Debate+Week+4+term+2

Please enter the debate

Animals should be dissected for scientific research

I think that animals should NOT be dissected for scientific research. Imagine, you are an ordinary frog and you get caught. How would YOU like it if YOU were dissected by something!? I don't think you would like it very much, so why do it to some poor little creature? My answer is don't. Tara.

I think that animals should be dissected for scientific puposes but you should only dissect them once or twice and take photos or videos to show what the insides of it look like. if that dosen't happen then you could also have a licence to dissect (like a license to kill, just different). HUW

I believe that animals should not be dissected for scientific purposes. Experiments on animals can be very misleading. Useless experiments concerning AIDs have been performed on chimpanzees to find a cure but it is now known that although AIDs is very deadly to humans and will usually kill us, it //**does not kill chimpanzees**//. Imagine all the better uses those wasted funds could have been put to! So many of our funds are going to waste because of unsuccessful experiments performed on animals. The link between smoking and lung cancer was first observed in humans but because animals did not get cancer when forced to inhale tobacco smoke, vital health warnings were delayed by many years. Who knows how many deaths were caused by the misleading information provided by animal experiments? Drugs such as aspirin and paracetamol, commonly used to treat people, are highly poisonous to cats. Although Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928, it was not until ten years later that it was tested, first in animals, and then subsequently in humans. Early researchers chose to test penicillin on mice and the encouraging results led to its use in humans. Had they chosen to test it on hamsters or guinea pigs, it is likely that penicillin would have been discarded, as it is lethal to both species. -Abhishek

I believe that animals should not be dissected for scientific purposes. Experiments may be false or misleading. As animals may take in medicine which humans is lethal to humans so it can make humans believe it is harmless as it was tested on another animal. And when humans try it it may cause death or illness. Or it could be lethal to the animal but efficient for humans. Drugs like tobacco in smoking were also first tested on animals and it did not show harm to it so that is how people now are addicted to it. Also it could be cruel to the animal as some number of animals are endangered or rare. So it should be rather humans could extract DNA out of the animal when it has died and could test it. This will be less cruel to the animal and it could save it in numbers. Particular animals could be unharmed and it could be lethal to humans causing intense pain. Like Abhishek I firmly believe that animals should not be dissected for scientific purposes. Albert Wong


 * I believe that animals should not be dissected for scientific purposes. The science experiment might be misleading. Animals would be killed for no reason and could die. If everyone kept on testing medicine on animals, one day later on the animal might become extinct. ANIMALS SHOULD NOT BE DISSECTED FOR SCIENTIFIC PURPOSES. Experiments can definactly go wrong and just for a unimportant reason. Many animals die each year due to this horrifying matter. It is said that over 70 million animals are tortured or killed in US laboratories each year. Over 10 billion animals are slautered each year. From cattles to chicken. Laying hens are kept in tiny cages, and many of the hens die from stress or diease. Check out this cool website!! It is just right for topic!!**[|**http://www.australianfauna.com/animalcruelty.php**] **~Crystal Mai**


 * I believe that Animals should be dissected for scientific reasearch. This is because scientists don't have to do it on live animals, they could dissect dead animals. I think by dissecting animals, we could learn a lot about their anatomy. This is because if an animal gets sick, we might have to perform surgery on them and if we don't know about their bodies, how could we save them and the others that are suffering from diseases. Humans can also benefit by using the knowledge of animal anatomy to improve our knowledge of our own anatomy. It is true that it is cruel but sometimes it is necessary to dissect live animals in order for science to advance. In the past, many organ transplants have been tried on animals and this had led to our success in organ transplant in humans and many lives have been saved.© LEON YAO!!

Of course we are going to dissect a dead animal Leon! Cordelia

 I believe that animals should be dissected for scientific research. This could help scientists study diseases that the animal had and find a cure. Also they would not dissect live animals for an unimportant reasons and if they wanted to test new medicine they would not test it on a almost extinct animal they would test it on a common animal such as a rat (this is proven by statistics). This is an example of true animal cruelty: Last year, the Japanese killed Australian whales using scientific reseach as an excuse to kill and eat them. BTW I like Leon's debate** ©®™ **__//CHARLES//__

I think that animals //should// not be dissected for scientific research. I think this because, pretend that you are a the only animal of a certan kind and scientists have not examined your kind and are confident that something in your body could seriously help people. Pretend those scientists do not even know that you are the last surviver of your kind. They will make you die and your kind will be extinct. Mark

I believe that animals should be dissected, but only for scientific reasearch by the professional scientist. I believe that it should be done so that the scientists can do experiments on them, as if it were human. Experimenting on animals is better than experimenting on humans as the experiment could go wrong, which may lead to death. Alvie 

I firmly believe that animals should NOT be dissected for scientific purposes. I have 2 reasons for this. A), Just like Abhishek said, Animals have different reactions to drugs than we do. B), You could test it on a human and the test results are bound to be correct. This is better than MOST animals, because we have a higher population. Toby M.

