PDA

View Full Version : Animal Testing-Good or Bad and Why?


Hero of Time Link³
November 17th, 2007, 06:50 PM
I'm doing a school topic on Animal testing(the use of animals to test drugs etc.) and I was wondering if you guys could help me gather info about what "normal people" think about it.( I guess this could got Other Voting Polls but I don't really know)

Anti
November 17th, 2007, 07:16 PM
I don't like it too much, but it's not like I can do anything about it, so I don't mind too much.

Natalie♥
November 17th, 2007, 07:32 PM
Animal testing is horrible. It kills poor, defenseless animals.

Hero of Time Link³
November 17th, 2007, 07:47 PM
Thanks for the help and I share your opinion too.

Jester Girl
November 17th, 2007, 07:59 PM
To be truthful, if it doesn't harm the animal too much I think it's perfectly fine. After all, we can't figure out something with out testing it out, right.

Same with vegetarianism, it doesn't do anything for the society. Really, it doesn't. If we didn't eat meat in the beginning of time we wouldn't be here today.

txteclipse
November 17th, 2007, 08:08 PM
I think it's probabaly necessary. It usually doesn't hurt the animal in any way, but if it did, I would rather that not happen to a human.

Hero of Time Link³
November 17th, 2007, 08:16 PM
Actually the studies could be used in a different way and it's not necessary. I'm talking about the stuff like Organ Transplants and Injections.

txteclipse
November 17th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Again, I would rather that not happen to a human if it didn't work.

Here's the deal. Animal Testing has led to medical breakthroughs that have saved human lives. It's really the only way. Our other, less-appetizing options are:

a) Suffer through diseases and medical issues that could be cured through research done on animals.

and b) Do testing on humans, which is what Hitler did.

I don't know about you all, but neither of these sound that great.

Jaimes
November 18th, 2007, 03:59 AM
Animal testing for cosmetics is nothing but vanity and putting them at risk. However I feel that using animals for useful purposes (such as medical progress) are a good reason for it to be continued. Without animal testing on drugs, many of us wouldn't be here today.

Nacon
November 18th, 2007, 11:58 AM
I think animal testing is fine. Animal torture, skinning endangered animals, stuff like that... I feel that's unethical.

Becoming a vegetarian because of animal-pity.. I don't agree with because the few people that follow such a cause, I feel that they are not changing anything about that. Food is food and yes, we are omnivorous.

It is inhumane to take human test subject for medical studies that are unprecedented, so the next thing is to use something similar and more expendible. and yes.. that unnamed dog, that lab rat, that monkey... they definitely are.

Besides... in order to make an omelette, you gotta break a couple eggs.

♥~*Abby*~♥
November 18th, 2007, 02:43 PM
Animal testing is horrible. It kills poor, defenseless animals.

exactly.

Animals should not be killed for such a thing.

Warheart
November 18th, 2007, 03:39 PM
I don't agre with animal testing, but there are other things to worry about when looking at this subject. Although potenially killing an animal is a horrible thought, think of all the positives that can be taken from it; I don't consider a mouse's life to be equal to a humans, so if a medicaton that could potentially be used in order to fight disease, I would rather the testing be done on an animal, than another human =/

But testing things such as cosmetic supplies, shampoo, etc. on animals I think is wrong.

Jaimes
November 18th, 2007, 04:21 PM
exactly.

Animals should not be killed for such a thing.

So we should test anti-leukemia drugs on other humans and let them die instead? Seems fair to me. ¬_¬


(Thats sarcasm by the way.)

AnimeDDR110
November 18th, 2007, 04:23 PM
It hurts animals most of the time and i'm against it strognly. how would you like it if you were in a cage having some kind of product tested on you without your consent?

Cherrim
November 18th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Better animals than humans is my point of view. It's blunt, yeah, but as far as I know most governments share the same sentiment. It is regulated so it's not like it's torture.

