BAN ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS IN EU - VOTE NOW !

[optimistic]

Surgeons can (and many do) start with cadavers and move on (under supervision) to live humans.

You need to read Dr Greek's interview, start to understand that their may be an argument against the need for animals in (past, present, and most certainly future) human medical science.

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet, and many people will suffer from their own stupidity in the face of science (animal fat is likely what would bring on that cardio disease that you speak of).

I respect your opinion but, to be honest, it's irrelevant. Society demands health care and EU governments pump trillions of euros into it. It's a fact of life and I seriously doubt whether the European parliament will listen to the demands of a web-based petition. We can argue until we're blue in the face but that's cold hard reality. If you wanted to make a difference maybe you should focus on improving education programs of animal ethics in science even further (I accept that not all scientists are as ethical as others). You won't find people like me arguing against that.

[Android Bishop]

Surgeons can (and many do) start with cadavers and move on (under supervision) to live humans.

You need to read Dr Greek's interview, start to understand that their may be an argument against the need for animals in (past, present, and most certainly future) human medical science.

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet, and many people will suffer from their own stupidity in the face of science (animal fat is likely what would bring on that cardio disease that you speak of).

I respect your opinion but, to be honest, it's irrelevant. Society demands health care and EU governments pump trillions of euros into it. It's a fact of life and I seriously doubt whether the European parliament will listen to the demands of a web-based petition. We can argue until we're blue in the face but that's cold hard reality. If you wanted to make a difference maybe you should focus on improving education programs of animal ethics in science even further (I accept that not all scientists are as ethical as others). You won't find people like me arguing against that.

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

[Kodama]

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet,

See now, this is were i start to get a little irritated.
This is both untrue, as well as disrespectful to the animals that have died to keep you alive.[/quote]

And how do you know my history?[/quote]
Because you are alive and presumably healthy in 2009.
Care to elaborate?[/quote]

Because:

A- People tend to live until something happens

B- You assume that any medical procedure or chemical substance that I will ever be treated with was benefited in any way from animal experimentation.

It's a popular assumption - animals may have been present, but so may have white lab coats. Does it matter what brand of lab coat was worn or whether it was white?

Were the animals present because they proved that the drug was effective, or were they present because law required it, the company in question wanted to avoid lawsuit, or because they could not obtain funding as easily without them, or simply because it has become a manner of doing business within this (very profitable) industry (even an industry within an industry) and contrary thoughts are unpopular?

[mickey disco]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

You certainly have a high opinion of yourself and your own intellect, even though you still haven't properly addressed the points I raised earlier. Why don't you tell everyone what qualifications and knowledge you have in this field (we already know that you've heard of PubMed, congratulations), and then we can judge whether the other poster or you is an "asshole with an opinion"?

[Kodama]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

Ok then, care to explain, scientifically, why human children are not used for invasive research in matters that may aid other human children?

And, these ethics will continue to be regarded as irrelevant as long as they are unpopular. Same as athiesm, abolition, the research of human cavers that led to the first human medical breakthroughs, etc...

The fact that many people are missing here is that our abuse of animals is hurting us in many areas, and is very integral to our own self destruction.

[scott nathaniel]

Surgeons can (and many do) start with cadavers and move on (under supervision) to live humans.

You need to read Dr Greek's interview, start to understand that their may be an argument against the need for animals in (past, present, and most certainly future) human medical science.

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet, and many people will suffer from their own stupidity in the face of science (animal fat is likely what would bring on that cardio disease that you speak of).

I respect your opinion but, to be honest, it's irrelevant. Society demands health care and EU governments pump trillions of euros into it. It's a fact of life and I seriously doubt whether the European parliament will listen to the demands of a web-based petition. We can argue until we're blue in the face but that's cold hard reality. If you wanted to make a difference maybe you should focus on improving education programs of animal ethics in science even further (I accept that not all scientists are as ethical as others). You won't find people like me arguing against that.

