What do you think about animal dissection, right or wrong, and if you know any sources of the topic please help me by posting them here! Thanks! :3

Isn't the animal already dead? There for no harm done?

>>10 Technically, yes. What I find wrong about dissection is that people breed animals literally just to be dissected. And since I view animals as having lives just like humans, I hate the thought that we purposely breed and kill these animals when we already have the technology to accurately "dissect" virtual animals without any actual harm done.

So, it's not at all like people are going out, finding a bunch of dead frogs, and then giving them to be dissected. Imagine being born just so you could one day be dissected for literally no purpose.

Seriously op? Youre seriously asking people to find sources and practically do your paper on dissection for you?

>>1 It's science. Science doesn't care about human ideas like right or wrong.

>>3 Science is a purpose.

>>5 like I said, we already have the technology to do virtual dissections. I find it pointless to kill animals for dissection now because of that.

>>3 that's the evil side of the double edge sword of science, discovering good things while doing something bad. Like a scientist invents a new clean fuel, fuel used in missiles.

>>6 Virtual has nothing on actual. It never will.

i dicected a bunny in school it had babies in it

>>3 But... Animals don't like like humans....

>>6 What is the point of uploading all we know for dissections to do them virtually, if the scientific dissections we do are to learn more things? I do agree for school-like situations, but there is a lot to be said for the experience of having to grit your teeth and dissect an animal.

Live* Stupid typo

While it is true that simulations are better than nothing, there is no substitute for real experience in a skill. Yes, animals are dying, but it's not a particularly inhumane way for them to die either, as they are probably put down as painlessly as possible in an attempt at avoiding damage to the specimens.

Two far less humane issues are animal abuse such as dog fighting, and the poaching of endangered species. Those also claim animal lives and commonly involve the animals suffering a lot more.

I don't really see a problem with it. As long as the animals are taken care of until they are put down, then I don't see how it could be considered animal cruelty.

>>10 My dog loves me. Also, we kill them for the most pointless reasons so it's a no wonder they don't like us. Look more into virtual dissection. It's where you dissect a 3D image of an animal, not just directions on how to do it.

>>12 Well, personally I view it as a skill most people don't need to know in the first place. And I do agree those are more serious matters but since this is a thread on dissection I stuck to that topic.

I don't see a problem with it. It isn't like the scientist appreciate their work, it isn't pleasant to kill an animal but they still do it because there is an important meaning on it. Experiments such as dissections help to discover more about medecines and medical treatments, and those scientist are working for us to discover new way to cure serious diseases. There is a noble cause, there's a sense in doing this!
This is what I think.

>>14 Check my typo correction, I actually meant to type "Live like"*. Because quite often animals live much more basic and expendable lives, killing is never right but in some cases it is certainly less wrong.

I don't agree with it.

This is because I put animals and humans on the same level, and I wouldn't agree with breeding and killing people just for the point of dissection, whether we're getting better medications from it either way. Fuck, I don't even use medication when I am ill, so :L

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind breeding and killing humans for food if they were a major, necessary/healthy food source, so I don't mind slaughterhouse meat (putting the overexaggerated, gory details of those documentaries to the side).

/is weird

Wow. That sounded horrible.

Before anyone goes, well wouldn't that be the same as slavery? or if that were the case, how would they choose who is/isn't food? I want to extend that question to animals. It's just whoever's the unluckiest. Like I said, animals = humans for me, so if you're willing to imprison a quarter of a species for food purposes, then that has to apply to us as well.

And the reason I don't mind death for food but mind death for dissection is because I think there has to be meaning. I don't hunt. Why? Because I can go to the grocery store and get the same food. I don't believe in killing something unless you intend to use all of the resources you're getting from it. Like the Native Americans and buffalo. They got meat, fur, etc from it and used everything they could get from it. I think that's an appropriate kill.

We're not that thorough with food. We kill animals, take the meat, and that's about all for most companies (some sell feathers and such from the chickens or leather from the cows, but it's rare for a company in the US to be that resourceful). But at least we're getting /something/ more than a philosophy or a very small piece of information out of it.

