Vivisection

[GeneralSnake]

+1

Let's have another one. New controversial topic!

Here you go man.
What do you guys think of vivisection?
Is it necessary? Is it fraudulent?
I think it is scientific fraud btw.
I will try and keep out of posting too much in this one, I want to see what everyone else thinks, especially our older members.

[mapes]

vivisection.....you mean dissecting thisgs while they are alive.......I think it's fairly repugnant

[Thrashdragon]

Are you referring to its literal meaning (as in committing surgery upon living beings) or its more populist definition that includes all animal testing?

Either way, I have no problem with any sort of animal testing as long as there is clear and definitive goal in mind...the improvement of human life. Fighting disease, testing new surgical procedures, etc....these I find acceptable. Blinding bunny rabbits to test a shampoo I do not. In fact, the things I would like to people that engage in unnecessary animal testing don't bear repeating here.

I'm no fan of PETA (I find their only redeeming quality to be their use of nekkid women to promote their cause), but I don't believe it's necessary to test everyday consumer products on animals, not in this day and age.

[GeneralSnake]

If you are testing products that you are going to use on humans, why would you test them on different species? That doesnt make much sense. What is good for non human animals isnt always good for us human animals, and vis versa.

[rusty99]

but I don't believe it's necessary to test everyday consumer products on animals, not in this day and age.

If you are testing products that you are going to use on humans, why would you test them on different species? That doesnt make much sense. What is good for non human animals isnt always good for us human animals, and vis versa.

Little known fact: Every product that is approved by the FDA for use in or on humans is required to be tested on animals to prove safety. Products that are exempt (such as supplements) obvious do not have to be.

That means that if you see a tag that says, "this product has not been tested on animals," then what they did is have someone else test it, but since "they" didn't test it, they can say it hasn't been. Sneaky, and unethical, but legal.

The reason for animal testing is simple; many animals have some systems or processes that are similar enough to the way that humans work that valuable data, such as does the product actually work as described, to the LD50 (the amount that would kill 50% of a population). Additionally, since the lifespan of many animals are shorter than humans, any problems tend to show up quicker in them than they would in humans. The good news is that computer models are reducing the need for it, but final products still have to be tested to be approved.

Put another way, if the FDA approved some product, and then later it was shown to cause cancer and animal testing would have caught it, wouldn't you be at least a bit angry over it?

Yes, it sucks for the bunny (or whatever animal it is), but isn't it better to catch problems with the bunny than you or anyone else that you care about?

[mapes]

vivisection.....you mean dissecting thisgs while they are alive.......I think it's fairly repugnant

Ok let me amend...Are we talking dissection of living things or animal testing?

[Thrashdragon]

Little known fact: Every product that is approved by the FDA for use in or on humans is required to be tested on animals to prove safety. Products that are exempt (such as supplements) obvious do not have to be.

That means that if you see a tag that says, "this product has not been tested on animals," then what they did is have someone else test it, but since "they" didn't test it, they can say it hasn't been. Sneaky, and unethical, but legal.

Good info, I did not know that.

[Hammy]

Are you referring to its literal meaning (as in committing surgery upon living beings) or its more populist definition that includes all animal testing?

Either way, I have no problem with any sort of animal testing as long as there is clear and definitive goal in mind...the improvement of human life. Fighting disease, testing new surgical procedures, etc....these I find acceptable. Blinding bunny rabbits to test a shampoo I do not. In fact, the things I would like to people that engage in unnecessary animal testing don't bear repeating here.

I'm no fan of PETA (I find their only redeeming quality to be their use of nekkid women to promote their cause), but I don't believe it's necessary to test everyday consumer products on animals, not in this day and age.

I agree with 90% of this- but when we get to the bunny testing portion- I'll share my knowledge first hand with someone in my family that works at a major chemical corporation.

Unfortunately, the FDA requires that upon ANY change in the constitutional make up of said product- shampoo being the relevant example- the same set of tests must be undertaken.

So if you add a new coloring, or switch out a value thanks to supply and demand problems (say- omit the chemical that creates the color is too costly to supply for a short period) if you havent tested it before you will need to run the same tests.

I'd rather have blind rabbits, hamsters, and etc, than blind children and humans. We already have enough dependents in our society in the United States. The last thing we need is more when it is preventable.

[Thrashdragon]

Based on rusty99's info, I agree. While the rules could be changed to account for modern testing techniques, as irresponsible as corporations are I doubt that would be a good idea.

[GeneralSnake]

Ok let me amend...Are we talking dissection of living things or animal testing?

Vivisection being used in animal testing.
Not just animal testing, but ^