Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


Vivisection: Right or Wrong?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
14 replies to this topic

#1    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 06 June 2005 - 01:27 PM

Debate suggestion by Walken.

Vivisection (aka animal testing): Is it right or wrong? Should we be using animals for our own gain, or are we needlessly torturing innocent animals?

I am looking for 2 participants for this formal, 1 vs 1 debate. Each participant will post one introduction, five body posts and one conclusion.

Any questions, PM me. thumbsup.gif


#2    greychupa

greychupa

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 731 posts
  • Joined:20 Aug 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:E-City

  • *Oscar Wilde quote goes here

Posted 06 June 2005 - 03:02 PM

I certainly am against vivisection, and i would present myself as a candidate for the debate.


#3    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 06 June 2005 - 05:01 PM

Great!

greychupa will be debating against vivisection; and we are currently looking for one more participant to debate for it.

thumbsup.gif


#4    Deception

Deception

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 199 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2005
  • Location:North Carolina

  • Am a LEGAL Mexican-American Citizen. So stop trying to deport me......please.

Posted 14 June 2005 - 04:45 PM

I will debate for vivisection.

I don't know how many crazy nights and messed up days this has been going on................but i like it.

#5    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 14 June 2005 - 10:14 PM

Great!!!

greychupawill debate against vivisection;
Deception will debate for it.

You can begin when you're ready!

Edited by Disinterested, 14 June 2005 - 10:15 PM.


#6    Deception

Deception

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 199 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2005
  • Location:North Carolina

  • Am a LEGAL Mexican-American Citizen. So stop trying to deport me......please.

Posted 15 June 2005 - 01:34 AM

Introduction.

Vivisection, or better known as animal testing is a necessary for the progression of medical science.

Lets look at all the positive things that has come from animal testing.

Antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial infections.

Vaccines for smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, polio, measles, Lyme disease, hepatitis B and chicken pox, gene therapy, Insulin to control diabetes

Anti-coagulants, anesthesia, and neuromuscular blocking agents;

Chemotherapy for cancer patients;

Pacemaker implants to treat cardiac patients;

Discovery of the HIV virus and development of drugs to control the progression of AIDS;

Organ transplantation techniques.

source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=15

Now lets take a look at all of these medical break through that where made because of animal testing. There is no telling how many millions of people have been saved with these vaccines, techniques, and technologies. And many more diseases that could be cured in part because of animal testing.

And it's just not us that have been advancing medically o no. Animal testing also helps animals too.

Over 80 medicines and vaccines that where develop for humans are now used to heal pets and livestock. These include vaccines for rabies and distemper, treatments for heart-worm, therapies for cholera in hogs and preventive techniques for tuberculosis in cattle are now all available because of animal research.

source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=1

Also over 94% do not feel pain, or are given analgesics or anesthesia. However 6% do feel pain, but most of this is in the research of pain research. Pain research is dealing with arthritis, headaches, cancer and angina.

Source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=1

Now lets take a look back at how animal testing has helped in the development of dozens of medications and vaccines. Not for humans alone, but animals too. As i said before there is no telling how many people and animals have lived longer and better lives, because of animal testing.

Thank you.



I don't know how many crazy nights and messed up days this has been going on................but i like it.

#7    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:39 PM

I've just been informed that greychupa is unable to continue with the debate.

We are now looking for one participant to debate against vivisection.


#8    about

about

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:40 PM

Hi! Umm can I plz participate in this debate AGAINST vivisection since greychupa has resigned? If so, thanks a lot! I've always wanted to debate on vivisection; I am totally against it. Thanks!

EDIT: If I am allowed to debate in this, I will be posting tomorrow since I'm a bit too tired to concentrate now :-P sorry

Edited by Galor, 19 June 2005 - 08:42 PM.


#9    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 19 June 2005 - 08:42 PM

grin2.gif

Hi Galor!

Thanks for being so willing to participate. You can post when you're ready.

Good luck to both of you! thumbsup.gif


#10    about

about

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 June 2005 - 09:45 PM

Yey! I've got an extension on my bedtime! grin2.gif Hopefully I'll finish this before 11:00pm GMT!

Body post I


QUOTE
Vivisection, or better known as animal testing is a necessary for the progression of medical science.


Or is it? Advanced computer models, cell culture and many other (and 'more reliable', as I will explain later) alternatives are available. Which, although more time consuming, and maybe not as readily available, are much more ethical, humane and, overall better alternatives, yet furthering the reason that animal experiments (vivisection) are completely unnecessary.