>>17 This is something I have always wanted to ask somebody with your beliefs, what about ants? Ants technically are not 'life' as we know it because although they exist as separate bodies, multiple studies have shown that they have a collective conscious, and are all rather arms of one mind (Possibly with the queen at it's center). Would you still put them on the same level of life as humans, or would you consider that different?

Slaughterhouse is not the only options, I know that those documentaries would love you to think that they were, but free range is a major option and it's a hell of a lot better compromise to just buy free-range rather than stop all together. I mean, cows would not exist as a species unless we needed them for food, that is their purpose in life. They were created by humans breeding three different species together over time to create the best possible harvest able meat-source. Free range life is also of considerably better quality for most animals, the factors of starvation, predators and disease are pretty much taken out of the equation.

Also, please don't be one of those people that say "Go and kill your own chicken if you want to eat that badly", no, no I will not. It's exactly the same as saying "Want to fly somewhere? Better fly your own damn plane" or "If you want to watch a movie you better go make it yourself", I don't do it, instead I pay people to do it. Believe it or not, that is how an economy functions, you pay people for goods and services that you do not wish to preform yourself. That was not aimed at you just a rant in general BTW.

I do get your point though, large companies could certainly raise their standards in terms of meat harvesting. Unfortunately, for them, profits always come first, so it might take a while for anybody to do that.

Little question for everybody who said "animals = humans": why haven't you eaten a human yet? if you are vegan, then the question isn't valuable. But if you regulary eat meat, then you should consider it.

Btw, I think we went out of topic...

There are a lot of variables to think about in this question which is why my short answer is i am undesided. Was the animal breed to be killed? Did the animal die natually? So on so on. You also have to consiter the animal itself. People get caught up into thinking everything has a "soul" and has emotions, so on and so on. When you really think about it, this isnt true. Not all animals can generate thoughts, emotions, and over all feelings, which in turn make it almost impossible to consider it having a "soul". Before you start yelling at me, compare a jelly fish to a human. A jelly fish has no brain. It goes about it's life without thinking about what it's doing, just doing it. If it senses something off, it reacts the way its cells are programmed to. It doesnt think "hhmm, i could do this, or i could do this" it just does something. Imagine you saw a person like that in the park. Simply walking around aimlessly, not responding to anything, and randomly taking a bite out of anything neer it if it got hungry. It shows no signs of attempting to communicate, no signs of emotion, or any reaction to anything except it's own basic needs. It is basically a zombie. Would you think that person with no feelings what so ever had a soul? This jelly fish like state is true for the majority of small animals like worms, basic insects, and a few types of fish. So if we are talking about simple animals like insects and jelly fish, as long as it's dead, i see no harm even if it was simply breed to be disected. On to more sefisticated animals. This is where true ethics become present. These animals show some form of sefistication. These communicate in one way or another, some can use tools, and so on. I am still undesided about these animals. I feel breeding them to kill them is wrong, but we do that anyways to get the food we eat. I feel that if they died natually, and lived a reletively free life, then there is nothing wrong with it. They are already dead. If they where breed simply to be killed for no human gain besides a class being able to cut it up for fun, then i feel it's wrong. So again, this has no specific yes or no and it depends on far to many factors.

>>20 Ants are insects, not animals. I couldn't give a reasonable explanation as to why, but I don't really extend that rant to insects.

"Go and kill your own chicken if you want to eat that badly"

I'm not going to say that. I said the opposite, if you read what I wrote. The reason I don't hunt is because I already have a food supply. There's no reason for me to kill another animal when the meat is already provided.

I know free-range exists, obviously. They just ridiculously overprice it; plenty of us can't afford to pay eight dollars a pound for a chicken dinner.

>>21 I have. I regularly eat human meat. Every night, I go out and murder someone, magically don't get caught, cook it to disgusting perfection, put it in a meal (often in a stew or sometimes as an enchilada), and enjoy.

>_>

I mean, did you really just ask that question?

I think that everyone has a right to eat what they want, but when it come to animal dissection. It depends on the matter.. If the animal died of NATURAL causes, if you REALLY want to help other animals NOT TO DIE from the illness that the only way to know how it affected the dead animal is cut it open and look inside. Just like human dissection. But if you are KILLING an animal to dissect it, than THAT is wrong.

