medical research

[Raine]

Alright, here goes: Do you believe medical research should be performed on animals or human stem cells?
Here are my views on the matter:
#1 Using animals in research is just plain cruelty, and should be outlawed.
#2 Stem cells come from humans; therefore, tests done on them are more accurate and it is easier to find/create a cure.
#3 At least no one (or nothing) is harmed by doing research on stem cells. And if you insist on regarding them as human "life", at least that "life" would no longer be destroyed for no reason.

Well,that's it in a nutshell. Have at it,people. :)

[Inquisitor]

We shouldn't use animals any more for testing. We can use all the Peadophiles in prison's as guinea pigs. :D

[col]

depends on what kinds of animals.....if its like lets say....rats.... yeah sure... do the experiments on them:)

[Dan]

It doesnt bother me as much on things like rats as col said but other animals like monkeys, cats, dogs etc I really do HATE :mad:

[rogueingreen]

i agree with you 100%, Raine.

[doughboy]

Agree with what's been said so far.

lol@BRICK..if only m8....at least some good could come from their lives then.

Stem cell research is probably the most important form of research currently ever undertaken by mankind...I strongly oppose it being outlawed.

[Raine]

lol @ BRICK also--and col--if you only knew the absolutely horrific things they do to even rats, you wouldn't say that. :) I should give you a nice url to peruse, but I wouldn't wish seeing or hearing about the horrors of animal research on my worst enemy... :)

[col]

lol...worst enemy???who me:rolleyes:...but its rats...i dont like rats...who does??:rolleyes:

[Raine]

No, not you, silly--and I happen to like rats. :wink2: I was just trying to make a point! :) @BRICK: you know, using pedeophiles as guinea pigs is an excellent idea--too bad since they are considered "human" it would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, while for the animals it's just routine.

[Rain Samuti]

Are we trying to distinguish the difference between a pedophile and a filthy, flea-ridden rat?
*looks at a picture of a pedophile, next to a picture of a rat...*
*stares... Looks REALLY hard...*
*puts specs on, squints some more...*
Hold on. This may take some time. :)

[col]

Originally posted by Raine
I should give you a nice url to peruse, but I wouldn't wish seeing or hearing about the horrors of animal research on my worst enemy... :)

ok... cuz u said this and u confused me;)...i thought u said i was ur worst enemy:p

LOL@Rain Samuti..... u actually sound like c4era:p ;)

[Black Veg]

Am not a doctor, do not know all the facts about medical research, am not sure how many around here do know & understand these things (Not sure about our friendly mod;) in green)

Anyway my point is - are you sure they can use stem cells? Are you sure stem cells are good for all the types of research - some tests are supposed to test how certain materials effect live tissue, others might not.....

A cell is not a whole human life form - it does not have the same characteristics or qualities a "whole" life form has.

Look, I am not saying- do all the tests on animals - not at all - but in some cases that is the only option- Then the call should be between doing these tests and hurting an animal Or not testing it and losing the technology....

I for one - am not sure if option number one is the best option - I might even go for option 2 - not testing and "losing the technology".

[Raine]

Well, stem cell research includes cloning of human parts and such, you'd be amazed at what they can actually do with just the stem cells nowadays. I'm not saying clone humans and test on them then--what I'm saying is there are other options to animal testing. I would like the advancements in technology, but not at the cost of thousands of animals' lives. It's not right that animals have to go through the pain for our benefit only. How much of this research benefits animals as well? Let me tell you: none. And some of the testing--you wouldn't believe the ridiculous purposes they are for! I'm well aware not everyone feels as I do,i.e.,that animals are just as important as human beings,treat them as such! When my webpage is up, there will be links to sites to stop animal testing and cruelty. :rose:

[Black Veg]

Again you are talking about how cruel it is and maybe about how unmoral it is....

I have no arguemtn with you there....

What I am saying is - what can be done on a stem cell - from what I know - true some tests can work on the cells - but other tests will require a whole organism not just a cell....

I have no solution for this conflict between hurting a life form and advancing technology....