QUOTE
Lets look at all the positive things that has come from animal testing.

Antibiotics for the treatment of bacterial infections.

Vaccines for smallpox, tetanus, diphtheria, polio, measles, Lyme disease, hepatitis B and chicken pox, gene therapy, Insulin to control diabetes

Anti-coagulants, anesthesia, and neuromuscular blocking agents;

Chemotherapy for cancer patients;

Pacemaker implants to treat cardiac patients;

Discovery of the HIV virus and development of drugs to control the progression of AIDS;

Organ transplantation techniques.

source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=15


At what cost? And I meant ethically, financially and in time. 10,000's of animals have been tortured, maimed, blinded, mutilated and murdered to find out this ... how can you justify this? Also, just imagine how much this would of cost! All of this money wasted could've been spent on, say for example, tissue culture, a much more reliable alternative to vivisection. This not only has the plus of being more reliable, but being much more humane as well. And what's to say these would've been discovered without the need for animal experiments? They would have been discovered much quicker, efficiently and humanely.

QUOTE
Now lets take a look at all of these medical break through that where made because of animal testing. There is no telling how many millions of people have been saved with these vaccines, techniques, and technologies. And many more diseases that could be cured in part because of animal testing.

And it's just not us that have been advancing medically o no. Animal testing also helps animals too.

Over 80 medicines and vaccines that where develop for humans are now used to heal pets and livestock. These include vaccines for rabies and distemper, treatments for heart-worm, therapies for cholera in hogs and preventive techniques for tuberculosis in cattle are now all available because of animal research.

source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=1


Thats like saying "In WWII, when the Germans and Japanese were doing human vivisection, it was quite ok because it was helping other humans." if you get what I mean. What makes it right for this to be carried out on animals yet not on humans? Please explain that in your next post.

QUOTE
Also over 94% do not feel pain, or are given analgesics or anesthesia. However 6% do feel pain, but most of this is in the research of pain research. Pain research is dealing with arthritis, headaches, cancer and angina.

Source: http://www.amprogress.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=1


How do you know those statistics are right?I myself am very sure they are wrong; from what I've researched and heard around, it'd seem more sound if those statistics were reversed. I'll get back to those in my next post; they don't sound very right to me.

QUOTE
Now lets take a look back at how animal testing has helped in the development of dozens of medications and vaccines. Not for humans alone, but animals too. As i said before there is no telling how many people and animals have lived longer and better lives, because of animal testing.


That's a very cheery way of putting it; I don't want to go into details, but most animal tests are grossly cruel and sadistic. Gassing dogs to find out how toxic a subject is, dropping eyeliner into rabbits eyes until they go blind, and, as hard as it is to believe, force-feeding cannabis to young rats to see how their brains develop. And, hard to believe as well to most people, these DON'T help us.

Why? They're COMPLETELY unreliable. The major biological differences in animals and humans make these results totally unreliable, as proved by the Thalidomide incident, where a substance labelled 'safe' by years of experimental testing, caused pregnant women to have deformed babies.

I look forward to your response.

Galor





#11    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 19 June 2005 - 10:57 PM

Galor, you need to post an introduction before starting with the body posts. original.gif


#12    Deception

Deception

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 199 posts
  • Joined:21 Jan 2005
  • Location:North Carolina

  • Am a LEGAL Mexican-American Citizen. So stop trying to deport me......please.

Posted 19 June 2005 - 11:27 PM

QUOTE
Or is it? Advanced computer models, cell culture and many other (and 'more reliable', as I will explain later) alternatives are available. Which, although more time consuming, and maybe not as readily available, are much more ethical, humane and, overall better alternatives, yet furthering the reason that animal experiments (vivisection) are completely unnecessary.


If we where to abolish animal testing and started one of these "more reliable" alternatives it would be a huge blow to medical research.

None of these alternatives have the ability to investigate all the different systems of which a living animal has. A computer model cannot be sure what a new vaccine is made to work on the respiratory system, what kind of a side effect it will have on all the other systems. But an animal can tell you that, because it has all of these systems. It is

QUOTE
At what cost? And I meant ethically, financially and in time. 10,000's of animals have been tortured, maimed, blinded, mutilated and murdered to find out this ... how can you justify this? Also, just imagine how much this would of cost! All of this money wasted could've been spent on, say for example, tissue culture, a much more reliable alternative to vivisection. This not only has the plus of being more reliable, but being much more humane as well. And what's to say these would've been discovered without the need for animal experiments? They would have been discovered much quicker, efficiently and humanely.


