Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Animal liberation front watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am against animal testing but after extensively studying the subject at university I have learned a lot about it and have this to say about animal experimentation in the UK. Animal experimentation will take place. It is illegal to market a medicine or food in most counties that hasn’t been through thorough testing, this includes testing on animals. Legislation in the UK and many countries in Northern Europe is set out so as to reduce suffering to a minimum. No animals are tested on unless absolutely necessary. Huntingdon Life Sciences and other such organisations test products and ingredients on animals. However, if it wasn’t for HLS companies would have to go abroad. In some countries little or no legislation exists to minimise suffering of laboratory animals.

    UK legislation states that if an experiment has already taken place then it cant be recreated by another company, the data must go into a database and information must be shared. There is a principle called the three R’s. This consists of Reduction (reducing the numbers of animals used), Refinement (making the animals as comfortable as possible) and replacement (using non-animal or alternative means of obtaining the information, eg computer models, chick embryos (with an under-developed nervous system), cell cultures etc). Unfortunately animal testing is still being used due to legislation.

    My point in all of this is that the animal liberation front are scaring companies away from using organisations such as HLS to laboratories abroad with little or no legislation for minimising suffering which will increase the overall suffering of animals. In no way do I support the testing of animals, but from a utilitarian point of view testing in the UK brings ‘the greater good for the greater number’.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I agree that this is wronge. My personal view on animal testing is that it has to carefully regulated to minimise animal suffering. However in some cases I do feel that animal testing is necissary. I think that some groups are far to extreme.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    My point in all of this is that the animal liberation front are scaring companies away from using organisations such as HLS to laboratories abroad with little or no legislation for minimising suffering which will increase the overall suffering of animals. In no way do I support the testing of animals, but from a utilitarian point of view testing in the UK brings ‘the greater good for the greater number’.
    Agreed, ALF need to find other methods to further their objective. Also, we live in a strange world where people will do almost anything for money, would it be acceptable for a company to offer a large cash sum to people if they agree to undergo experiments? (not the type that are currently legal) isnt this just a way of cutting out the middle man? (or cat, dog, rabbit etcc.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Even though I don't agree with animal testing, I know that it is needed for some illness and it better here than other countries. I also think it is really unfair how these people target scientists and thier homes. It's thier job for goodness sake, in the end these people are trying to help others.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Depending on what kind of test it was, id go for it. For example,if it was something painful, but no permanent damage was caused, and it was worth the money, I'd do it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Animal lives are expendable. I see no ethical problems with using them for scientific research and the furthering of medical / cosmetic technology.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We live in such a hippocritical age.
    We are told by the media, by over politcally correct influential members of society that we much treat all equal and it is wrong to be racist and prejudice. That compaines MUST by law have a minimum number of employees from an ethnically diverse background and such forth.

    However this line is swiftly drawn when we cross species, why?
    Why is it morally or ethically correct to test upon an animal than a human as the common practice?
    Because 'its against their human rights' the looney liberals scream. But what about Animal Rights?
    What has an animal done to deserve being treated, in a manner other than that which would usual fit its natural one?
    Can't we test upon people? I know we do on a minimal scale but i mean seriously, a significant amount. Why not test upon rapist and such like?

    Shouldn't since we are so equal according to the 'equal rights for all' groups be adopting biocentric egalitarianism in which we have duties to all
    living things? (Taylor)

    To those who use the case of how cancer specifically needs to be cured, then you must realise that only 10% of the 2.3million animals used in 2002 animal 'experiments' were in the interests of cancer research!
    How can the system seem to be pro Speciesism” - ignoring the interests of a being just because it belongs to another species - isnt this wrong, just like racism and sexism?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Animal lives are expendable. I see no ethical problems with using them for scientific research and the furthering of medical / cosmetic technology.
    Who are you to say that animals are expendable? What authority do you have to say this? Humans are animals too, do you include us in your statement?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    Who are you to say that animals are expendable? What authority do you have to say this? Humans are animals too, do you include us in your statement?
    IMO, animals should only be used in medical testing where there is no viable alternative. cosmetic testing does not justify the loss of any lives, Jordan is always on hand if things need to get messy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    IMO, animals should only be used in medical testing where there is no viable alternative. cosmetic testing does not justify the loss of any lives,
    I agree with you. I think that animals should not be tested on for things like cosmetics ect but there is medical research which is necissary I think that this should be carefully regulated but when looking for vacinations for some dreadful viruses/bacteria or looking for ways to prevent and cure terminal a dehbilitating illnesses I think that some animal tests are necissary. Now I really care about animals I have been a vegitarian for years now and I don't think that their lives are worthless I think that the are individuals who feel pain and have personalities. However I will always value human life above the life of other species. I think that this is a natural reaction and disagree with untested medicines and treatments being used on humans. I think it is horrible that some Animal rights groups are willing to kill people. I hope the even more legislation will be made in the future which means that test animals are treated as humanely as possible.