[Raine]

Here are two urls that might explain it more fully:
(I'm not a doctor,either :))
http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/scireport.htm and http://www.nih.gov/news/stemcell/primer.htm

[Zafiras]

Originally posted by BRICK
We shouldn't use animals any more for testing. We can use all the Peadophiles in prison's as guinea pigs. :D

sorry m8 but i think they are already engaged in other scientific experiments... the gay guys on D block are currently poking and prodding them :D:D:D

IMO they have done enough testing on animals to know what effects different substances hold (cosmetic testing mainly)

now its time that medical testing should be done straight on sufferers - ie. an Aids sufferer signs legal forms and waives any legal actions to be part of a new and hopefully successful drug experiment to cure aids - they want the chance of being cured then maybe they need to start be labrats

[ThePhoenix]

Originally posted by Raine
Well, stem cell research includes cloning of human parts and such, you'd be amazed at what they can actually do with just the stem cells nowadays. I'm not saying clone humans and test on them then--what I'm saying is there are other options to animal testing. I would like the advancements in technology, but not at the cost of thousands of animals' lives. It's not right that animals have to go through the pain for our benefit only. How much of this research benefits animals as well? Let me tell you: none. And some of the testing--you wouldn't believe the ridiculous purposes they are for! I'm well aware not everyone feels as I do,i.e.,that animals are just as important as human beings,treat them as such! When my webpage is up, there will be links to sites to stop animal testing and cruelty. :rose:
Links about animal cruelty?
One link to rule them all: www.peta.org

[Rocol]

Yo .. you all amaze me :D :D .. If one of your immediate family / loved one / dear friend, were on their " Death Bed " and you were told that a test on an animal / plant / another human being / alien, would save their life, you would refuse and let them them die .. I think not :)

[Rain Samuti]

That's not the point, M8, 'cause pretty well everyone would choose whatever option there was to let their loved one live. I know I would. I'd always put a human life before that of an animal.
But the simple fact is, although testing on animals might have been necessary fifty years ago, we have better ways of doing it nowadays.
I suppose in some ways, it was a necessary evil... After all, would we be at the level where we can do all the things we do now, (including testing on human stem cells) without vivisection? Doubtful... So yeah, maybe at ONE time, back in the 40's and 50's, it was the right thing to do...
But it shouldn't be around anymore! In fact, shouldn't have been around for ten or twenty years! There are ways of testing that are far more accurate - and more humane, too.

[philman132]

animal rights protesters always anoy me when they say that animal reasearch in cruelty, ok, maybe killing dumb animals for the furthering of the human race, but you always pick on the form of animal killing that kills the least amount of animals per year.

what about pest control, they must kill millions of rats each year with horrible painful poisons and traps, but no-one blinks an eyelid, how come people arnt out protestng against this open form of mass animal masacre. and fishing, how would you like to be swimming along quite happilly, you spot a nice little meal just floating there, and then WHAM, theres a hook through your lip being lifted out of the water, where you are then gutted and taken home for someone elses tea.

i agree with rocol, who would say that you dont agree with animal testing if a loved ones life was at stake

[doughboy]

Originally posted by philman132

what about pest control, they must kill millions of rats each year with horrible painful poisons and traps, but no-one blinks an eyelid,

I was gonna think of something funny to say, but I forgot.:rolleyes:

[ABA]

they should do experiments on ppl that r going to death row or something and espically RATS

[Raine]

Originally posted by philman132
[B]animal rights protesters always anoy me when they say that animal reasearch in cruelty, ok, maybe killing dumb animals for the furthering of the human race, but you always pick on the form of animal killing that kills the least amount of animals per year.