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

Emotions will cloud reason. So how do you overcome the moral dilemma of essentially raisng the life expentancy of humanity, knowing full well that that is a detriment to humans, other animals, and the earth. You're going to have to get a degree in philosphy with a focus on ethics to asnwer this
see you in a few years

[Homebelly]

Because:

A- People tend to live until something happens

B- You assume that any medical procedure or chemical substance that I will ever be treated with was benefited in any way from animal experimentation.

It's a popular assumption - animals may have been present, but so may have white lab coats. Does it matter what brand of lab coat was worn or whether it was white?

Were the animals present because they proved that the drug was effective, or were they present because law required it, the company in question wanted to avoid lawsuit, or because they could not obtain funding as easily without them, or simply because it has become a manner of doing business within this (very profitable) industry (even an industry within an industry) and contrary thoughts are unpopular?

Stop evading.
You still haven't backed up your original statement.

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet,

I'm calling bull shit on this.
I could care less about your assumptions.
I want the facts.
How have you managed to stay a live and presumably fit and healthy in 2009 with out the benefits of animal testing?

[Jarvisimon]

i personally don't mind animal experiments but my dog smokes 40 a day and it's costing me a fortune!!

[Kodama]

How have you managed to stay a live and presumably fit and healthy in 2009 with out the benefits of animal testing?

I breathe, eat, eliminate, and sleep. Life goes on.

[Android Bishop]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

Ok then, care to explain, scientifically, why human children are not used for invasive research in matters that may aid other human children?

And, these ethics will continue to be regarded as irrelevant as long as they are unpopular. Same as athiesm, abolition, the research of human cavers that led to the first human medical breakthroughs, etc...

The fact that many people are missing here is that our abuse of animals is hurting us in many areas, and is very integral to our own self destruction.

LOl, explain scientifically? Ok, scientifically its against the law. That scientific enough for you?

Scientifically the next best thing have are chimps, which are the genetically closest animal to a human we've got as a model to test things on in later trials. If it is something we are planning on applying to humans, we see if its safe for chimps first and then we test it on humans. If its not safe for chimps you can bet your bottom dollar that its probably not safe for humans either. How difficult is this to understand? You are basically suggesting we skip all the easier research on non-human animals that are far more convenient to work with in the lab, at the levels of research that are most dangerous, and suggesting we skip all the way to humans instead? Furthermore, you are also ignoring the fact that most other forms research that ARENT medical in nature also require animal testing. If we want to find out what a gene does an animal, we have to mess around with an animal's genome and find out. learning about animals means that we need animals to work with.

Again, you are just demonstrating the brazen stupidity of the PETA crowd and thus reducing your goals to irrelevance. You want things to change, get at least a master's degree in cellular bio or biotech or some kind of applied biological science and get some years of experience actually working in a lab before you tell us what is or isnt necessary for research.

[Homebelly]

Here's a tip for the animal rights activists: your opinions will continue to be regarded as irrelevant until you yourselves dedicate your time to become equally as educated in matters of biology, biochemisty, genetics, cellular biology, and all matters of biotechnology, experiment design, and current research as scientists in the field are. Then, and only then, will you have a real understanding of what is going on and be able to come up with educated and well thought out proposals for changing the way we do research. If you care this much about it, then do what is needed and get some experience and education to be able to come up with a better way of doing things. Otherwise you are just another asshole with an opinion about something you dont know jack shit about.

Ok then, care to explain, scientifically, why human children are not used for invasive research in matters that may aid other human children?

And, these ethics will continue to be regarded as irrelevant as long as they are unpopular. Same as athiesm, abolition, the research of human cavers that led to the first human medical breakthroughs, etc...

The fact that many people are missing here is that our abuse of animals is hurting us in many areas, and is very integral to our own self destruction.

