MovieChat Forums > Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) Discussion > If a cure for cancer could only be devel...

If a cure for cancer could only be developed by animal testing......

posted 10 years ago by Strakmaster
40 replies | jump to latest

....would you approve of it? I certainly would. I'm 110% against animal testing for cosmetics but for curing horrible illnesses and pandemics (such as AIDS), I think it's a necessary evil.
Many of you would probably call me an animal for saying this but I think the welfare of a few animals would be a small price to pay, for the sake of millions of humans.
If you disagree with me, think about this. Would you feel differently if it was yourself or a loved one suffering?

I'm a Creationist. And an Evolutionist. Sue me.

[–] raf-33 10 years ago

I would test on fat people, fat folk would do just about anything for a meal from chewing off a limb to bashing down a wall, I bet they'd let you do anything to them for a couple of happy meals. Everyone benefits.

You don't know sh!t, Jon Snow!

[–] ebonyflight 9 years ago

Scientists have already found a cure for cancer.....on the lab animals they test on, have done for many years. It hasn't worked on humans as our systems are different from rats/mice/beagles etc.

Many humans have suffered serious side effects and even death due to drugs being passed as safely tested on animals but found to be lethal for the human system.

If a scientist/vet wanted to find a cure for cancer in dogs, he/she is not going to do tests on an elephant. Likewise why do people think the answer to our problems lie with an entirely different species? If you want to find a cure for human cancer or any other human related disease, then the only way is to test on human cells.

[–] rainbow-honey 9 years ago

I'm 110% against animal testing for cosmetics but for curing horrible illnesses and pandemics (such as AIDS), I think it's a necessary evil.

Yes, I agree with that^.

Many of you would probably call me an animal for saying this but I think the welfare of a few animals would be a small price to pay, for the sake of millions of humans.

I consider myself an environmentalist, but agree with you there are times where sacrifices have to be made if there is a big enough reason.

[–] Justincblount 8 years ago

An easy thing to say when you're not the one being sacrificed.

[–] rainbow-honey 8 years ago

Well, do you have a better idea? If you have a way to find the cure without sacrificing the animals then I'm all ears.

On second thought, perhaps testing on human cells might be better since with animals, they do not have the same biology, as others have brought up.

[–] Justincblount 8 years ago

That's an interesting thought, particularly since you happen to be a human. If you really believe sacrifices need to be made, and aren't being a hypocrite, then put your money where your mouth is. Submit yourself for human experimentation. Let some scientists give you some cancer or AIDS so they can try to cure it. And sign something saying they can strap you down or put you in a cage if you try to resist.

[–] rainbow-honey 8 years ago

Sorry, I don't see how that is better, at least in the sense of right and wrong. I was talking about human cells. I understand that you are telling to imagine myself in the animals' position, but how would human testing be less morally wrong than animal testing, since humans are living beings and animals also?
I realize sacrificing humans and sacrificing animals are both morally questionable acts, but between them I think that sacrificing animals is the lesser of two evils, from our (the humans) perspective. And due to the fact that I have to be a human, I can't just side against trying to protect humans from harm versus trying to protect animals from harm. When sacrifices need to be made, we should at least pick the least evil sacrifice.

[–] Justincblount 8 years ago

Evil is simply harming another individual without consent. That is the only tangible definition of evil. So if you give your consent, it isn't evil. But I won't split hairs over that. Personally I would call it more evil for one species to subject another species to torture so that their own species is theoretically maybe spared some suffering, it takes a huge amount of ego to make that sound like a good idea. Example, would you subject a human to experimentation if they had less self-awareness than a chimp? Probably not. That's egotistical. And we mostly know what is causing cancer and AIDS, exposure to our own pollution/contamination. We're the ones screwing ourselves over, so I don't think another species should have to pay for it. But here's a hypothetical, which is more evil, torture a chimp or torture a human vegetable? I would say the chimp is more worthy of protection. But plenty of people would probably disagree, especially religious fundamentalists.

[–] rainbow-honey 8 years ago

I consider humans on the whole to be above other animals (not saying I don't also think animal life is sacred, just less so than human life) so I always thought experimenting on living humans was much worse than experimenting on animals. You might have different beliefs though, so I guess I can see where you're coming from and why I might come of as hypocritical.

We're the ones screwing ourselves over, so I don't think another species should have to pay for it.

Okay, I guess I can arrive at that conclusion when trying to think solely logically, even if emotionally, banning animal testing for human medicine still does not feel right to me. I guess we have to just wait for testing methods that harm no one to be developed.

Although you've given me much to think about, I think we've reached a point in the conversation when we both have to agree to disagree. Therefore, here would be a good place for me to just end the debate. I bid you good day.

[–] Noone222 8 years ago

Wow the stupidity is strong in this thread. Newsflash THEY DO TEST ON HUMANS. Are you so retarded you don't know that. MANY people will Aids and or cancer have undergone experimental testing.

http://www.beyondblackwhite.com/-My community

[–] Phrixotrichus 9 years ago

The term "cure for cancer" is in itself precarious and ignorant as there are 200+ types of different cancer that influence the body in different ways.
As for your question,I would take the utilitarian approach.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect." - Mark Twain

[–] boxerrebellion 9 years ago

I agree with both your stance and your signature.

[–] Aticusfinch 8 years ago

would you approve of it? I certainly would. I'm 110% against animal testing for cosmetics but for curing horrible illnesses and pandemics (such as AIDS), I think it's a necessary evil.

As a matter of fact animal testing is essential, not only to cancer, but to every medical and pharmacological investigation pretty much since beginning of the 20th century. If you want to know what happens when animal testing is not undertaken, google "thalidomide".

Many of you would probably call me an animal for saying this but I think the welfare of a few animals would be a small price to pay, for the sake of millions of humans.

I would call you an animal if you claimed the opposite; animals are not entitled to any rights, it´s a as simple as that.

[–] Justincblount 8 years ago

Thalidomide was tested on animals. It's an example of animal testing not working. The only reason testing exists is to limit criminal liability. So if the medicine kills you they can say, "I dunno, we did all the required testing..." which is exactly what they did with thalidomide.

[–] Justincblount 8 years ago

My stance is this: Let the people die.

I know that sounds like a mean thing to say, but it's the right thing to do.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]