Hmmmmm...let me think--the least amount per year?! I think you should go do some research on how many unwanted pets are euthanised each year because people refuse to have them spayed/neutered and given their shots, then let them run free to breed and spread disease. And, furthermore, animal testing is not "testing", it's torture!! Go away and come back again when you know what you're talking about...look at Phoenix's link to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for instance. Try to open your mind, it's good for you. :) @Rocol...if it was YOU in that cage, you wouldn't say that...but that's your opinion, and I'll respect it. How about you respect mine? :)

[col]

we r respecting ur opinion...well at least i am:);)...but i think if it can speed up technology and prevent dieseases and stuff.....how bout use both stem and animals research:)...yeah i know..it may be cruel but like i said before on the fish thread.....alot of these animals get killed anyways for food..... they get killed for our survival for our food...so getting killed/experimented wouldnt be much of a difference i say...man i hope im not sounding like a killer or anything:grinangel

[Raine]

Alright, col--there is actually animal research done that doesn't harm the animals, and that's okay...but torture is not.Maybe I will send you some urls after all...and that last post wasn't aimed at you, go back and read it again. :)

[ThePhoenix]

Originally posted by Rocol
Yo .. you all amaze me :D :D .. If one of your immediate family / loved one / dear friend, were on their " Death Bed " and you were told that a test on an animal / plant / another human being / alien, would save their life, you would refuse and let them them die .. I think not :)
No one is saying stop medical research! What was being said is to use stem cells instead (in experiments where they can be used instead)! So your point does not follow up.

Not to mention that there is a lot (possibly even the majority) of animal testing and cruelty made that is *not* for medical research, but instead for testing of cosmetics! That is not a worthwhile cause in any possible way! :(

[Dr.MAD]

The use of stem cells is defenitely a better idea. Some medicines used on anymals don't have the same effect on humans; And we should leave the animals alone.

[col]

Originally posted by Raine
Alright, col--there is actually animal research done that doesn't harm the animals, and that's okay...but torture is not.Maybe I will send you some urls after all...and that last post wasn't aimed at you, go back and read it again. :)

o...sorry.....i didnt read right cuz it was so late at night and i was sleepy...:doh:..maybe u should post the urls for us all to see:)

[ABA]

Originally posted by col


o...sorry.....i didnt read right cuz it was so late at night and i was sleepy...:doh:..maybe u should post the urls for us all to see:)

lol u should've just said im too lazy ;)

[philman132]

Originally posted by Raine


Hmmmmm...let me think--the least amount per year?! I think you should go do some research on how many unwanted pets are euthanised each year because people refuse to have them spayed/neutered and given their shots, then let them run free to breed and spread disease. And, furthermore, animal testing is not "testing", it's torture!! Go away and come back again when you know what you're talking about...look at Phoenix's link to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, for instance. Try to open your mind, it's good for you. :) @Rocol...if it was YOU in that cage, you wouldn't say that...but that's your opinion, and I'll respect it. How about you respect mine? :)


ok, maybe i was thinking of the british figures, and maybe saying the least amount of animals was a bit egsagerated, but stem cell reasearch cannot always produce significant results, and neither can animal testing always produce significant results. i agree with col, if we use both stem cell and animal reasearch then there is a much higher chance of us finding cures.

[col]

:eek: ....nightmares!!!!:eek: :( ..... u scared me already with the 1st link just by looking at the pic...im not even gonna read it:( :o

[Raine]

Don't say I didn't warn you.... :grinangel

[col]

i didnt ask for pics:(.......i asked only about the article:(.....:o

[Raine]

There was only one pic...what the h*ll happened? I can see deleting the one with the pic, but all of them? And no explanation....nice. :mad:

[Raine]

Originally posted by col


..maybe u should post the urls for us all to see:)

And, hey col-- this is what you asked for, and what you got, until it was deleted,anyway...nowhere does it say you only wanted an "article"--sorry!!!!! :grinangel

[Kenshin]

Originally posted by BRICK
We shouldn't use animals any more for testing. We can use all the Peadophiles in prison's as guinea pigs. :D

completely agree...lol :p

[col]

Originally posted by Raine


And, hey col-- this is what you asked for, and what you got, until it was deleted,anyway...nowhere does it say you only wanted an "article"--sorry!!!!! :grinangel

:rolleyes: .....lesson i learned.....be careful of what u wish for and make urself clear about it:o :rolleyes:

[Raine]

Originally posted by col


:rolleyes: .....lesson i learned.....be careful of what u wish for and make urself clear about it:o :rolleyes:


Yes,lesson learned here,too...guess I got carried away and didn't think before I posted that url...sorry everyone. :rose:

[Raine]

K, here are those links (again) minus the inappropriate one(s):


http://www.animalliberationfront.com/animal_facts.htm
http://netvet.wustl.edu/welfare.htm

If at first you don't succeed...try,try again. All that is on these websites is information, no grim pictures!! Honest!!! :grinangel

[Geordie Girl]

Whether we like it or not animal testing is necessary if we are going to find a cure for some of the terrible diseases that we have Aids, Cancer, Heart Disease to name but a few. The use of stem cells is not an alternative way more a complementary one, it's used whenever possible but living animals have got to be used when the answers cannot be obtained in any other way. If we stopped using animals it's difficult to see where the solutions to todays medical problems are going to come from.
Originally posted by Raine
How much of this research benefits animals as well? Let me tell you: none.
Animals do benefit from the medicines developed. The human polio vaccine has been used to protect chimpanzees in the wild.

Distemper, which can kill dogs, seals and dolphins, is prevented by a vaccine developed using dogs in the 1920s, need I go on...

Have you ever took your pet to a Vet? Where do you think their skills originate from?

[WorlWydeHusla]

i agree with raine but to a certain extent

[Raine]

@GG: Yes, of course I've taken my pets to the veternarian. :) I've also worked at a vets office...I do know what I'm talking about...do you? :) What I meant by saying how much research benefits animals was not those piddling things you mentioned...I'm talking about treatments and cures for various diseases, such as cancer,leukemia,aids,etc. in animals!! Just as there are treatments developed for humans by testing on animals, there should be the same offered to animals, but there is not!
So what you're saying essentially is...just keep on with the torture, there's no other way...that's what I got out of it,anyway. Perhaps I misunderstood you... :eek: Animal research is okay as long as the animals are not harmed,I said that before to col...but otherwise, the ends do not justify the means.

[Geordie Girl]

Until recently I worked for the RSPCA ( Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals) so yes I do know what I'm talking about, I've seen some terrible things inflicted on animals by so called 'humans' :(

When they find a cure for cancer, leukemia, aids,etc. in humans, animals will benefit also, we are very similar under the skin.

Piddling things :rolleyes: antibiotics, anaesthetics, insulin, surgical techniques are they piddling? Any medical technique that benefits humans ultimately benefits animals.

Some of the vaccines developed specifically for animals with the help of animal research -
Dogs
Leptospirosis
Canine viral hepatitis
Canine parvovirus
Canine parainfluenza
Kennel cough
Rabies

Cats
Feline enteritis
Feline parvovirus
Feline leukaemia
Cat flu syndrome
Chlymidid
Rabies

Horses
Equine influenza
Equine herpes
Tetanus
Rabies

What I am saying is it is necessary, I didn't say I liked it but I'm realistic enough to know it is vital for the good of mankind and animalkind. Other ways are used whenever possible but live animal testing is unfortunately still necessary.

[Raine]

Well, it seems I did misunderstand you...in some ways,anyway...and I stand corrected, you do know what you're talking about. As for being realistic...I'm not so sure. If new approaches are not tried and tested to their full extent, we will never know if anything is better than animal research. Nobody ever got anywhere with the attitude of "why change it if it works?" What I don't understand is, how can you have seen the things you have claimed to see and still take the view you do? Why don't we just agree to disagree, at least to some extent...and just leave it at that. :)

[Geordie Girl]

Lol certainly I'll agree to disagree, I don't disagree with you entirely :)

I don't think there is an attitude of 'why change it if it works' things are changing, as you said the use of stem cells. No doubt in the future animals will not be used at all but at the moment they do still need to be. The numbers of live animals being used have drastically decreased over the years.