The fact is all of these very important medical break though where made, because of animal testing. Now say that these man of miracles didn't use animals. What would they have used? They would have no evidence that a new drug they had made could have been used for a vaccine of a disease.

Why you ask? Tissue culture cannot give us a definitive assessment as to how substances will interact in complex organisms. Compounds must be tested on living systems, made up of interrelated organs and organ systems.

Ethically it is very good price. We kill animals all the time. Hunting, fishing, poultry, cattle, destruction of habitat, and pollution. And those animals that are killed are little or no benefit to the human race or themselves, But the animals used in vivisection saved MILLIONS of lives. Now if something is more Ethical then saving millions of lives I'd like to see it.

QUOTE
Thats like saying "In WWII, when the Germans and Japanese were doing human vivisection, it was quite ok because it was helping other humans." if you get what I mean. What makes it right for this to be carried out on animals yet not on humans? Please explain that in your next post.


Test are done on humans. Clinical test are done on every new medical break though. This is where they test compounds on humans with certain disease. So you could call this human testing. Though Animals all try the same test before humans. So humans and animals are both being tested.

QUOTE
How do you know those statistics are right?I myself am very sure they are wrong; from what I've researched and heard around, it'd seem more sound if those statistics were reversed. I'll get back to those in my next post; they don't sound very right to me.


How do you know they ain't right? I provided a link to a website that states these numbers as fact. You haven't provided a link, so you are just speculating.

QUOTE
That's a very cheery way of putting it; I don't want to go into details, but most animal tests are grossly cruel and sadistic. Gassing dogs to find out how toxic a subject is, dropping eyeliner into rabbits eyes until they go blind, and, as hard as it is to believe, force-feeding cannabis to young rats to see how their brains develop. And, hard to believe as well to most people, these DON'T help us.


I will need a link to this claims, but i will defend them anyways.

The gassing of dogs. Now what if we didn't gas them dogs? Say that the substance that was going to be used to gas that dog is never tested. Now a company finds that this certain substance is a great insecticide. Now they ship it out to hundreds of farms all across the world, but since that substance is never tested on a dog they don't know that it is deadly not only to insects, but also to mammals. Thousands of lives would be taken. Lets not forget that substance called DDT. Animal testing found out that it was the cause for the birds numbers spiraling down.

Dropping eyeliner into rabbits eyes is an important test. If we didn't do such a test a harmful substance could have been in that eyeliner. Now say that go distributed. Can you say thousands of women without there eyesight. Then can you hear the lawsuits? This is what animal testing prevents.

And the force-feeding of mice cannabis to see it effects on it's brain. Well how would we even know that cannabis is harmful if we didn't test it on animals. It would be a bunch of speculation. No one would know the facts.

QUOTE
Why? They're COMPLETELY unreliable. The major biological differences in animals and humans make these results totally unreliable, as proved by the Thalidomide incident, where a substance labeled 'safe' by years of experimental testing, caused pregnant women to have deformed babies.


Animals testing is not unreliable. All living organism our similar. No other model, tissue culture, cell culture, or any other alternative can predicate how a substance will interacts on a living organism. But animal testing can.

source: http://www.amprogress.org/

I don't know how many crazy nights and messed up days this has been going on................but i like it.

#13    about

about

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Joined:16 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 21 June 2005 - 07:39 PM

Oops  blink.gif  soz about that...I kind of got carried away  blush.gif I willl post it now, if thats ok  blush.gif . Again, sorry!

Introduction

In everyday life, most of the products we use, whether they be some pills prescribed by our doctor, that delicious fluridic toothpaste, and even cosmetical
things such as eyeshadow, have been tested on animals to see if they're safe for us to use. So what? you might say. What does it matter? The gross amount of
cruelty and suffering involved. The money from YOUR taxes being spent on it. And, to make it all worse, the complete unreliability of these tests. I will be
debating against vivisection, and why it should continue. It is an unethical, barbaric practice which costs 1000 innocent lives every 30 seconds. (source:

http://www.vernoncoleman.com/main.htm)

Body Post II


QUOTE
QUOTE
Or is it? Advanced computer models, cell culture and many other (and 'more reliable', as I will explain later) alternatives are available.
Which, although more time consuming, and maybe not as readily available, are much more ethical, humane and, overall better alternatives, yet furthering the
reason that animal experiments (vivisection) are completely unnecessary.


