes

Not to forget today it's very easy to be counted as a breaker of the law, seeing that even discrimination is illegal. It sort of reminds me of how the nazis thought of the Jews as criminals at their disposal, to use whenever they liked for experiments.

If we don't respect what is around us, we won't be respected by nature either...

noratmedicine
Thursday, April 1st, 2010, 11:08 PM
the main reason that animal experiments are unethical is because they do not benefit humans (or animals) www.navs.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navs .org) is a good site re this penicillin (gateway to antibiotics, the most important medicine for humans), here is what two of the three men awarded the nobel prize for its discovery had to say (from americans for medical advancement www.curedisease.com)..."To begin with we might question the role of mice based on statements by Flemming himself:
How fortunate we didn’t have these animal tests in the 1940’s, for penicillin would probably never been granted a license, and possibly the whole field of antibiotics might never have been realized. [7]
And from Florey:
Mice were used in the initial toxicity tests [by Florey and Chain] because of their small size, but what a lucky chance it was, for in this respect man is like the mouse and not the guinea-pig. If we had used guinea-pigs exclusively we should have said that penicillin was toxic, and we probably should not have proceeded to
try and overcome the difficulties of producing the substance for trial in man. [8] (Emphasis added)


re. vaccines polio research was delayed by 25 years because chimpanzees can be given polio only via the respiratory system, humans get it via the digestive system. animal derived vaccines harm humans, similar animal based setbacks for other vaccines.

Open-heart surgery is a classic example of surgery that was successful on dogs and fatal to humans. The procedure depends on the heart-lung machine, which tested well on dogs and killed the first human patients. It was later modified according to human clinical observation and is now used successfully every day.

stem cells, i presume you mean human stem cells, are useful as they are applicable to humans so the insurmountable problem of species difference which applies to all animal 'research' is overcome.

Please show a CAUSAL relationship between animal experimentation and an advancement in human health, not simply a casual one. ie animal exp. occurred, later there was an advancement in human health. Using this form of argument i could say that hula hoops or yo yo's caused space travel, ie one came before the other. retrospective and selective reference to particular animal experiments and failure to mention the failures (the majority of animal experiments) is also not meaningful.

human experiments are unnecessary as are animal experiments. to quote dr moniem a fadali of doctors and lawyers for responsible medicine 'animal experimentation inevitably leads to human experimentation'. this is beacuse animal experiments are not predictive for anything othr than their own species therefore when a new drug/procedure is tried on humans after animal trials it is an experiment. in the case of medical procedures death is a common result, trial and error in humans improves the procedure so that it works for humans but the animal experiments usually get the credit. today animal exp. are really a legal device, not a scientific one www.navs.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.navs .org) there are many good scientific anti a.e. sites formed by doctors ans scientists who acknowledge that animal exp. is not predictive for humans

placing tracking devices on wild animals to help them is ok i think,

some other good mostly medical sites showing the fraudulence of animal experimentation are www.curedisease.net (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cure disease.net) www.curedisease.com (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cure disease.com) www.mrmcmed.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrmc med.org) www.speakcampaigns.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spea kcampaigns.org) www.aavs.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aavs .org) www.pcrm.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pcrm .org)

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 01:56 PM
I am against involuntary experiments but lets examine the argument for using animals instead of humans.

All the arguments for, depend upon closeness to man. However these similarities are homologies not analogies ie. after admitting they are pretty much human enough for experimentation, one cannot deny that they are similar in relevant ways that make them effectively human. Teleost fish cannot feel physical pain though they may suffer in other ways; all tetrapods can so even frogs are as human in that regard as you and me.

Furthermore human bodies are closer to other human bodies than are those of even chimps. After justifying animal experiments with appeals to accuracy you cannot anymore condemn human experimentation without a logic fallacy.

Even ape rights fails to address these problems: shifting the goalposts does not explain why it is alright to experiment on macaques or tool-making capuchins, but not chimps. Other than making some arbitrary distinction based on genetic similarity. Now that transgenics is no longer sci-fi, appeals to common descent seem particularly sensible and human rights language might have unintended, very harmful consequences for beings with human brains (not to mention neural computers). The question is why the importance of "human" has not died down despite its problems.