[Raine]

Well,as I said before, research that is done that does not harm the animals is pefectly acceptable and dare I say it...*gasp* necessary (at the moment,perhaps). As you said, the number of animals is gradually being reduced...just not fast enough for me! :) But the deliberate harm, i.e. growth of tumors,chemicals splashed in eyes,etc.--I just can't bring myself to condone it, I'm sorry. No matter who supposedly benefits from it. P.S. And GG--by saying I can't condone it doesn't mean I'm saying you do!! We could have been going on like this for days...it's just not worth it. :)

[Fawn]

Well, I agree with Raine to an extent. Some of the testing they do to animals is cruel &, in my opinion, for stupid reasons. On the other hand, there has been some very positive things that have come of it. But I do think that some of the alternative options, like Raine has stated, should be used more often. I love my pets (dogs, bird..) but if someone said that they needed something vital from one of my pets to help aid in saving my husband or my kids... hate to say it but I value my family's lives first.

[doughboy]

I'm totally with Raine on this...

After all, it's not the humans planet is it???

They all live here too, we share..

What if there was an animal which was smarter than us??

Would you then say it's ok for them to test their drugs on us?? After all they're only humans, they're not as smart as us so it's ok to pump them full of $hit.


I do realise that we need some sort of test bed but what the hell do animals have to do with it??

Jesus, why not use freaks/wierdos/deathrow people.

You know it's only the lefty twats/civil libs freaks that stop normal people from using the nasty pieces of societie's waste as experimentational platforms.

[Fawn]

<<You know it's only the lefty twats/civil libs freaks that stop normal people from using the nasty pieces of societie's waste as experimentational platforms.>>

Agree wholeheartedly with ya there Doughboy.

[Raine]

Bravo,doughboy. :) Well said.:D

[WorlWydeHusla]

Originally posted by ThePhoenix

No one is saying stop medical research! What was being said is to use stem cells instead (in experiments where they can be used instead)! So your point does not follow up.

Not to mention that there is a lot (possibly even the majority) of animal testing and cruelty made that is *not* for medical research, but instead for testing of cosmetics! That is not a worthwhile cause in any possible way! :(

and thats comin from a pork chop

GO PHOENIX:grin2: :clap:

[SnipeR_X]

#2 Stem cells come from humans; therefore, tests done on them are more accurate and it is easier to find/create a cure.

Yes it is more accurate and it should get better results however animals can be even more accurate it just depends what kind or sort of tests your going to be peforming. Like the mice they say it is good and has better affect on them.

[Matthew C]

Okay, here's my view on animal testing: It should be only done for medicine where the animals are treated as humanly as possible. Things like testing animals for cosmetics are evil which is why I buy my shampoo from companies that do not use animals.

But what really pisses me off is that some people here are saying "I don't like it when the test on dog, cats and rabbits but it's fine if they test it on rats". Don't you see a double standard here? Why is their pain and suffering not considered? If you don't include ALL animals it enitrely defeats the purpose of being against animal testing. After all, rats are animals and show the same reactions to pain much like other animals would.

depends on what kinds of animals.....if its like lets say....rats.... yeah sure... do the experiments on them

Why? Because you don't like them? What makes it right to test on them and not other animals?

It doesnt bother me as much on things like rats as col said but other animals like monkeys, cats, dogs etc I really do HATE

Let's see how you react when you see a rat squealing in pain when some scientist prods away at its stomach without anesthesia. Things like rats - so they're not animals now? Insensitive fool.

lol...worst enemy???who me...but its rats...i dont like rats...who does??

Plenty of people keep them as pets (including myself - I have two of them). But to they deserve to be tortured when clearly you are against animal experimentation?

Are we trying to distinguish the difference between a pedophile and a filthy, flea-ridden rat?

Let's be a little less ignorant and think through these points:

Lab rats are NOT wild rats
Lab rats are similar to the rats you find at your local pet shop
Lab rats do not carry any fleas
Lab rats do not carry any diseases
Lab rats are domesticated, they're more likely to have disease than your dog
These animals are bred on temperment and are disease free

What pisses me off more than animal cruelty is the ++++++++s who say it's okay to be cruel to one group of animals, and not to another. If you are so against animal testing, then you should include rats too. After all, they are mammals, react the same way to pain much like a dog, cat, or rabbit will and are not objects.