>>23 Sorry to burst your bubble, but insects are animals by definition. All organisms in kingdom animalia are multi cellular(ants have more than one cell, check!), eukaryotic(ant cells have nuclei, check!), and are heterotrophs(they dont photosynthesize or chemosynthesize and consume organic materials to survive, check!). Ants are animals. Your only argument that can even try to prove me wrong is saying ants are fungi. To defend that point, ants move and dont decompose, making them unable to be classified as fungi. Check mate.

>>25 This isn't a chess game, hun, nor is it a war.

By definition, yes, insects are animals. However I (as well as most people) put them on a different moral level. I already said I had no good explanation for it.

But fine, let's say they're on the same level.

A spider or ant is in my house, do I kill it? Yes. It went in my home without permission. If it was a person--an intruder--I would have injured and possibly killed them as well. I don't go out of my way to kill insects that our outside. In the end, by the way they're treated, they are equal. I see no point in dissecting insects either. Actually, in the end, everything I said before applies to them as well.

I hardly think it matters either way. My opinion hasn't changed just because an argument about bugs came up.

are*

>>23 >>27
As soon as you start doing bias categorising due to complexity, your whole system falls apart. You can't have a bar for life that determines how much you care, "This is because I put animals and humans on the same level" is also a pretty deceiving statement if that is how you feel. Using that train of logic can lead to things like, "I don't consider people under the age of 6 to be humans, they aren't intelligent enough", which is also wrong and also flawed. If you are going to put any restrictions on categorising life, you must put them all on, or else that will fall around your ears as soon as somebody digs a little deeper.

And if you don't categorise life then you consider ants on the same level as humans, which is not going to end well. It is important to be aware of shades of grey, not just base everything off black and white, humans are all to eager to do that. This is a sensitive topic but it must be dealt with, science needs to do some misdeeds to achieve great things, it has always been like that. Science is never pure, once again, you can't think in black and white. Categorising is important because distinction relies upon it, and distinction is a large part of educated judgement.

With the free-range meat, even if it is more expensive, just eat it on occasion, humans weren't built to eat meat every meal. I do understand what you mean though, it is a lot cheaper for me because I live in the country, I always forget they pretty much double the price in the city.

>>29 Putting restrictions on categorizing life is wrong, then, according to what you said there. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Saying that humans are the most important and are worth the breeding and sacrifice of other animals in itself is a categorization equal to saying they're on the same level as any other animal is.

Why would saying that ants are on the same level as humans not end well?

Why should science achieve great things through misdeeds? We seem to be living fine as we are. Why do animals need to be bred to be killed for the sake of science? If it's for the sake of science, why don't we just breed and kill humans to dissect as their systems are closer? After all, that would be the best and most logical thing to do for the sake of advancing the fields of surgery, medicine, etc; the only thing stopping science from going that route is morals.

So if science has morals that get in the way of its logic, why can't I, myself, have morals which differ than yours? Why are my morals "not going to end well" just because they're different? Morals and categorizations certainly do have a place in this debate.

How far do you want science to go in the first place, and what do you think dissecting animals actually does in the true field of science? There are many uses, yes, and most of the dissections are done after experiments on various things to see the internal effects. Blatant dissection that we think of is usually done to study anatomy, but we already know the anatomy of most animals.

Do you agree with dissection in schools? Where millions of animals are killed every year so students (most of which have no intention of going on to a medical school) can cut them apart to learn when there are plenty of virtual alternatives?

Also, to those of you who are trying to say they live a nice life and are then humanely killed, do you understand what you're even saying?

Gaseous poisons may corrode their throats/lungs, so they are rarely used. They can't shoot the animal in the head (which is the fastest humane way to kill them) or else it will damage the brain. They can't euthanize them with shots (the way your dog or pet would be put down) because it is extremely expensive to do, and dissection animals aren't worth the cost or the effort to stick a needle in each and every one of them. Most of them are suffocated or electrocuted in large batches; neither of those are pleasant ways to go for any creature.

And I'm sorry, but again, not all of us have the money to eat freerange even on occasion. Even if you do eat freerange, it won't lessen the number of animals being killed already enmass for food. It will just increase the amount being thrown out at grocery stores unless you get some huge, majority movement boycotting slaughterhouse meat (which again, won't happen because a lot of people can't afford freerange meat nor "organic" food products).