I don't mind if people are against it--I can deal with that--but I hate when they say they're against it since it's not fair to the animals and then turn right around and are perfectly happy to step on bugs and such. I mean, if you're going to value an animal's life right up there with a human's, it should apply to all animals. 9_9 A little off-topic, but that hypocritical view comes up all the time when I end up talking about these topics with people. ~_~ Fuzzy kitties and bunnies and mice are just as much animals as spiders and flies.

Nacon
November 19th, 2007, 12:15 AM
like I said before.... a nameless dog being experimented on in terms of human-based research can be far more beneficial and is more ethical.

if you want to get all theological about it, animals are meant to serve man... but yes, there is a point where even that can be abused.

Happy Dude
November 19th, 2007, 02:40 AM
I think a lot of people have it wrong.

Most of the time the animals aren't being hurt.

I know I for one would rather see animals being tested on then humans As cruel as it May seem It is doing humans good.

I seriously doubt the government will stop it because it is "Wrong" to some people. But that's my view

Memory
November 19th, 2007, 07:06 PM
To be truthful, if it doesn't harm the animal too much I think it's perfectly fine. After all, we can't figure out something with out testing it out, right.

Same with vegetarianism, it doesn't do anything for the society. Really, it doesn't. If we didn't eat meat in the beginning of time we wouldn't be here today.
...*ahem* :x *tries not to bring on big rant*

This is a tough question. I do not think, though, that animals should be tested for such things.

More proof that we as humans view ourselves as the top of the food chain, better, etc. etc.

We all know that no one's going to test on a human, because humans are almighty. >>;
Animals are no different. At least, I don't think so. Because animals can't talk or think on levels that us humans can... we kill them, destroy them, laugh at them, test on them, beat them.

But then there's the debate of letting a whole bunch of humans die rather than a few animals, etc.

I've thought long and hard about this question. I believe... that humans can find something else to test on.

I mean, if we can build computers, rockets, send people to the moon and predict the landing within a fraction of a second, surely we can find something other than animals to test drugs on. It's simply the fact that no one wants to, because today, as long as we the humans are happy, that's all that matters.

Don't matter that we're destroying entire rainforests, because we get paper from it!

Don't matter that we're torturing chickens, because we get a good Thanksgiving dinner from it!

Don't matter that we're testing on animals, because it's saving lives in the end! So why find something else to test on?

..yep. It's all about us. ><

Jester Girl
November 19th, 2007, 07:20 PM
I don't think I want to get into a huge debate, so I'll make it really short and simple.

It's the circle of life, the food chain, and even though we can live with out meat, it helps with our system; actually. Of course, I don't feel pleasure in seeing a chicken get it's head
cut off, but it's the world.

Such as, how a wolf hunts a rabbit even though he could eat another type of animal. I doubt they can eat fruits though (I think their digestive system makes them only able to eat meat, if I'm correct).

Jack O'Neill
November 19th, 2007, 08:12 PM
The Russian and American space programs had to send dogs and monkeys into space in order to prove that living organisms can survive being launched into orbit. Laika died only because Sputnik 2's thermal control system malfunctioned. Gordo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordo_%28space_monkey%29) died only because his parachute failed. Better them than Yuri Gagarin and Alan Shepard.

Hero of Time Link³
November 19th, 2007, 10:24 PM
I'm talking about times when it's unnecessary *cough*most of the time*cough*. It's actually possible that when a animal survives it may cause a human to die in the same way.
The two major alternatives to in animal testing are in vitro cell culture techniques and in silico computer simulation(aka using it on a computer simulation to see what'd happen to a human with a 95% success rate).
Also a third alternative now attracting considerable interest is so-called microdosing, in which the basic behaviour of drugs is assessed using human volunteers receiving doses well below those expected to produce whole-body effects.

Nacon
November 20th, 2007, 01:19 AM
besides.. I love the taste of chicken... and there's a KFC theme going around the PC