Those people who apply these sort of double standards are idiots and are not true animal lovers if they say such crap. They're basically saying that it's okay to torture one animal and not to torture another. Wrong - it's NOT okay to torture ANY animal, may it be a rat, a guniea pig, a mouse, a rabbit, a cat, a dog, whatever.

what about pest control, they must kill millions of rats each year with horrible painful poisons and traps, but no-one blinks an eyelid,

Do you blink an eyelid? That's because they're pests - they are a potential danger. But I do hold the stong belief that when you kill something, it should be quick. However, we are talking about lab rats here (who are not pests simply because they are not disease ridden or are eating our crops), totally different.

Let me ask you people a question (especially those idiots who think it's 'okay' to torture rats): If you see some idiot with a rat tied to a tree with barbed wire, cutting its toes off one by one with a nail clipper - what would you do? Because if you find that 'acceptbale', there are going to be some crushed skulls...

[silent_dr3am]

hmmn person i completely dislike the whole aminal testing situation as it stands today. Consider how many mice and lab rats are killed, mutilated, infected with deadly diseases every day just in the states... it is sick...

but alas there must be something to test drugs and therapies, without a way to do that no drugs would ever finaly hit the shelves. i have yet to see any viable alternatives...

i agree with you mathew, to say that it is ok on lab rats but not on anything else, is completely wrong and foolish....

[legit]

well u gotta look at it two ways

1) it is cruel and should not be done on animals
2) If some one close to you is on there death bed, maybe just maybe that testing could save their life......

i think it is cruel, but it does save lives

[biagrin]

animal rights protesters always anoy me when they say that animal reasearch in cruelty, ok, maybe killing dumb animals for the furthering of the human race, but you always pick on the form of animal killing that kills the least amount of animals per year.

what about pest control, they must kill millions of rats each year with horrible painful poisons and traps, but no-one blinks an eyelid, how come people arnt out protestng against this open form of mass animal masacre. and fishing, how would you like to be swimming along quite happilly, you spot a nice little meal just floating there, and then WHAM, theres a hook through your lip being lifted out of the water, where you are then gutted and taken home for someone elses tea.

i agree with rocol, who would say that you dont agree with animal testing if a loved ones life was at stake

if pest control didnt kill all those rats every year then we would all die from diseases caused by the rats. mind you if there werent so many dirty filthy people about then there might not be so many rats. also if people would do more recycling instead of throwing rubbish in the street or the government chucking it in landfill sites then there might be a lot less rats.

[JAGPANZER]

No animal testing, how blindingly shortsighted.
Do you think we would be developing drug therapies for pets otherwise?
Feline leukemia wasn't a purposeful research discovery, it was a result of
using cats to study cancer. So far we can cure some cancers in animals.
The therapies don't always transfer over to humans, but we know more coming
out than we did going in. Plus, Fluffy has an extension on their 9th.

FLV is but one notable example, there are others.
It's a neccesary evil(like taxes), and as such it should never be
done for vanity cruelty, or in excess.
At least it isn't murder.

Stem cell research isn't sure of anything.
Far from curing cancers now, it initiates the most deadly form of tumors.
Your reason to not let the life go totally to waste is a psycho's excuse.
This is barbaric reverse engineering of the human body.
We already have the genome nearly 100% mapped.
All that we need to do is to learn how to read it. Then this butchery of human
life will totally be in vain. It is a lazy man's methodology.

You are advocating the creation of a sub-class of humans created for the purpose
of serving the ruling class. Your arbitrary line of no embroyonic development allowed
past say 12 days is purely subjective and can/will be violated at will.
This is a slippery slope whose bottom is the pit of condemnation.

This is no better than those lazy unethical doctors who wanted the Nazi concentration
camp experiment data captured after the war. Their argument was it could save lives
and those lives wouldn't have been wasted for nought. They argued the data was
unobtainable by conventional means, it was a waste of knowledge.
Now with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that the Nazi wasn't irreplacable.
Moreover some of it is sadly incorrect. In short, it was unethical and not needed
that badly. We don't murder people to save other people's lives.

I suppose you're totally fine with China harvesting the organs of
the prisoners they execute, after all why let them go to waste?
Forget about the fact that some of the executions are very questionable
as to regarding the nature of the purported crime.
Normally teasing the women in your work group isn't a capitol offense,
but evidently if your blood/tissue type happens to be in demand you
could be in for a rude suprise. Worse, the govt could keep you alive while
they part out your body for as long as you will handle it.