>>29 you can't put animals and humans on the same level because animals and humans are different from each other.

>>31 Of course, of course. Because according to the words of God as per the Bible, animals have no soul and therefore cannot be on the same moral level. Love thy neighbor has never once applied to animals because God said they don't deserve it. The only worth an animal has is that they were created by Him, and were only created--like most thinks which God created--to better the lives of the human race. Thus, in accordance to Christianity, such dissection is entirely humane so long as it is only done to help humans.

The OP was asking for opinions, so I guess religious morals technically do have a place in the debate; if I say otherwise, I'll be being hypocritical, having dragged my own (clearly differing) morals into it already. Damnit.

>>32 you was right untell you got ignorant with the hole "love thy neighbor has never once applied to animals because God said they don't deserve it" thing

>>33 Then explain it, my darling little troll. Where in the Bible does it say that animals are to be treated the same as people? I must have missed it~

(For those of you who are religious and not stupid, I'm not asking for you to argue about this. I know there are plenty of sects that don't directly follow the Bible word for word, and I'm not legitimately reading it to see what it does/doesn't say for a debate anyway at this moment in time. I'm just trying to busy GHF with a less spamlicious debate.)

i never sead animals are to be treated the same as people. i sead you can't put them on the same level as people.

I'm too lazy to read everything else, but >>21 I haven't eaten human meat before because I'm not a murderer, and also it's considered weird in society. I honestly want to try human meat just to see what it tastes like but I'm never going too xD

the aspect that distinguishes us from animals is our sense of right and wrong. Except for humans whose brains have been irreparably damaged, most people have some sense of what is right or wrong. It may be a very twisted moral sense but nevertheless it is there, and it governs the way an individual acts and reacts. Even the most intelligent animals do not appear to have any moral principles. That is not to say animals have no control over their behavior. They do have controls, but these are instinctive rather than thought-out principles based on a moral code.Some may suggest that the great apes and other mammals are as intelligent as humans, and that they can act in surprising and unpredictable ways. Despite repeated attempts to show such intelligence in animals, humans are light years ahead of all other animals in moral reasoning, thinking, and doing. Furthermore, humans have a spiritual dimension that animals lack. God commanded us to worship Him and even set apart one day each week for that purpose. Animals apparently are incapable of worship.Some others would suggest that animals are even better than humans. Animals did not plan and carry out wars that have marred our civilization. This only shows how much we have fallen from our original exalted state.Another area in which the Bible distinguishes the human from the animal is the former's stewardship of the latter. "And God said unto them,...have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living creature that moveth upon the earth" (Genesis 1:28).

>>36 Then why did you say I was wrong about God making animals for people? If they were just made to coexist, they'd be on the same level, no? ;l

>>37 I think it'd taste weird >_> Especially if the person went on one of those McDonald's diets, ugh.

>>38 Tell me, when was it that you ventured into an animal's mind or spoke to an animal to learn all this? And since when were humans not considered a type of animal?

I have no faith in science nor religion. Just because a scientist or religious text tells me that animals have no morals doesn't mean that I will believe it.

Also, what about the reports of dolphins saving people from drowning? Is it instinct for them to help people? Helping other animals is not considered an instinct by science, in which case, who is to say they don't have morals? Who is to say they don't judge other animals and decide which ones should and shouldn't live?

There is no proof, in my opinion, on either side of that debate until someone can literally see the inside of multiple animals' minds or speak to them directly.

god created humans in his own image. god is not a monkey if he was then we too would look like monkeys. god is not a tiger if he was we would look like tigers. but we don't we look like god. so humans cannot possibly be animals.

The Bible makes a clear distinction between man and animals:All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fish, another of birds (1 Corinthians 15:39).

this is proof that people and animals are different! tell your dog to biled a car or cut the grass or even cook food. i don't thank animals can't do stuff like that but humans can.

My cat is not amused.>>43

>>43 They can't help they have a different anatomy than us. Or neurological structure. What about a man who had his hands cut off from some accident? He can't cook or cut the grass. He must be lower than me, then, by that logic.

>>43 first lets correct you're spelling.
Build
Think

>>46 I think you mean let's.

Can't be a dick if you're fucking up, Faraday.