If we where to abolish animal testing and started one of these "more reliable" alternatives it would be a huge blow to medical research.
None of these alternatives have the ability to investigate all the different systems of which a living animal has. A computer model cannot be sure what a new
vaccine is made to work on the respiratory system, what kind of a side effect it will have on all the other systems. But an animal can tell you that, because
it has all of these systems. It is


First of all, you said it'd be a huge blow to the medical industry if we started using these 'much more' reliable alternatives. That doesn't make sense. But
wait; you say that none of these alternatives can investigate the biological systems of animals. What about stem cells? The major alternative to vivisection;
you can get much more reliable results using this. Also, btw, again I state, animal tests are completely unreliable, putting us in grave danger. There are
major differences between , say for example, a rabbit and a human. And even in our closest relatives, the primates, there are differences, such as humans'
skeletal structure designed so that we can stand erect, and our brains being 2-3 times larger than that of Great Apes, and we also have a bigger cerebral
cortex. But mainly, ethical speaking, why should an animal have to be tested on to benefit us humans? Why should an animal have to suffer and die for us
(and, in a few cases, their fellow animals)? In essence; they didn't sign a contract saying that they were willing to undergo these tests; they were just
either taken out of the wild or bred for it.

What I don't understand is why it is legal and 'perfectly OK, because its helping us advance in medical research' to starve, burn, electrocute, poison,
deprive of sleep, forcefeed dangerous narcotics, deafen, blind, wound, gorge eyeballs out, cut their eye muscles, operate on WITHOUT ANAETHESIA,
operate on at all!, given leprosy, TB, cancer and a heap of other diseases, addicted to drugs and then sharply withdrawn from them, their babys selfishly and
cruelly deprived from their mothers to watch their unnatural development, force to inhale smoke, have electrodes implanted into their brain and finally to
kill animals.

You get the picture: this isn't right, and that's why vivisection is wrong!
QUOTE
QUOTE
At what cost? And I meant ethically, financially and in time. 10,000's of animals have been tortured, maimed, blinded, mutilated and murdered to find
out this ... how can you justify this? Also, just imagine how much this would of cost! All of this money wasted could've been spent on, say for example,
tissue culture, a much more reliable alternative to vivisection. This not only has the plus of being more reliable, but being much more humane as well. And
what's to say these would've been discovered without the need for animal experiments? They would have been discovered much quicker, efficiently and

humanely.



The fact is all of these very important medical break though where made, because of animal testing. Now say that these man of miracles didn't use animals.
What would they have used? They would have no evidence that a new drug they had made could have been used for a vaccine of a disease.

Why you ask? Tissue culture cannot give us a definitive assessment as to how substances will interact in complex organisms. Compounds must be tested on
living systems, made up of interrelated organs and organ systems.
Ethically it is very good price. We kill animals all the time. Hunting, fishing, poultry, cattle, destruction of habitat, and pollution. And those animals
that are killed are little or no benefit to the human race or themselves, But the animals used in vivisection saved MILLIONS of lives. Now if something is
more Ethical then saving millions of lives I'd like to see it.


Replying to the first paragraph of your response ,I don't see why many animals should have to suffer because it will find that 'all important' vaccine. Maybe
these vaccines have saved millions of lives. And yes, that's a good thing. But what about the nameless, unloved and forgotten animals who were sadistically
tortured and brutally killed in order for this discovery? Is it worth it?  What is more important? Human or animal lives? They're of no more importance than
each other: equality. So, the vital questions, Why should these animals have to suffer and be murdered to save some humans who have caught a fatal disease
(through no fault of the animals, of course!), and Who says that humans have the right to do this?
Vivisection is no better than concentration camps; no,
actually worse; the terrible things that go on in animal labs far excede that of even those death camps. I shall explain these later.

Regarding your second paragraph, yes, tissue culture can't show us how whatever will react with a complex organism. And animals can. But then you've gone on
to say that they 'MUST' be tested on living systems. What about stem cells? How about Post-Marketing Drug Surveillance? Why not use these instead of
mercilessly and viciously torturing animals?

