Should we be able to use animals in Pharmaceutical reasearch

[Mr Ham]

Have you guys ever noticed that when something is going wrong in the household, your pet dog/cat will join the rest of the family and carry an expression to emphasize the situation? Someone just died in the family and everyone is mourning. The dog/cat joins the family and carries a sad expression themself...

Expressing a single emotion (which could also be seen as simply mimicking expression rather than actually feeling, understanding and expressing emotion) doesn't mean animals feel the same levels of emotion and empathy as humans, especially higher order emotions such as contempt or remorse.

 

If animals were not intelligent, they'd be unable to communicate, groom one another, form languages based on symbols and actions (bees and birds anyone?), cry out in pain or attack when abused or harassed, find there own food, even build there own homes (beavers). They may not be able to think abstractly about that last complex mathematical equation or why the IRS is so corrupt, but they still have some forms of intelligence.

• Communication between animals isn't nearly as complex as in humans.
  
• Instincts (such as reacting to pain, the need for food and construction of a home) don't imply intelligence, especially of human level.
  
• Having some intelligence doesn't imply they are as intelligent as humans.
  
• Abstract thinking is one of the reasons why we're superior to animals.
  

Animals are living, breathing creatures that can think and feel. But humans are vastly superior to them. Like I said before, a human life has much greater value than that of, say a mouse. Animals have much less intelligence and because of that, they don't experience the same levels of emotion, reason and understanding. Therefore, their lives are worth less than ours. That may sound harsh, but its a concept that deserves contemplation.

[myrmaad]

Have you guys ever noticed that when something is going wrong in the household, your pet dog/cat will join the rest of the family and carry an expression to emphasize the situation? Someone just died in the family and everyone is mourning. The dog/cat joins the family and carries a sad expression themself...

Expressing a single emotion (which could also be seen as simply mimicking expression rather than actually feeling, understanding and expressing emotion) doesn't mean animals feel the same levels of emotion and empathy as humans, especially higher order emotions such as contempt or remorse.

 

If animals were not intelligent, they'd be unable to communicate, groom one another, form languages based on symbols and actions (bees and birds anyone?), cry out in pain or attack when abused or harassed, find there own food, even build there own homes (beavers). They may not be able to think abstractly about that last complex mathematical equation or why the IRS is so corrupt, but they still have some forms of intelligence.

• Communication between animals isn't nearly as complex as in humans.
  
• Instincts (such as reacting to pain, the need for food and construction of a home) don't imply intelligence, especially of human level.
  
• Having some intelligence doesn't imply they are as intelligent as humans.
  
• Abstract thinking is one of the reasons why we're superior to animals.
  

Animals are living, breathing creatures that can think and feel. But humans are vastly superior to them. Like I said before, a human life has much greater value than that of, say a mouse. Animals have much less intelligence and because of that, they don't e the same levels of emotion, reason and understanding. Therefore, their lives are worth less than ours. That may sound harsh, but its a concept that deserves contemplation.

 

 

Oh my goodness you are going into the weeds here, my dear.

 

So by this line of reasoning, those who are born with birth defects such as Cerebral Palsy, those who have suffered traumatic brain injury, those humans who are in vegetative or semi-vegetative states do not deserve humane treatment, as they obviously have never had or have lost the ability to

 

experience the same levels of emotion, reason and understanding. Therefore, their lives are worth less than ours.

 

 

 

And at this myrmaad walks away, chuckling to herself.

Edited December 14, 2009 by myrmaad

[rbrophy2]

*sigh* here we go again... 2 lives are not = and never will be!

[Mr Ham]

Oh my goodness you are going into the weeds here, my dear.

 

So by this line of reasoning, those who are born with birth defects such as Cerebral Palsy, those who have suffered traumatic brain injury, those humans who are in vegetative or semi-vegetative states do not deserve humane treatment, as they obviously have never had or have lost the ability to

...

As harsh as it sounds, yes I think people with such conditions are worth less than fully functional humans. From a strictly utilitarian view, they serve no purpose in society. I take solace in the thought that if natural selection still applied to humans, such diseases and disorders would not longer exist.

 

Some would deem this thought 'unfair' or 'mean'. If nature were fair, if it followed such a sense of justice, these conditions wouldn't exist in the first place.

[Balagor]

Oh my goodness you are going into the weeds here, my dear.

 

So by this line of reasoning, those who are born with birth defects such as Cerebral Palsy, those who have suffered traumatic brain injury, those humans who are in vegetative or semi-vegetative states do not deserve humane treatment, as they obviously have never had or have lost the ability to

...

As harsh as it sounds, yes I think people with such conditions are worth less than fully functional humans. From a strictly utilitarian view, they serve no purpose in society. I take solace in the thought that if natural selection still applied to humans, such diseases and disorders would not longer exist.

 

Some would deem this thought 'unfair' or 'mean'. If nature were fair, if it followed such a sense of justice, these conditions wouldn't exist in the first place.

Perhaps not a popular point of wiev, but in deed a wise one.

Kudo to you.

[Nexus Set]

I don't have a problem with such research, as long as it is done without cruelty, and not on endangered species.

 

Also, my tolerance is greater for potentially human life saving medical research vs. superficial things like cosmetics...

 

I think this post states clearly where I stand on this issue. +1 :thumbsup:

 

For me, human rights > animal rights any given day. For those who disagree, please get yer heads screwed on right. (no offense)

 

Animulz, I eet themz.

 

<No animals were hurt in the typing of this post.>

[evilkoal]

i believe we should allow pharmaceutical companies to test on people (adequately compensating them of course)

 

either that or we should breed a new race of people (all races together) and use them for scientific purposes.

 

i like the second one better.

[rbrophy2]

New race leads to new racism

[antonkr]

I think we should use criminals sentenced to life in prison.Their already living off our tax dollars why kill poor defenseless little animals,when "scum" are so handy! After all humans are animals also!

Law system is not perfect. We can make mistakes.

[Mr Ham]

either that or we should breed a new race of people (all races together) and use them for scientific purposes.

 

i like the second one better.

How is that any different to breeding mice and testing on them?