>>46 Or even grammar (unless that was on purpose as a joke)

You're* Come on man, you can't make such basic mistakes while attacking somebody for spelling.

Since we're on the topic.

>>46 >>48

First let's*
your spelling*

>>49 Just realised that I fucked up on >>48. Was supposed to be correcting his spelling of You're into your. My mind had a brain fart however, and it turned out like that.

>>49 thanks for the support!

>>51 Oh trust me asshole, I'm not supporting you. We're so off topic that this thread is irreparable until you learn to shut up and stop taking the trolls seriously. My "on the topic" comment was sarcasm, kid.

I just figured I'd point out all that grammar mistakes at once since you guys apparently can only see one mistake at a time.

Bringing this back to the original topic, I think animal dissection is perfectly okay under certain circumstances. Without dissection, it would've taken humans a much longer time to reach our state of knowledge when it comes to human and animal organs + body systems.
If the animal was killed humanely, I can deal.
But if the animal has been found dead or is dying of more natural causes, I believe dissection to be perfectly appropriate. I strictly believe that animals should not be killed for the purpose of dissection only to be thrown away - if the parts are somehow being used, I might be swayed.
All in all, the conditions of death are what matter to me.
Some people insist on not desecrating the corpse or whatever, which I don't really get because a dead body is still a dead body? I was once asked "What if it was your grandfather's cadaver that they were dissecting?"
Actually, my grandfather donated his corpse for dissection so touche my friend. We have to learn to continue advancing scientifically, and to learn we have to experiment.
Sacrificing a dead body could save lives, be it human or animal dying of cancer or of old age.

nubhh

jghvyih

>>54 >>55 Oh okay then c:

>>52 Was actually kind of wating for one of you guys to jump in too. I've had it up to the gills with Faraday and his faggotry.

Going to rerail this thread:

I don't really agree with testing of this kind, I find it cruel and a bit sick.
I think this way because, like Barabi, I put animals and humans on the same level. (Ants don't count, if you think bugs count you are dumb and need to go think about your life.)
However, I view this kind of things as a necessary evil.

If you look back at WWII and all the crazy medical experiments the Nazis did on their prisoners, you will see that we're pretty much doing the same to animals.
But...we wouldn't have a lot of the medicines and whatnot that we have today if it was not for those inhumane experiments.
It's something that is disgusting to think about, but it really comes down to how much of your humanity you want to give up for progress.

>>57 Okay, if you put animals on the same level as you, you realise a lot of how you live your life indirectly harms entire ecosystems, right? Or is it alright because you can't physically see how much damage you are doing them..?

I don't really think there is a definite conclusion to this argument, so much of it is purely based on opinions. I personally, am for scientific dissection, school dissection should be virtual when affordable though.

Also, people need to stop shitting on ants, they are amazing creatures. They filled in a typical ants nest with concrete then dug it up and it was over 50 metres squared in size. There was highways to make getting around quicker, rubbish dumps and even fungus farm type things. Just because they are individually small does not mean they are insignificant.

>>57 You suck. Back on topic again.
I think animal dissection is okay. Mainly because humans used to/still do get dissected on way back when/today. I only think it's wrong when we mutilate the body like after we're done dissecting on the animal we play around with the body like ripping out its' organs or playing with it like it's a puppet. I view that as wrong because we should honor the dead because after we die we wouldn't want someone to do that to our body.

>>57 brings up a good point. It may be cruel and inhumane but without it, medicine would be set back and our knowledge of an animals anatomy would be little to nothing. This is why science and morals normally dont mix well together. Sometimes in order to learn and possibly save hundreds or thousands of lives, you have to ditch your morals. By the way, disecting an animal after it's dead is not that different from doing an autopsy on a human which happens daily. Really the only difference is that people disecting humans for an autopsy put everything back in for the funeral and people disecting lets say a mouse to find out what it died from may not patch it up and have a funeral for it. I again go back to the "if it's already dead, you can do no harm" idea.

>>58 Truth (about the ants.) Ants are pretty cool creatures. And because they're like every other animal and need to be respected in the sense we shouldn't be randomly killing ants. And because all animals play a pretty important part in our life (ecosystem stuff). And I do put bugs on the same level as humans and animals maybe not that much , but it's there because bugs are just as/more important that humans and animals.