And finally, re'ing your 3rd paragraph, I can quite rightly and loudly say that everything there is completely WRONG. Ethically it is NOT a good price! Maybe
millions of lives have been saved! But what about the millions who may have died due to the unreliability of animal testing? The countless animals who died
in these tests unnecessarily? And I think it is already way too bad enough the amount of animals who are killed by humans everyday; why do we have to add to
this death count via vivisection? And the last thing you said, that you'd like to see something more ethical than that. Anything, and I mean anything, is
more ethical than vivisection. Vivisection isn't even life exchange, which is very bad itself; an animal dieing to save a human life: its just animals
dieing. Yes, it has produced vaccines and advanced medical research in the past; but at terrible costs. But let us move on; vivisection is a ruthless and truly
evil practice; there is no excuse for it.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Thats like saying "In WWII, when the Germans and Japanese were doing human vivisection, it was quite ok because it was helping other humans." if you
get what I mean. What makes it right for this to be carried out on animals yet not on humans? Please explain that in your next post.



Test are done on humans. Clinical test are done on every new medical break though. This is where they test compounds on humans with certain disease.
So you could call this human testing. Though Animals all try the same test before humans. So humans and animals are both being tested.


Yes. But these tests are only done on the human if they are willing. And, of course, the tests are done of the low-life and less important 'animals' before
they're tested on us, the almight and superior 'humans'. And even then, they aren't tests that'll blind, cripple or kill us, like are carried out on animals.
Why should animals have to go through this, just for humans (and maybe their fellow animals)?

QUOTE
QUOTE
How do you know those statistics are right?I myself am very sure they are wrong; from what I've researched and heard around, it'd seem more
sound if those statistics were reversed. I'll get back to those in my next post; they don't sound very right to me.



How do you know they ain't right? I provided a link to a website that states these numbers as fact. You haven't provided a link, so you are just speculating.



All I can say is those statistics sound horribly wrong (partially because they are wrong). And also, I guarrantee you 100% that all animals in vivisection
will feel pain at one point, whether that be the ridiculous amount of stress they experience from the solitary confinement in their cramped cages, or while
they are being tortured. Btw, here are some statistics of my own:

A year or two ago, a renowned doctor called Vernon Coleman carried out a survey on 500 other doctors on the stance on vivisection. Here are the results:

1. Laboratory experiments performed on animals can be misleading because of anatomical and physiological differences between animals and humans. 88% agreed.

2. I would like to see scientists trying harder to find alternatives to animals for testing drugs and cosmetics. 81% agreed.

3. Patients would suffer fewer side effects if new drugs were tested more extensively on human cell and tissue cultures. 51% agreed.

4. Too many experiments on animals are performed. 69% agreed.

Source: Fighting For Animals (book) by Dr Vernon Coleman.

In all 4 questions, the majority voted AGAINST vivisection! Here are a few more statistics:

In the UK alone, in 2003 2791781 animals were murdered via vivisection. 2791781. Thats reaching towards 3 million! And that's in the UK
alone! How many animals must die before people realise the barbarity of vivisection?

And, going back to your statistics that 96% of animals used in vivisection don't feel pain is atrocious and very cruel. They are quite possibly the most
mutated results ever. And, hopefully you will understand why I think that after you've read the next bit:
QUOTE
QUOTE
That's a very cheery way of putting it; I don't want to go into details, but most animal tests are grossly cruel and sadistic. Gassing dogs to find
out how toxic a subject is, dropping eyeliner into rabbits eyes until they go blind, and, as hard as it is to believe, force-feeding cannabis to young rats
to see how their brains develop. And, hard to believe as well to most people, these DON'T help us.



I will need a link to this claims, but i will defend them anyways.

The gassing of dogs. Now what if we didn't gas them dogs? Say that the substance that was going to be used to gas that dog is never tested. Now a company
finds that this certain substance is a great insecticide. Now they ship it out to hundreds of farms all across the world, but since that substance is never
tested on a dog they don't know that it is deadly not only to insects, but also to mammals. Thousands of lives would be taken. Lets not forget that substance
called DDT. Animal testing found out that it was the cause for the birds numbers spiraling down.

Dropping eyeliner into rabbits eyes is an important test. If we didn't do such a test a harmful substance could have been in that eyeliner. Now say that go
distributed. Can you say thousands of women without there eyesight. Then can you hear the lawsuits? This is what animal testing prevents.

And the force-feeding of mice cannabis to see it effects on it's brain. Well how would we even know that cannabis is harmful if we didn't test it on animals.
It would be a bunch of speculation. No one would know the facts.