    What bugs me sometimes is how much information there is in the media about this topic where as the treatment of animals on their way and in the slaughter house is ignored. Animals suffer in both places yet only one gets the media attention. I think that both should get equal attention from animal rights groups.

    I have grown to accept that whether I like it or not both animal testing and the eating of meat will go on so all I can do is campaign to try and make it as humane as possible.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Animal lives are expendable. I see no ethical problems with using them for scientific research and the furthering of medical / cosmetic technology.
    I agree pretty much with this... Not so sure about the cosmetics thing though - to me if some stupid female can't accept that she's probably way more attractive than she gives herself credit for, then she deserves some nasty allergic reaction.

    That aside, I go to feed ducks a lot, I always chase cats if they are about to pounce on birds, I swerve to avoid dead animals on the road and cried once when I came across a bird which had one of its wings ripped of and was lying screeching in pain in a rural field in Ireland. I had to try to kill it by throwing a big rock on it. I couldn't look so first time I missed. I hated myself for it but I knew it would have wanted me to do it.

    I do have feelings for animals. I am also a medical student now and have feelings for people. If humane experiments can be carried out (e.g. if something has to die let it have analgesia) to find new drugs which could save human lives, then I view it as laudable and, indeed, necessary.

    That said, I'd never actually do it myself...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Homegrownkitten)
    Who are you to say that animals are expendable? What authority do you have to say this? Humans are animals too, do you include us in your statement?
    its a forum. he's got an opinion, others agree with it. who are you to say animals arent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    its a forum. he's got an opinion, others agree with it. who are you to say animals arent.
    and she's got a right to contend that opinion. i dare say mr white meant the comment as a trigger for argument, and not to display a true disregard for all animal lives in the name of any cosmetic/scientific whim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by polthegael)
    I agree pretty much with this...
    (Original post by polthegael)
    If humane experiments can be carried out (e.g. if something has to die let it have analgesia) to find new drugs which could save human lives, then I view it as laudable and, indeed, necessary.
    i don't see how you can 'pretty much agree' with a comment that says animal lives are 'expendable' and then turn it around to form a completely different opinion.

    it would have been better not to quote it in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    and she's got a right to contend that opinion..
    but she didnt,

    "What authority do you have to say this"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I agree with you. I think that animals....
    i second that , apart from the "individuals who feel pain and have personalities" crap in the middle.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    but she didnt,

    "What authority do you have to say this"
    it doesn't seen an unreasonable comment to make about such an extreme-minority opinion. "Who are you to say that..." just asks in a subtle way why does he think their lives are expendable and the answer can be used to assess whether the comment was made in jest.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    but she didnt,

    "What authority do you have to say this"
    Deary, she meant it in an arguable sense.

    Not that he shouldn't have this opinion - she was merely trying to use a tactic to argue against it silly.

    As in, "How can we as human beings be in the position to use animals and treat them as our own? Humans are animals too" It wasn't a personal attack from what I can see.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adhsur)
    Deary, she meant it in an arguable sense.

    Not that he shouldn't have this opinion - she was merely trying to use a tactic to argue against it silly.

    As in, "How can we as human beings be in the position to use animals and treat them as our own? Humans are animals too" It wasn't a personal attack from what I can see.
    in the same sort of way that 'deary' can imply a condescending "why on earth would you consider anything different?" tactical reply? :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by timeofyourlife)
    it doesn't seen an unreasonable comment to make about such an extreme-minority opinion. "Who are you to say that..." just asks in a subtle way why does he think their lives are expendable and the answer can be used to assess whether the comment was made in jest.
    its a forum, who are you to say anything? theyre all opinions. the tone was quite clear. subtle? please.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.