Sounds marvy huh?

As for human research, if they volunteer fine.
But like animals, not everyone's physiology is the same.
Most medications prescribed are but a fraction of their potency to most people
due to genetic variations. A drug that just hits all the spots in one person,
might do nothing or even kill in another person.
Ideally the pharmcos are trying to tailor their drugs to be slightly modified
for genetic variances. In the future your pharmacist will need your DNA sig
to whip up a micro-batch of psueudoped just for YOU.

What we need to be directing our energies on is the complete
mapping and translation of the human genome.
Once that is so, simple protein compounds and engineered viral cores
is all we'll need to cure ANYTHING: cancer, organ disease, missing limbs.
More ominously, the health affliction referred to as 'natural death' would
become anything but natural. Death by accidents and incidents would be
the only means of death. Dying of old age would become a metaphor not
a reality.

I seek life for all.
You want life for a few, and death for others.

[Matthew C]

if pest control didnt kill all those rats every year then we would all die from diseases caused by the rats. mind you if there werent so many dirty filthy people about then there might not be so many rats. also if people would do more recycling instead of throwing rubbish in the street or the government chucking it in landfill sites then there might be a lot less rats.

Rats aren't to blame for the diseases they transmit - out of hundreads of rat species of this entire planet, only two of them are dangerous since they are carriers of diseases. These two species of rats live off the filth we create.

1) All animals carry diseases (including us), not just rats. Rats have been used as scapegoats throughout history due to the plague.

2) If you're going to kill an animal, do it humanely. Rat, dog, cat - whatever. There should be NO distinction.

BTW, rats play a vital role in nature too - if any animal has a chance to livei n rubbish and/or sewers, they'd be just the same. Your average feral cat has much more nasty stuff on them than rats.

[biagrin]

they may not be to blame for the diseases they carry but the fact is they do carry them and there are too many common rats caarying it to ignore. yes they probably are diseases caused by humans and the crap they throw away and believe me im a firm believer in a clean environment but the fact is the rats still have to be dealt with. and by the way current scientific research is hinting that it might not have been rats that started the plague.

[JAGPANZER]

If you can't discern between varmints and vermin, you need to go back to
whatever grade they start showing you jungle critters.

Feline and Canine variants in our civilized urban settings are serving a general purpose.
Strays are a sidereal issue and not even a tangent to this argument.
For the record in medical research rats and mice receive the same level of treatment
by the med techs as do the cats and dogs.
Pest control is another story.
Rats and mice spread disease not by intent but by incidental design.
If you are covered with a thin oily coat, you crawl everywhere ob your belly,
poop and pee pretty much where you are at the time; or on the move:
you will be covered with Lord knows what, defecating in food and water supplies.

Now as much of a idiot my pets have been the few times they happened upon
food obtained by their own stealth, they have yet to poop where they eat.
Moreover, they want their food mostly, not my food.

Rodents zero in on human foodstuffs(they'll eat petstuffs too).
The persians will shred any rodent that gets in our yard,
they never make it to the house.

I suppose you keep your house infested with roaches and centipedes too?
Or are you some arrogant animalist that thinks insects are less deserving
even the humane treatment given to euthanized pets?
It's clear now, you have no problems killing life you deem unworthy.
At the same time your judgement supersedes ours in that you know
what lifeforms we should tolerate?

you are a sad creature, waste of brain

[biagrin]

who was that aimed at. the fact remains that they still have to be dealt with.

[JAGPANZER]

It don't look like it was you laddie.

I don't like varmints or pests neither.
I got cats to clear the outside.
I got a well established spider colony in the house that
keeps all pests out.
Transient geckos gobble up the spiders that get too big for
their own good.

[JAGPANZER]

Oh, and those other species of rats don't live in filth because they haven't
found it yet. Our filth is fairly nutrient rich.
The ecochains that spring up around it are a matter of record.

Critters like my python were designed to eat those other species of rats.
Snakes are rat eating machines.