This is all out of my general, own knowledge. I didn't explain in detail because I wanted to keep it short, and I was going to explain examples of
vivisection later. But I can see it'd help me more if I explained it all now, so I will.

When I said 'gassing of dogs', I was talking about the LD50 test. Lethal Dose 50 per c%nt. In this test, a group of animals, whether they be mice to
dogs, are given a certain substance. This substance is given to them every so often, eg every 4 hours maybe. This continues until 50% of the animals die.
This is done to find out how toxic a substance is. Btw, this substance can be aplied orally, via the mouth, via injection of through InHaLaTiOn. Thats what I
meant by gassing dogs. How is this right? What about the many alternatives, such as chemistry, that could be used instead of this test?

The eye-draize test, where rabbits eyes have eyeliner dropped into is unreliable and evil. This continues until the rabbit is blinded. Why not use an corneal
cultures? They're better and so much more reliable. Here are a list of differences between rabiits eyes and those of a human: (source: http://www.curedisease.com/Perspectives/vo...%20Draize.html)

# The rabbit epithelial (surface) layer is 10 times more permeable to hydrophilic solutes than the human eye.
# Bowman's membrane (the next layer) is six times thicker in man.
# The rabbit's threshold of pain in the eye is much higher than that of humans, so irritating substances are not washed away as readily.
# Rabbits have a less efficient tearing system than humans.
# Unlike people, rabbits have a nictitating (winking) membrane (third eyelid), which has an unclear effect on elimination of foreign materials.
# Humans develop corneal epithelial vacuoles in response to some toxic substances, but rabbits do not.
# The rabbit mean corneal thickness is .37 mm, while that of man is .51 mm.
# Rabbits are more susceptible to damage (alkaline) materials, because the pH of their aqueous humor is .82 compared to .71-.73 for man.
# The cornea represents 25% of the rabbit eye surface area, but only 7% of the surface area in man.

You get the picture: Vivisections unreliable and unneeded. And the cruelty involved makes them immoral. Vivisection needs to be stopped. Soon!

And about cannabis. I think it's ridiculous. And I'm sure you'll agree with me! Who gave vivisectors the right to forcefeed cannabis to these mice? And
no-body would be speculating on cannabis; everybody knows it damages your system and your brain. Why do we have to carry out useless and grossly sadistic tests on these poor animals?

QUOTE
QUOTE
Why? They're COMPLETELY unreliable. The major biological differences in animals and humans make these results totally unreliable, as proved by the Thalidomide incident, where a substance labeled 'safe' by years of experimental testing, caused pregnant women to have deformed babies.



Animals testing is not unreliable. All living organism our similar. No other model, tissue culture, cell culture, or any other alternative can predicate how
a substance will interacts on a living organism. But animal testing can.


Wrong. Animal testing is extremely unreliable, and putting our lives at risk. Not all living organisms are similar! There's a big difference between an
elephant and a shark. What about stem cells? They can be developed into organs which give much more reliable results than animal testing! Yeah, they cost a
hell lot of money and take a long time, but its worth it in the long run.

And remember Thalidomide.

Vivisection is cruel, unreliable, evil and barbaric. It needs to be stopped. Vivisection is wrong, and there is no denying that. Unless, of course, you think to starve, burn, electrocute, poison, deprive of sleep, forcefeed dangerous narcotics, deafen, blind, wound, gorge eyeballs out, cut their eye muscles, operate on WITHOUT ANAETHESIA, operate on at all!, given leprosy, TB, cancer and a heap of other diseases, addicted to drugs and then sharply withdrawn from them, their babys selfishly and cruelly deprived from their mothers to watch their unnatural development, force to inhale smoke, have electrodes implanted into their brain and finally to kill animals. wink2.gif And, in the process, possibly kill many human lives in the process due to the unreliability


#14    Lottie

Lottie

    The Nappy Ninja !!

  • Member
  • 7,516 posts
  • Joined:13 Oct 2003
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • "I like long walks, especially when they are taken by people who annoy me." - Noel Coward

Posted 02 July 2005 - 01:12 PM

Deception, your response please original.gif .


#15    Disinterested

Disinterested

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,740 posts
  • Joined:11 May 2004

Posted 04 July 2005 - 03:43 PM

Deception has informed me that he is unable to continue in this debate.

Galor is now the winner by default.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users