MEP backs ban on animal testing (From Daily Echo)

Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

Which party, Echo?

sooey wrote:
Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

Can see both sides and a contentious issue.
Nobody likes to see cruelty, however, if these tests had not been carried out in the past, there would not have been the number of medicinal break throughs and remedies that there are now.
I suppose another answer would be for all those animal savers and those against animal testing put themselves forward for research instead.
Wonder how many would?

sooey wrote:
Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

Yes, a bit like the children in Naomi House, I imagine.

sooey wrote:
Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

No they're not. Living? Yes. Intelligent? Probably, but not in the conscious, self-aware way humans are. Do they feel pain? Yes. Suffering and misery just like humans? No.

I agree that their captivity or otherwise is irrelevant, though. That's a completely arbitrary moral yardstick. Either you agree with animal testing, or you don't. Something tells me we disagree on that aspect, which is fine, but other animals are not conscious and aware the way humans are, end of story.

Support for a vote. So she hasn't actually done anything. Why is this in the paper? Another politician puff piece?

Victorian Principles wrote:

sooey wrote:
Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

No they're not. Living? Yes. Intelligent? Probably, but not in the conscious, self-aware way humans are. Do they feel pain? Yes. Suffering and misery just like humans? No.

I agree that their captivity or otherwise is irrelevant, though. That's a completely arbitrary moral yardstick. Either you agree with animal testing, or you don't. Something tells me we disagree on that aspect, which is fine, but other animals are not conscious and aware the way humans are, end of story.

Do you have any articles you could direct me to that back up the claim they don't suffer like us?

RadicalEmu wrote:

Victorian Principles wrote:

sooey wrote:
Whether these animals are bred in captivity or are wild is of no consequence. The fact is that they are still living, intelligent creatures who feel pain, suffering and misery just like humans do.

No they're not. Living? Yes. Intelligent? Probably, but not in the conscious, self-aware way humans are. Do they feel pain? Yes. Suffering and misery just like humans? No.

I agree that their captivity or otherwise is irrelevant, though. That's a completely arbitrary moral yardstick. Either you agree with animal testing, or you don't. Something tells me we disagree on that aspect, which is fine, but other animals are not conscious and aware the way humans are, end of story.

Do you have any articles you could direct me to that back up the claim they don't suffer like us?

As a matter of fact there are and if you use your head you will realise why. Humans have a capacity to visualise anticipate and project that no animal posesses. The problem comes when stupid people anthropomorphise animals and start talking about their "rights". I have yet to hear an animal claim its "right" to anything other than its mate or its territory. In fact I have as much right to speak on behalf of an animal as anyone else - in other words people claiming "animal rights" are simply stating their own views and unilaterally ascribing them to animals so if I start talking about an animal's "right" to serve a noble cause in medical research why is my interpretation any less valid than yours? Animals do not have "rights" - but humans do have responsibilties and duties towards animals which include caring for them while in captivity and minimising any suffering they may endure. Sensible and mature debate of this rather than silly doe eyed cuddly sentimentality would be a good place to start.