Animal Testing

ZoeePea:

wish_i_was_adie:

ZoeePea:

I'm totally against it. I think it's so unfair on the animals involved that humans could be shortening their lives for a chance of some progress in research.
People have tried convincing me that the medical testing is fine, but I'm still yet to see it.

if you have ever been vaccinated, been treated for any medical problem or taken any medication in your life, you have benefited from it

the only medication I've taken is Capol, when I wasn't old enough to decide what I could do.
and yes, vaccinations, but I did have people holding me down.
I even had my tooth pulled out (by the dentist) with out anesthetic. and I don't take pain killers for any pains.
I like the natural medication of sleep.

I've had surgery, and trust me, sleep doesn't fix it.

Fluff;:

May I please point out that Humans are a species of animal?
We may not see ourselves as that, but we're just a bunch of monkeys.

Which would ultimately mean, we're saving animals by testing animals, aren't we?

^
XD He has a point!

MyQueenVampy!:

^
XD He has a point!

She.

Unsurprisingly, I'm in favour of animal testing. Because I'd be dead without it.

A lot of you seem to say that you're 100% against it, and that you don't need drugs. Well, maybe you don't. And that is admirable if you can bear pain without needing painkillers, but frankly, you're also damn lucky to have your health. A lot of you are teenagers and still have strong immune systems and aren't likely to have suffered from the chronic illnesses that I have. You don't know what it feels like to wake up after an operation with a part of your thigh cut open. You don't know what it feels like to be fed through a gastro-nasal tube. You don't know how it feels to have so many IVs sticking out of you that you can't turn over in your hospital bed. I'm making a big assumption here, because I think if you did know those feelings, then you would probably be begging for painkillers and other drugs to cure your illnesses. It isn't just drugs which are tested either, it is things such as creams, dressings and other medical supplies which are equally important for patient care.

Also, the point about animals suffering is a valid one - but equally, is it any better to let humans suffer?

whatsmyname:

I'm not against animal testing for medication.
But I am against animal testing for cosmetics and make up. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as cell culturing. And it's a shame that we have to hurt other living creatures for our own vanity. >_> I'm trying to buy all of my make up and beauty products cosmetics cruelty free now - Revlon, Urban Decay, Hard Candy, MAC and LUSH are all against animal testing, as far as I know.

This is the way I look at it.
Sure, I don't like the thought and fact of animal testing, but for medical reasons and to save lives, then, I guess I would have to be for.
I don't wear make-up or cosmetics, and I find animal testing for cosmetics and make up just, cruel. We don't really need make-up or cosmetics.
Medicine we do need.

aww...poor dog~! But seriously...eyestick?? That's just sick! =p i'm against anime tests, too! but who would they test on, then? why not test on a mannequin for all i care! just don't hurt the animals!!

Mason Musso:

whatsmyname:

I'm not against animal testing for medication.
But I am against animal testing for cosmetics and make up. There are alternatives to animal testing, such as cell culturing. And it's a shame that we have to hurt other living creatures for our own vanity. >_> I'm trying to buy all of my make up and beauty products cosmetics cruelty free now - Revlon, Urban Decay, Hard Candy, MAC and LUSH are all against animal testing, as far as I know.

This is the way I look at it.
Sure, I don't like the thought and fact of animal testing, but for medical reasons and to save lives, then, I guess I would have to be for.
I don't wear make-up or cosmetics, and I find animal testing for cosmetics and make up just, cruel. We don't really need make-up or cosmetics.
Medicine we do need.

I can understand what you are saying, but why do animals deserve to have risky medicines tested on them? The animals that are put forward for these testings have no choice. If humans put themselves forward for the testing of medicine, it would be their choice. If the animal dies due to the medicine being wrong, then that is plain wrong, because the animal had no choice. Why should we value human lives more than animals?

Of course, I wont deny that I have benefited from it. But that doesn't mean I agree with it. I firmly believe we should offer the choice to humans and/or test on cells that aren't in a body. It is possible to take blood and cells from a living organism and test on those. That way, the animal or human being tested on would not die if the medicine was faulty.

broken.:

I can understand what you are saying, but why do animals deserve to have risky medicines tested on them?

Because some people deserve to be saved by risky medicines.

I'm going to sound extremely cold-hearted but, I don't see much difference between an animal dying in a laboratory while testing for a new vaccine against HIV or dying in the wilderness, except for maybe the vaccine. Of course, I am against them suffering unnecessarily, because that's torture and I believe torture is wrong, but I don't think there's anything that wrong or over-dramatic about animals dying for the sake of science.

broken.:

Why should we value human lives more than animals?

Because of what a human life can do for the rest of the world. Things that an animal most certainly cannot.

broken.:

It is possible to take blood and cells from a living organism and test on those. That way, the animal or human being tested on would not die if the medicine was faulty.