>>59 agreed about the whole puppet thing. That is just sick and disrespectful.
>>58 agreed about ants. They are decently interesting creatures. They are one of the few catagories of organisms that will attack something in armies of hundreds or thousands. Other organisms will hunt or fight in groups but the only organisms that fight to kill in armies of that size are humans, ants, and a few types of bees. Other insects will swarm in search of food or for defence but not as a direct offencive attack on one specific target.

>>58 You do realize that humans are destructive by nature, yes?
It is in our brain, as a primal hardwire, to destroy and consume until we are the apex of the ecosystem.

Survival of the fittest, mate. I don't always agree with it, but it's what happens.

Also, wasn't shitting on ants. I'm saying that they can't be applied to this discussion because we aren't talking about ants and the injustices they suffer.
Quit acting 12. We get it, you dig ants.
Stay on topic.

>>59 Cute.

>>63 Should dissecting creatures for science then be counted as part of our destructive, ambitious nature then? Science is merely trying to logically understand the universe, trying to do that while staying completely pure and keeping your hands clean is not going to get far.

Also, all I was making an example of is that bugs at times can be just as complex and amazing as other creatures. Not rating them as important as other life simply because they are small seems strange.

>>64 Yes. Science should be counted as our destructive ambition.
I already said that.

My entire opinion on the matter is that; while I don't agree with animal dissection, I see the need and understand it's place in science.

Quit derailing the thread about bugs man.
Pls.

>>65 Quit deraling the thread with bugs man.
Pls.

Sorry about that.
/isdrunk

>>65 Okay, I can understand that opinion. (Because that was necessary)

I wonder if we are ever going to not need dissection. I mean, surely there must be a point where we will know everything you can learn from cutting an animal up.

>>67 Probably not, I mean science and "facts" are always changing.

In order to explain my opinion, I should also add that I don't feel the continuing advancement of the sciences is honestly necessary for life as it is. I have a rant about the advancement of chemical medications versus their necessity (since someone else mentioned it recently in here), but I didn't want to derail the thread with it.

And putting medication to the side, let me again open up this question for debate: Do you agree with the mass dissection of animals in the classroom, which results in the death of millions of animals every year? What do you think of virtual dissection as a less destructive alternative?

>>60 No, there is a HUGE difference between doing an autopsy on someone who lived their life before dying from varied causes and the mass breeding and crude slaughter of animals for the goal of dissection.

>>58 "Okay, if you put animals on the same level as you, you realise a lot of how you live your life indirectly harms entire ecosystems, right? Or is it alright because you can't physically see how much damage you are doing them..?"

Guess what? Animals do the same thing! It's survival of the fittest out here. If another race was the one with technology, they'd be doing this to us instead. Humans are extremely destructive, yes, and we don't mind the ecosystem as well because we don't need it. There is potential for any race to not need it though. If humans were not around, other races would be evolving to be more intelligent and resourceful to take our place. Fuck, they're evolving as we speak, but not to the degree they should be because of how suffocating human society is. Not much I can do about that unless the race as a whole wants to change.

>>69 This I agree with. I understand dissection if we actually need to study and learn about it, but there's no reason to even kill animals for high school dissection anymore because we have virtual dissection...And yes, I did do virtual dissection in high school and was completely fine.

On the random topic of bugs, I respect any man (or woman) who doesn't want to kill them on sight.

>>69 As someone who has to take a lot of medication, could I get a link to that thread? I'm quite curious, since you mention it.
And I agree with the thing about high school dissection - When it's just highschoolers learning the basics of animal anatomy, an interactive image would do the trick just fine. Virtual dissection would be even better - it sucks that more schools don't practice it.
When it comes to actual scientists dissecting animals to look for certain abnormalities (organ damage caused by disease, mutations, ect), I believe actual dissection to be VERY appropriate. Sometimes animals will have to be sacrificed for that, and it's really sad, but it can be necessary.
But, at the same time, we now have a lot of ways to learn about the insides of a person or animal that aren't dissection, AND can be performed while the subject is alive and well. Like MRIs or ultrasounds, that kind of thing. While they have their limits, it's better than killing animals just for that purpose.
(Sorry if this is unclear, I just woke up)