So rats do have a purpose, feeding snakes.

[biagrin]

well everything does have its place in the food chain but some things like the common rat or rabbits do need to be kept under control. mind you though if humans made more of an effort to clean up after themselves instead of being so dirty then maybe the problem wouldnt be so bad.

[JAGPANZER]

True.

[Matthew C]

they may not be to blame for the diseases they carry but the fact is they do carry them and there are too many common rats caarying it to ignore. yes they probably are diseases caused by humans and the crap they throw away and believe me im a firm believer in a clean environment but the fact is the rats still have to be dealt with. and by the way current scientific research is hinting that it might not have been rats that started the plague.

Please read my post again. Of bloody course they have to be controlled, I never said otherwise! I just said that if you kill something, do it quick and humanely. Don't you agree with that statement? As for rats starting the plague, it has always been known that they hadn't. Humans first blamed cats and other animals for being the cause, they killed them off and as a result the rat population exploded since there were very little to no predators.

If you actually knew how the disease was transmitted, you will see that the rats role in the plague is heavily over exaggerated. Despite this, they still have to be controlled.

And besides - wasn't his topic related to animal testing? Lab rats don't carry any diseases that their wild cousins do.

If you can't discern between varmints and vermin, you need to go back to
whatever grade they start showing you jungle critters.

Feral/wild cats are vermin, just as the same as rats. They spread disease and kill natural wildlife. They can become a nuisance if their population is not kept in check. Both vermin and varmint are bvoth loosely termed expressions, where their meaning always fluctuates.

Strays are a sidereal issue and not even a tangent to this argument.

Yes they are - rats aren't the only problem. Starys need to be culled if their population get out of control. It's a fact of life.

For the record in medical research rats and mice receive the same level of treatment
by the med techs as do the cats and dogs.

I wasn't arguing against that, I was arguing against certain double standards. There should be no distinction.

I suppose you keep your house infested with roaches and centipedes too?

No. Why do you assume that? Because I think that double standards should not apply - tell me, why is the suffering of one species of animal acceptable and the other not? BOTH should not be acceptable.

Or are you some arrogant animalist that thinks insects are less deserving
even the humane treatment given to euthanized pets?

Ummm... no. Where did I even hint that suggestion?

It's clear now, you have no problems killing life you deem unworthy.
At the same time your judgement supersedes ours in that you know
what lifeforms we should tolerate?

you are a sad creature, waste of brain

If you are going to reply to one's posts, please quote them. Are you replying to me or someone else? I made a perfectly valid point -it's completely foolish if one says "oh, it's okay to test on rats but not other animals like cats and dogs" - if one was against animal testing, they should not make any exceptions. Personally I'm all for medical testing, but not for things like cosmetics. The last quote provided basically sums up the view point of some people in this thread. Why mine - what did I actually say to deserve that description?

well everything does have its place in the food chain but some things like the common rat or rabbits do need to be kept under control. mind you though if humans made more of an effort to clean up after themselves instead of being so dirty then maybe the problem wouldnt be so bad.

Exactly.

Oh, and those other species of rats don't live in filth because they haven't
found it yet. Our filth is fairly nutrient rich.

And rats aren't the only ones...

Read my posts again - and tell me, do you agree with what I said?

So rats do have a purpose, feeding snakes.

That and keeping the population of insects down. Not to mention being the prey item of various other animals. And they make great pets - ever had one as a pet?

However, my main ponts were:

1) If you are going to kill something, do it humanely.
2) If you are against animal testing, ALL animals should be excluded. You can't make a distinction.
3) A rat does not deserve being tested on any more than another animal.
4) If you are for animal testing, why pick and choose which animals to save and which to let suffer? I find that scenario morally disgusting.

A lot of people can't see the difference between a wild rat and a domesticated one. Whilst the wild rat must be controlled, does that mean the rats in the lab deserve moreso to be tested on than any other animal?

JAGPANZER, if you were actually addressing me, then you have completely failed to address any of my points and instead typed in irrelevant things. If you weren't, then I apologize but to avoid confusion in the future please quote!