I believe animals shouldn't be dissected. Life is yours, you choose how you live it and you choose what to do. Same goes for animals. Why do animals live? Is it to be killed or taken apart? Obviosly not. A living animal is not a toy, not just a dumb thing to take apart or rip limb from limb. It lives and like humans, it also feels pain. An inanimate object is fine to shatter, to break or to destroy and blow apart. Tim

I agree with both sides of the debate because we wouldn't know much if no one had ever dissected a frog or tested medicine on a rat. But while we dissect animals for our own good, it also kills so many animals. I think that animals should be dissected by only professional scientists who know what they are looking for, not just kids playing around in science class. Emily

I strongly believe that frogs shouldn't be diceted for scientific purposes. why should frogs have to put up with us dicecting them when with our technonogy we could scan them. animals have feelings they can be in pain in peace in happiness, why not just let them live in peace. they have lives, how is killing a human worse than killing a frog? I strongly believe that frogs should not get disected. Angel

//I firmly believe that animals should not be dissected for scientific research. We have lives. So do animals. They should be able to choose how they live. They feel things like pain and happiness. Just because they can't do things like talking and other things that we can do doesn't mean that they don't have a life and are worse than us. I agree with Angel. We could just scan them and let them live their happy life. Catherine Yu // **

i think that animals should not be dissected. many animals have been dissected before! why cant people just acknowledge that other people have dissected animals and RECORDED THE INFORMATION so people can see an animals insides without having to kill one. we arent the only ones who feel pain. we ARE basically animals, just with much higher intellegence. you wouldnt want your cat or dog to die, would you (if you have one)?? sure, animals were dissected before but that was because we DIDNT KNOW what animal organs looked like
 * //vivienne ;)//**

I don't think animals should be used for scientific research because it is reducing the amount of animals on earth. Instead of killing live animals and dissecting them, we could use DNA (e.g. skin flakes, hair) to get information about the animal. Animals shouldn't be dissected also because it is cruelty against animals. Everyone and everything should be treated fairly. Instead of being dissected and having their insides examined, simply to find out more about a particular animal, animals should be studied in their natural habitats.

Richard

I do **NOT** believe animals should be dissected for science purposes. Animals have just as much rights to live in peace as we do. It is understandable that we need to discover and learn about animals, but with the technology we have now there are many other ways that we could lean about animals. Some animals are bred to have experiments done on them but would be kept in quite harsh conditions this also can be very cruel. This defiantly shows that animals shold not be dissected for scientific purposes. William

//I do **NOT** think animals should be dissected for science purposes. What is the point of dissecting them? We do **not need** to. It is not necessary. Has anyone asked **why** we need to dissect them? Is there really// **any** //knowledge that even suggests that it is a// **good** //idea? I believe there is// **no** //real reason we should dissect animals. Scientists say it is so we understand how they work. I wonder **why** we need to know how they work. It is not affecting// **our** //lives weather we do or don't. Sure, we would know a little more, but our brains can't take// **too** //much. I see our brain as a shelf. If it is full you need to move something off which means forgetting something else. Also, every one of those animals we kill is decreasing the population of that type of animal. If it// **is** //proven we// **do** //need to know,// **one** //sould be dissected not one for// **every** //kid in the science class. If someone writes it down, there is// **no**//need to actually dissect it, we could just read it so that we know it.// //Overall, I think animals should// **not** //be dissected for scientific purposes because it is// **not** //necessary.// **Laura **

==**I firmly believe that animals should <span style="font-size: 132%; color: rgb(255,0,0);">__NOT__ ** <span style="color: rgb(189,0,189); font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">**be dissected for any reason at all. Ask yourself, did the creator of our world create the animals to be sliced to death? I agree with the people who said that technology can do the work instead. If animals need to be tested I do not think the outcome will be the same. Even if the animals being tested are similar to humans there are many differences between us. If people think that the results on a animal are the same for human they are wrong. Animals would have to be humans to make the outcome perfect and right.Another thing is that animals have lives like us and I think that killing things and taking things from nature for our purposes is greedy. Joyce** ==

