What's The Issue With Self Service?
News0 min ago
Is testing on animals as cruel as fox hunting
25 Answers
Is testing on animals next to be banned following the imminent changes on fox hunting. Is it a cruel and unnecessary piece of legislation or is it any thing to help forward medical science?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oneeyedvic. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is a clear distinction between hunting and animal testing for me.
Hunting is a ritualised form of animal cruelty for the purposes of entertainment. (As I've mentioned in other threads, the argument that fox hunting is about the control of vermin is simply dismissed; if that were the case, then vermin control would be done by a bloke in a van wearing overalls).
Animal testing, whilst often (and debatably always) cruel, is not carried out for the enjoyment of the participants, but in order to improve scientific knowledge.
Personally, I certainly think there is a strong case for an absolute ban on animal testing for cosmetics and food products - there is an extensive body of evidence available to support any tests required from testing already performed. Whilst I don't like the idea of testing on animals for medical reasons, I would conceed that is it regretably necessary. I would like to see stricter guidelines put in place to minimise animal testing and ensure that as little suffering as is possible occurs.
Hunting is a ritualised form of animal cruelty for the purposes of entertainment. (As I've mentioned in other threads, the argument that fox hunting is about the control of vermin is simply dismissed; if that were the case, then vermin control would be done by a bloke in a van wearing overalls).
Animal testing, whilst often (and debatably always) cruel, is not carried out for the enjoyment of the participants, but in order to improve scientific knowledge.
Personally, I certainly think there is a strong case for an absolute ban on animal testing for cosmetics and food products - there is an extensive body of evidence available to support any tests required from testing already performed. Whilst I don't like the idea of testing on animals for medical reasons, I would conceed that is it regretably necessary. I would like to see stricter guidelines put in place to minimise animal testing and ensure that as little suffering as is possible occurs.
Not quite - the cruelty is an essential element of why it should be banned. Fox hunting is cruelty carried out for people's entertainment; it's no different from bear baiting or **** fighting.
I've read the arguments about fox hunting being about vermin control, and they don't convince me. Fox hunting is clearly a social activity steeped in traditions and the Countryside Alliance is essentially about trying to maintain a traditional activity they enjoy and don't want to lose.
If it were about vermin control, it would not have the pomp about it. When was the last time a rat-catcher enjoyed a glass of sherry before doing his job? Or rubbed the dismbowelled corpse of Rattus norvegicus over his apprentice? Vermin control is simply not a job performed by the upper classes. There's not, however, a class-envy basis for my dislike of hunting. To address your point, however, if it *were* about vermin control, it would indeed be a different matter. But, as I say, I can't quite figure out the connection between livery and catching foxes.
You know, there were probably people going around in the seventeenth century bemoaning the end of witch dunking and claiming the country would be overrun with 'em...
I've read the arguments about fox hunting being about vermin control, and they don't convince me. Fox hunting is clearly a social activity steeped in traditions and the Countryside Alliance is essentially about trying to maintain a traditional activity they enjoy and don't want to lose.
If it were about vermin control, it would not have the pomp about it. When was the last time a rat-catcher enjoyed a glass of sherry before doing his job? Or rubbed the dismbowelled corpse of Rattus norvegicus over his apprentice? Vermin control is simply not a job performed by the upper classes. There's not, however, a class-envy basis for my dislike of hunting. To address your point, however, if it *were* about vermin control, it would indeed be a different matter. But, as I say, I can't quite figure out the connection between livery and catching foxes.
You know, there were probably people going around in the seventeenth century bemoaning the end of witch dunking and claiming the country would be overrun with 'em...
Let me get this right:
Fox hunting is about the upper class having some fun.
Although it is undoubtably cruel, if fox hunitng was for vermin control it would not be a problem.
So if the ratcatcher was to start enjoying himself, would he be banned?
Does the kid in the playground who gets his magnifying mirror out to burn an ant no better than these upper class toffs?
I also think that comparing dunking witches to an argument about vermin (and I have not seen any threads denying that they are vermin) a bit suspect.
As I have said on previous threads - i am really not swayed either way and am playing Devils Advocate. I mean no body to take any offense at any of my comments. I just enjoy the debate.
No offence taken!
The point about mentioning the upper classes is not to say that their class is a reason for the ban; it absolutely isn't. The point is merely that 'vermin catcher' is not a job one would naturally associate with them, leading to sceptisism over whether that is actually why they're doing it. You can undoubtledly guess which side of the line I fall.
If, for the sake of making a philosophical point, we say we do believe that it is the most efficient method of controlling a pest, then yes, I would conceed that it were necessary and should be allowed to remain. As previously mentioned however, I don't for one second believe that fox hunting is an efficient method of killing foxes.
I take your point about the rat catcher, but bearing in mind my argument about why Fox Hunting is occurring, I would argue the difference is one of intent - Fox Hunters like hunting and killing foxes, which has a by-product of destroying vermin, Rat catchers destroy vermin, which they may happen to enjoy. I would think that if someone were obviously after the job because they were a sadist, then one might feel inclined not to give it to them!
The child in the playground would undoubtedly be reprimanded were they caught in the middle of their ant burning, it's not what most people would consider desirable behaviour.
I mention the witch dunking partly out of mischief, but also to make the point that behaviours once deemed acceptable do not necessarily remain so.
The point about mentioning the upper classes is not to say that their class is a reason for the ban; it absolutely isn't. The point is merely that 'vermin catcher' is not a job one would naturally associate with them, leading to sceptisism over whether that is actually why they're doing it. You can undoubtledly guess which side of the line I fall.