That's not always enough. Cells are good for some experiments I'm sure, but medical testing is not a one size fits all science. Different tests have different requirements.

dark.:

broken.:

I can understand what you are saying, but why do animals deserve to have risky medicines tested on them?

Because some people deserve to be saved by risky medicines.

I'm going to sound extremely cold-hearted but, I don't see much difference between an animal dying in a laboratory while testing for a new vaccine against HIV or dying in the wilderness, except for maybe the vaccine. Of course, I am against them suffering unnecessarily, because that's torture and I believe torture is wrong, but I don't think there's anything that wrong or over-dramatic about animals dying for the sake of science.

broken.:

Why should we value human lives more than animals?

Because of what a human life can do for the rest of the world. Things that an animal most certainly cannot.

I just don't see why animals need to be the ones tested on. Considering we almost undoubtedly evolved from animals, we're just the same as them. Sure we can walk, talk and come up with shiny new gadgets, but thats only because we managed to evolve. Look at monkeys, they're practically as intelligent as humans, almost the same. Yet we test on them. Dying in the wilderness is natural. Forcing them to have a vaccine, isn't.

Kurtni St. Cyr:

broken.:

It is possible to take blood and cells from a living organism and test on those. That way, the animal or human being tested on would not die if the medicine was faulty.

That's not always enough. Cells are good for some experiments I'm sure, but medical testing is not a one size fits all science. Different tests have different requirements.

I guess so. I just feel uncomfortable with the fact that we're forcing living creatures to have risky tests done upon them. We don't use young children who aren't yet fully developed and there for not as much 'use' to the world. Disabled people aren't tested on, and of course I'm not saying they're less valuable than those who aren't disabled, my own brother has a learning disability, but they're not going to invent things to help evolve and grow. But we don't test on them.

broken.:

I just don't see why animals need to be the ones tested on. Considering we almost undoubtedly evolved from animals, we're just the same as them. Sure we can walk, talk and come up with shiny new gadgets, but thats only because we managed to evolve. Look at monkeys, they're practically as intelligent as humans, almost the same. Yet we test on them. Dying in the wilderness is natural. Forcing them to have a vaccine, isn't.

We are Homo Sapiens.
The sapiens bit makes us special and different from animals, not only are we intelligent, but we are capable of knowing, of knowing that we know and of knowing that we know nothing.
Monkeys can't do that.
Yes they can learn simple tricks, they can even learn languages or mathematical operations, but could an animal creat art, or love someone, or do goodness without expecting some sort of reward?

What's the difference between a ''natural'' death and an ''unnatural'' one? You're still dead.

dark.:

broken.:

I just don't see why animals need to be the ones tested on. Considering we almost undoubtedly evolved from animals, we're just the same as them. Sure we can walk, talk and come up with shiny new gadgets, but thats only because we managed to evolve. Look at monkeys, they're practically as intelligent as humans, almost the same. Yet we test on them. Dying in the wilderness is natural. Forcing them to have a vaccine, isn't.

We are Homo Sapiens.
The sapiens bit makes us special and different from animals, not only are we intelligent, but we are capable of knowing, of knowing that we know and of knowing that we know nothing.
Monkeys can't do that.
Yes they can learn simple tricks, they can even learn languages or mathematical operations, but could an animal creat art, or love someone, or do goodness without expecting some sort of reward?

What's the difference between a ''natural'' death and an ''unnatural'' one? You're still dead.

A natural death isn't murder. I mean, would you put an infected needle into a human being and watch them die? Or would you rather they died of old age.

I just don't see what makes us humans so damn special that we feel we're a 'superior' race. We're not. We're just more evolved. It doesn't make us better, it just makes us different. That doesn't give us the right to treat animals the way we do.[

broken.:

. I said we should see if there are other ways of testing for cures without having to infect any living creature.

And are you going to donate the millions and millions of dollars needed to fund experimentation to make that possible? You're acting as if we test on animals just to be assholes and we don't. We don't have other options and science doesn't have unlimited funds.

Kurtni St. Cyr:

broken.:

. I said we should see if there are other ways of testing for cures without having to infect any living creature.

And are you going to donate the millions and millions of dollars needed to fund experimentation to make that possible? You're acting as if we test on animals just to be assholes and we don't. We don't have other options and science doesn't have unlimited funds.

I know they don't do it just to be assholes. And I know that they don't have the funds. I do know that. I'm not being deliberately oblivious to all this.

I just feel animals need treating with more respect and have more rights than they do.

broken.:

I just don't see what makes us humans so damn special that we feel we're a 'superior' race. We're not. We're just more evolved. It doesn't make us better, it just makes us different. That doesn't give us the right to treat animals the way we do.[

To state the blindingly obvious, I think it kind of has something to do with the fact that we are humans, and thus might, you know, want to put our own species first. Survival of the fittest, and all that.


I respect anyone with strong principles on this issue, but I often wonder how many of those who are strongly against animal testing have ever been chronically ill or had any major medical procedures.