<span style="color: rgb(0,0,0);"> l strongly believe that animals should not be dissected for whatever reason you have got. This is because animals are decreasing in our nature. And animals keep us company. They are also part of our amusing and wonderful nature. You just can't go around killing nature and destroying their habbitats. If you look at Horaces' comment, it says that it is impossible to learn everything about things if you don't look at its insides. If this was the case about animals, you can just go to the local or school library and borrow the book that you want about a particular animal. This is why l think that animals should not be dissected whatever reason you have got in this planet no matter what happens. Raylia

Animals should be dissected for scientific purposes. Scientists should dissect animals after they have been killed painlessly. The better way to learn about animals’ body structure is to dissect them and see what’s inside. Even though we can learn about things by reading books and searching it up on the internet, it’s not as real as what we can see, touch and smell of the real object. We can use the body parts of the animals for experiments and researches. It is impossible to learn everything about things if you don’t look at its inside. Horace <span style="font-size: 120%; color: rgb(0,0,0); font-family: 'Comic Sans MS',cursive;">
 * I strongly believe that animals should NOT be dissected for scientific reasearch and any other reason. For the first time it would be ok because we don't know about it but we can write it down so we don't have to keep repeating the same things over and over again because that is just a waste. Also if we were dissecting animals to see if medication works etc if it was succesful on a frog, it might not have the same affect on humans and vice versa. We are also killing them just for some experiment that might not even work. That is just not fair for the animals. Animals are good to us (eg kills predators) and are we being good to them? NO WE ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!! Also they have lives. They have feelings and they are alive. Would you like it if someone came up to YOU, killed YOU and cut YOU open, just to see what you had for lunch? If you are sane, of course you wouldn't so we shouldn't just go around killing animals just because they are lower than we are. Cordelia

I believe that animals definitely should NOT be dissected for scientific purposes because how would you like it if a giant, human person came up to you, caught you, put somegas in you and make you die for some stupid scientific experiment? Humans have technology for goodness sakes! Why would someone do all the trouble on getting a frog, seeing whats inside the stomach and then throw it away? THey could just use some scans on it and it would come out alive. Even if they did this on a dead animal, how would you like it if it was a loved one who died and you were planning to bury it and this person picks him/her up and chops your friend in half? Grace

I totally agree with Grace (its funny) Cordelia

Animals that produce toxins should be dissected to see what part of the animal to avoid. We might run away from a harmless garden spider and get bitten by a funnel-web and wouldn't know the difference between the two. Why should we avoid box jellyfish if we don't think they're dangerous? How will we know to avoid bees and wasps? Who will know what insects are toxic and which are not? Anyway, science is all boring without experiments. Dissecting a thing for fun can teach you. Like when you butcher an animal, you could learn more about anatomy by the basic bone structure, in all vertebrates there is a spine and when you dissect an animal you can learn, first hand, what is inside. As this leads to knowing a little about medicinal purposes, I will not blab on, instead look up the page. What is the point in killing an animal to dissect anyway? Just grab a dead one. Tim, Monday, No.2 argument, Live Animals should not be dissected.**

I think that animals shouldn't be dissected for scientific research. I don't think they should because if scientists dissect animals, then everybody will think an animal's life is nothing. Therefore, more people will kill animals. Some scientists experiment things on animals, to see if it will be harmful to humans. They shouldn't because what might be okay for an animal might not be okay for humans. The drug might be okay for animals but may lead to death for humans. Maybe animals have feelings. How would you like it if a giant dissected YOU. I wouldn't like it so, why do it to animals? //Alexander Lin//


 * I disagree with Tim. Science is not boring without experiments (at least for me anyway). Also, why don't we dissect Tim for fun. If you think dissecting animals are fun why don't we just do it to you??????? You wrote "dissecting a THING for FUN will teach you. Any way dissecting an already dead animal is a good idea but if it was dead for a while the toxin maybe gone. Anyway like Grace said what if some giant wanted to dissect a human but wanted to dissect an already dead one comes and picks your grandma and uses it. Would you like that? No neither would animals. They have lives, they have feelings and they have grandmas too so they would feel exactly like you. Also humans are practically animals so you can't say "animals don't have feelings blah blah blah blah blah" otherwise you would just be sating we don't have feelings and we do. Even if their lower than us they still do have them. Cordelia

I reckon that you can dissect SOME animals for science experiment but do not overkill. Because that is no diffrence to massace. How would you feel when one day your peaceful village got invaded by a 1000 ton mammal, chew up your chums and fried up your friends after they were dissected? Not quite good ,huh? Chris

I think that animals should not be dissected for scientifical reasons. I think this because the animal being dissected wouldn't want to be cut up and surely we don't want us being cut up by animals. We also don't need to know that much about other animals by dissecting them. There has to be another way. So this is why I think animals shouldn't be dissected. Nathan**