If, for the sake of making a philosophical point, we say we do believe that it is the most efficient method of controlling a pest, then yes, I would conceed that it were necessary and should be allowed to remain. As previously mentioned however, I don't for one second believe that fox hunting is an efficient method of killing foxes.
I take your point about the rat catcher, but bearing in mind my argument about why Fox Hunting is occurring, I would argue the difference is one of intent - Fox Hunters like hunting and killing foxes, which has a by-product of destroying vermin, Rat catchers destroy vermin, which they may happen to enjoy. I would think that if someone were obviously after the job because they were a sadist, then one might feel inclined not to give it to them!
The child in the playground would undoubtedly be reprimanded were they caught in the middle of their ant burning, it's not what most people would consider desirable behaviour.
I mention the witch dunking partly out of mischief, but also to make the point that behaviours once deemed acceptable do not necessarily remain so.
Sorry I assumed that everyone knew. Thalidomide was tested on animals with no adverse results. It wasn't until it was taken by pregnant woment that its teratogenic properties became evident. My point is that animal testing is not foolproof by any means. One of the arguments for continuing with it is to ensure public safety, but actually it doesn't. If its not safe and not humane, why do we continue with it? If its "the best we can do" then how hard are we trying to find something better?
I agree with Waldo about banning testing for non medical food products. I would also like to know what testing has been done on medical products and procedures so that I can decide whether or not to use them and I think that we do need much more openness and stricter rules on the use of all animals. Having said that, I am against the violent intimidation of people because of their work connections.
I find it very sad that people still think thalidomide (a drug prescribed in the fifties) is a reason that people think we should no longer test on animals.
Animal testing is not a definitive test but part of a long step in progress. Yes thalidomide was horrible, but 2 things - firstly the animal testing was not complete - (pregnant animals were not included in the testing, and secondly, how many drugs that have saved a lot more lives have been tested on animals.
Personally, I do very much believe in animal testing, and having looked after a terminally person who died from an incurable disease, I am afraid I would always place the life of a human being above the lives of laboratory animals.
I also think that those people who do not belive in animal testing should not be allowed access to any medicine that has ever been used to test animals on - that'll teach them.
it should be noted that in the UK, the testing of cosmetics has not been carried out for many, many years. More recently, a ban on the testing of cosmetic ingredients has also been adopted. The companies which advertise their products as 'not tested on animals' are not lying, but they do not need to test their products on animals, because in the past all the ingredients have been tested individually, or as a whole by another company. There is VERY LITTLE commercially available cosmetic/soap/hair product etc that has not been tested on animals in the past in some form or other, and people seem to forget this (or are unaware).
Despite all the advances that the animal lib people tell us about, it is just NOT POSSIBLE to replace animal testing at the moment. not if we want to continue to advance in the field of medicine and animal veterinary care. You cannot replicate a whole complex organisim by using computer programmes or any of the other methods often bandied about. The choice really is stark, we either let children, adults and animals die of curable illnesses, (or lead restricted and imparied lives deu to ill health), or perform essential safety and efficacy tests on animals under strictly controlled and highly monitored conditions.
To compare this to hunting is at best ignorant, and at worst, irresponsible and dangerous.
and, why arent' all teh animal lib groups pouring their funds into looking at alternatives, instead of threatening people who are doing a legal job of work? why target the workers, why not target the people who require these test to be carried out by law (ie all global governments and EU/worldwide regualtory bodies)? I think people who talk readily about alternatives have very little insight into the reality of animal testing and the complexities involved in this field.
"To compare this to hunting is at best ignorant, and at worst, irresponsible and dangerous"
As you will see from my posts, I have said that I am for animal testing (which seems to be your viewpoint as well). To call people ignorant, irresponsible & dangerous seems a litte over the top when all I was looking for in the original question was to open up a debate.
Seems your arguments are good (and we do agree) but with the above quote you just seem to be shouting that "my argument is better than yours so shutup".
oneeyedvic, sorry if I caused you offence. That really wasn't my intention at all. I know your question was NOT directly comparing the two, and I see from your answers that you are by no means an extremist of any sort, so I do apologise for this. However, I do react strongly when the hunting and aninmal testing debates are discussed togther. You're right, I AM pro testing. Testing is a legal requirement in most developed countries in teh world. it is required so that all medicines are known to be effective and safe. it helps prevents things like thalidomide surfacing again, and provides vital safety information to the medical profession (ie how much damage would an overdose of X-drug do, if taken by accident by a child?).
Personally, I know too many people who go to work every day and worry abotu what they'll face. People who have to actually check under their cars for bombs or fireworks, people who are threatened, sometimes daily, just for going about thier legal work. these people work in animal testing. The hunting debate is an entirely separate thign for most people, but to animal liberations groups and extremists, it is sadly OFTEN grouped together as one cause...as a lot of their literature will verify.
Sorry again if I was rude, or not clear enough, but I do stand by what I said. x
No problems jillx. As I said we do agree, I am very much for animal testing to.
I was really trying to play devils advocate in that although the two shouldn't be compared, i am really trying to find out why fox hunting has been banned.
It seems that this is a class thing and most poeple seem to hate the fact that other people are enjoying themselves. See my other questions / posts including the vegetarian option.
Unfortunately, i do see some poeple thinking this is cruel and I just pray that a ban is not called for on medical testing.
Incidentally, does anyone know what happened re a news story around a month ago with a pharmaceutical company looking at pulling out. i know the University (oxfprd or Cambridge - can't rememebr which) has stopped building one.
I always think that any of the terrorists involved in threatening the medical staff should be injected with an incurable disease and testing done on them.......
Tell your friends that a lot of rational people support their work and understand they do a very difficult job in difficult circumstances.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.