I'm not sure what your point is here..
Are you advocating the use of children as biological models?
I admire your integrity..
But is kind of of kilter in a lot of ways.
You need to stop hating on the rest of the humans and go beyond the naivety of thinking the animal world is one based on respect and tolerance.
Plenty of people are used in the last stages of drug and surgical trials.
Cases pop up in the news quite often where some one is the victim or benefactor of some advanced or experimental procedure.
If you really are interested in this as a topic of discussion, rather than an emotive vehicle of evangelical rhetoric, then you really should go beyond the sources of information give you by the pro-vegan community.

[Homebelly]

How have you managed to stay a live and presumably fit and healthy in 2009 with out the benefits of animal testing?

I breathe, eat, eliminate, and sleep. Life goes on.

Oh stop it!
Now your just being silly..

Address this statement or STFU.

No animal's suffering has ever saved my life as of yet,

[scott nathaniel]

I want testing on animals to stop now! Fuck the animal, I love em', but fuck em'. I don't want anymore people. I don't care if people die of horrendous disease; I don't care if one cow can save all of civilization. I will find that cow, shoot it, and eat it. I'm completely self centered. I want population growth to halt and I want to live. I want liberals, righties, pinkoes, Peta, the NRA, all to friggin' vanish. One quick way to this end is to stop animal testing. Let the weak die, even if that includes myself, so be it,I truly don't care.
Now, go live long and prosper, people!

[shai]

The only rights animals, or even people, have are the rights others bestow on them or the ones they fight for. The only implicit rights that exist are the laws of chemistry and physics, and whatever follows from there. I treat all animals very well, because I love and care for them, but that doesn't mean they implicitly have that right. I choose to give it to them. I agree that standards should exist to better animal treatment (more needed in agriculture than research I should add), but in the end, to what extent and how do you plan on enforcing it? When it comes down to it, we're still gonna attach electrodes in their brains to find out how the brain works. We're gonna inject them with protein fragments to harvest antibodies from their spleens (spleen, right? I forget). We should have standards but it shouldn't interfere with good research. And most labs, at least for university research, have standards even if it isn't mandated. Animal testing sucks, you think I enjoy killing animals for research? I love animals! Its fucked up but this is life. You dont see them giving each other rights in the wild. Likewise we're going to do what we have to do.

well that's it. you are not 'in the wild'. your are human and capable of much more. do you really see yourself and animal "likewise"?

the whole jungle theory i.e the stronger survives, is always something the current strong one makes up to protect himself morally. nazis loved that (not suggesting that you are one). so we live in a fearful culture that celebrates exactly this, the power of those who were so 'advanced' and 'intelligent' (thanks to drinking a lot of cow milk, right?) that they came up with what? guns. celebrates abusing of everything weaker than you. why humans eating animals? because they can. the same way that a goat eats a plastic bag. the same way that a rapist does his victim. because he can.

i think you belong to a race that came up with greater things than this. to name one - compassion. and other terms which usually refer to how we describe god. you are this god. humanity expends not because of abusing animals, but thanks to being more than just animals.

[Android Bishop]

Emotions will cloud reason. So how do you overcome the moral dilemma of essentially raisng the life expentancy of humanity, knowing full well that that is a detriment to humans, other animals, and the earth. You're going to have to get a degree in philosphy with a focus on ethics to asnwer this
see you in a few years

Since philosophy isnt science but merely intellectual masturbation on matters unprovable your metaphor doesnt work.

I overcome the moral delemma because my philosophy is that life evolves, and with it civilization and science evolves with it. They are not mutually exclusive, technology is an extension of life. And things do not evolve unless there is pressure to do so. So as we grow older and resources become tighter and environmental concerns become more of an issue, the pressure to find solutions will provide the incentive to find solutions to these problems. There is already a lot of research underway to find greener fuels, biodegradable plastics, more nutritious sources of food that require less resources to grow, and other technologies that address these problems. I stood up and forced the conversation at an anti-ageing conference to force people to start thinking about this stuff, because it WILL happen. You can't stop the natural course of evolution, so long as we have these technologies we will continue to use and expand them. We will eventually re-engineer human beings too. The trick is not to try and stop these things, the trick is to think about the consequences and develop ways to minimize or eliminate harmful consequences.