|
Animal testing is completely good, it has given humanity thousands of vaccines, treatments, and
medical advancements. Animal testing can be credited with saving anyone who has diabetes, needed an
organ transplant, saved millions from the smallpox virus (eradicated in 1978) and tons of treatments
and vaccines for common sicknesses. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, for medical research only. I do not agree with animal testing for cosmetics |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We absolutely need to test on animals, without animal testing most of the major medical advancements
that we treasure today wouldn't exist. Anyone who uses insulin, had a transplant, enjoyed not
feeling surgery thanks to anesthetic, or most other treatments for diseases should thank animal
testing |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes of course it should. It could lead to a medical breakthrough (along with the many medical
breakthroughs that are already accredited due to animal testing). It is ridiculous that people are
so bothered about animals. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Well we can't test on humans, I say let the little devils be tested on! TUT i say on you animal
rights activists TUT! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, what else would we test on? Bugs? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
In many ways I am against the idea of animal testing, and I have thought it over several times.
The conclusion I have come to is, despite the fact that it seems very much immoral, this has got to
be weighed against the benefit that has come to millions of human beings as a result of animal
testing; several major medical breakthroughs have come about from animal testing, including
penicillin, insulin, the polio vaccine, chemotherapy for childhood leukemia, hip replacement, heart
bypass surgery, and more.
Therefore, I believe that animal testing remains an important aspect of medical research, but it
should also be regulated with various restrictions in place, many of which (as far as I am aware)
exist to prevent its abuse; for example, to prevent the over-use of animal testing, in circumstances
where it is not entirely necessary. |
| |
 jsh4  14 Feb 2008 23:26
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I believe animal testing has helped in developing important solutions and cures. Lives of all
animals are precious but they are not going to waste and are being utilized to help humans live
their lives better. Most animals used in animal testing are not from the protected species or from
endangered animals and as they are in abundance using them for animal testing is not wrong. I am for
animal testing on animals like rats. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
While I don't like animal testing per say, I think it has helped civilization immensely. For
instance, scientists have discovered that sharks DON'T get cancer. Without testing them, we may
never find a cure to cancer... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Have fun, I guess. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes i think its hilarious
and awesome |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
No! If dogs and animals switched for a day, how would you like to be the guniea pig, getting
tested?? Although i do see how it would be difficult and dangerous if there weren't any testing
whatsoever |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No that is cruel leave animals the way they are. Were animals then why aren't we tested. Eh? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Animal testing should never be aloud, because animals, are the legs of human society. And testing
on hobos and orphans that's just dumb. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The only good candidates to see if a product is right for HUMANS is HUMANS! Let's just take orphans
or hobos off the street. They have no lives! Also, holding animals against their own will is
totally unethical.
However, if it's animals that are used to test products for animals, use with caution. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think its horrible what people do to animals yeah it probably has given lot of medical stuff but
it probably hasn't. Animals are different they probably have a different reaction to the things they
stick in them |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
We should do human testing |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I think animal testing is bad because it must hurt them a lot |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No! It isn't fair for the animals. If any testing, it should be the maker or a volunteer, not
someone (like an animal) who can't choose to by itself and is forced to do it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
An animals life is just a valuable as yours, so think about it.... |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree with everything people have said in this category. No, you're right, we cannot test on
humans, BUT, and this is a pretty big 'but', we do not need to. Animals react to drugs and chemicals
differently than humans, because they're DIFFERENT! We have far more sophisticated non-animal tests
available - I mean, we've mapped the human genome for crying out loud! We do not need to test on
animals. There's nothing more we can learn from them, because there's so many more tests we can use.
I agree that many medical breakthroughs have come from animal testing, yes, but that was when we HAD
nothing else. We do NOW, and there's no excuse for it. Animal lives have no more or less value than
human lives; in fact, studies have shown that pigs are even smarter than dogs, and nobody would even
CONSIDER branding and burning their cute little puppy. Contrary to what a lot of people tell
themselves (and their children), animals feel pain, like we do, even if they can't tell us how much
it hurts. They bleed, just as we do. They suffer, just as we do. They get thirsty, just like we do.
They get hungry, sad, and lonely, just like we do. They want to live, just like we do. We do not
have the right to play God and take these creatures' lives away in the name of science and research.
We can't even explain what we're doing to them. Even if we could, what would we say? It's
unscientific, because you can't accurately apply the results to humans. We don't know what they're
capable of feeling, so what right do we have to dictate how they're going to spend their lives? No,
scratch that. They don't have lives. Life in a steel cage is NOT life. It was wrong when we did it
orphans, African-Americans, GIs, and gypsies - and we did - and it's wrong when we do it to animals.
We have cloned human skin. We have cell-based tissue models. Many companies perform unnecessary
animal tests, as there are some required by law. Why not use these more sophisticated tests? When
more complex science exists, we no longer need to stoop to this level. We know cigarettes are
dangerous. Why do we still perform smoking tests on dogs and monkeys? There's no scientific value in
it. Just because they can't speak doesn't make them stupid, or incapable of feeling, thought, or
fear. All this in the name of science? I don't think so. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It is wrong on so many different levels; innocent animals get hurt, it's cruel and it's inhumane.
But because there's a lot of heartless creeps who couldn't give rat's behind (pun intended) about
the welfare of animals. For those, I ask them to look at the potential dangers it could pose for
humans.
Humans and animals have very different genetic make-ups. Even primates have major differences from
humans. Something that works on a chimpanzee, may not work on a human. But because we have somehow
man aged to convince ourselves that we are so alike that whatever works on them will work on us, it
would be used - resulting in disastrous consequences for humans. So yes, heartless creeps, animal
testing isn't good for humans either so there's a reason for you. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
No ever think about the dogs are never besides you could create some monsteer. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Taffy4jc you are insane animal testing is cruel and is NOT right and your reason is evil therefore
you should not have voted |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Let's thing about it this way! Animals have feelings, just like people! Testing for cosmetics is a
BIG NO! Absolutely no question about that! Testing for medicines and vaccinations, that's
interesting! I'm personally against it because they could have different effects on animals as they
do have humans, so why not test on humans? Why are animals lives any less important than humans?
That's what i don't understand! People may be more intelligent but that gives no right to
automatically think your more important! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I'm not the world's biggest animal lover, but even I think doing animal testing is inhumane and just
above all, horrible. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
NO this is not ok at all. I own over 15 pets, and i love them all. It is unfair to test on animals.
Rats i guess are ok because of how many there are, but not dogs, cats or any other animal! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I strongly think that animal testing should be banned and i am going to right a letter to me
scientist most fave best friend in the world, bianca: ) to tell her how i fell about how shes giving
people the right idea about animal testing. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
A simple mental exercise: Imagine that we, as humans, are not in the position we are in now; imagine
we share the earth with a species of higher intelligence and ability than ourselves. Now imagine
that this higher species decides that it is time to find a cure for the common cold, or much more
likely, wishes to test a new shampoo. Of course they are not going to test it on themselves, instead
they will use you - a simple human. When the time comes, you are taken out of your cage and
restrained on a science table. A member of this higher species proceeds to rub shampoo into your
eyes, just to see what happens. Now, as a test subject against your will, do you still believe that
animal testing is acceptable?
Of course the example above is only shampoo. Imagine they now want to study the effects of removing
a certain part of your brain, just to see if their precious theory stands up to experiment.
Most humans think animal testing is acceptable only because of their intentional ignorance. People
do not want to know exactly what happens to these unfortunate creatures in the science laboratories
- if they did they run the risk of feeling guilty. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
