PDA

View Full Version : Testing Products on Animals


Forever
February 9th, 2009, 05:05 AM
What are your views on this?

I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.

matt561
February 9th, 2009, 05:15 AM
At the end of the day though who is going to say "oh yes i want to be tested on for poisonous chemicals"

quite alot actually though they are under strict medical examination

I think that humans should be tested on under the circymstances that they are not obliged to continue if they wish not to

♣Gawain♣
February 9th, 2009, 07:17 AM
Unless you count on lab rats and invoke animal rights...

That is practically the most inhumane thing a man can do with nature. Ironically, why don't they test the product themselves(if it's edible of course)?

Aurafire
February 9th, 2009, 08:05 AM
Lol....if animal testing was so ineffective, then why would we do it so often?

Look at the big picture: It's the easiest way to test out new products for dangerous side-effects before they are used on actual people. Is it unfortunate for the animals?...Sure it is, but are there any other realistic options for us to use? The bottom line is that these companies aren't going to risk liability and test out new products on people right away. Even if someone willingly volunteers, they might end up getting sick (or worse), and then what happens? The company ends up getting sued, even if the company clearly states the dangers of the test. It actually costs less for these companies to settle the lawsuit instead of fighting it in court (which is why our law system is retarded).

So basically, if we want new drugs and other products, animal testing is a must. I don't think the companies enjoy doing it, but I know for a fact they won't enjoy not making money. And I'm pretty sure everyone else won't enjoy not getting new products and medicines. And I refuse to believe that this kind of thought process is animal cruelty. It's just common sense >.>

Gengarchomp
February 9th, 2009, 08:24 AM
What are your views on this?

I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.

If half the products were dangerous to animals, wouldn't it be just as dangerous for us sentient life? Do you think that it would be better letting a rat spread disease than letting it get a rash from a shampoo that would be little more than irritating. It may, in some cases, be inhumane, but remember they're in-human. As soon as they become sentient and able to think intelligent thoughts (excluding instinct) they can go.

1KewlDude
February 9th, 2009, 09:25 AM
What I don't understand is what makes the life of a human's so much more important than an animals..? They may not be as intelligent, but they're still living and I believe that since we are more intelligent we should be more responsible for the Earth and it's inhabitants - all of them.

Cassino
February 9th, 2009, 09:29 AM
It would be more fitting to test on ourselves.
I find it disgusting how anyone can value other animals' lives less than human ones; while it is a natural instinct to value one's own race, it ceases to be so once harm is done outside of necessity.

As soon as they become sentient and able to think intelligent thoughts (excluding instinct) they can go.
Sentient — to feel
Sapient — to know (hence our latin name is **** sapiens)


Edit: Oh wow, censoring...

Aurafire
February 9th, 2009, 09:35 AM
I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/

Gengarchomp
February 9th, 2009, 10:11 AM
I find it disgusting how anyone can value other animals' lives less than human ones;

Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit? By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.

1KewlDude
February 9th, 2009, 10:14 AM
I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals.I don't understand how you possibly couldn't...Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals.But we still shouldn't put our own species above any other so why is testing on animals different to testing on humans.While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/It's not a necessity and these things may not be right, but naturally animals eat other animals... We don't need these things though so it's not true to say that we'd all be dead because when humanity didn't have access to fire and they weren't at the top of the food chain they still survived.

Aurafire
February 9th, 2009, 10:44 AM
I don't understand how you possibly couldn't...

It's because we are human. Like it or not, we're superior in body and mind. If you really put your life on equal footing with...any type of animal life? I guess that's your opinion.

But we still shouldn't put our own species above any other so why is testing on animals different to testing on humans.

Alright, so if all animals are on equal footing, then some animal, be it human or mouse or whatever, has to be tested to improve our understanding of biology, medicine, genetics and various other fields. We can't just stop doing research. My question to you is: Would you rather do potentially dangerous tests on a human or another animal that isn't human?

We don't need these things though so it's not true to say that we'd all be dead because when humanity didn't have access to fire and they weren't at the top of the food chain they still survived.

That's not really applicable in this situation, since we live in a time where there's billions of people on the planet that need a steady food source. So in all actuality, humanity as we know it would cease to exist if we didn't slaughter livestock or fish the crap out of oceans.

Melody
February 9th, 2009, 11:03 AM
My stance is simple. Animal testing IS NOT WRONG!

Anyways, it's not like we're torturing them.

Tinhead Bruce
February 9th, 2009, 11:43 AM
I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/

Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.

Cassino
February 9th, 2009, 11:55 AM
Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit?
Yes; I feel this way because of the world's human population. If there were 100,000 of us on the Earth, I would hold human lives in much higher regard.

By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.
That would be sapience, still. Sentience is simply being aware of the world and being able to feel things such as physical pain, basically all multicellular animals except humans are sentient.
Look both words up if you like.


I don't understand how you could possibly equate a human life with that of an animals. Don't we have a right to be responsible to ourselves? If we do, then we wouldn't put any type of life above our own, and we wouldn't do testing on ourselves rather than other animals. While it's not the most morally "right" thing we do, it's an actual necessity. Animals die every day because of human activity. Is killing a cow to make a hamburger ok? Is fishing ok? Is catching a mouse in a trap ok? I don't see the difference between any of those and animal testing. If we didn't harm or kill animals to support the human race, we'd all be dead right now. =/
But that's it, testing perfume and whatever on pigs isn't necessary to the survival of our race.
Now, killing them to make pork and ham is, but simply remember that the testing is for frivilous things.

Aurafire
February 9th, 2009, 12:01 PM
Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.

But...we do think in a more superior way. We obviously have the most intelligence of any species on Earth. And just because other species have survived longer doesn't mean they are smarter or better than us in terms of the entire animal kingdom. And I'm not saying that humans are "better" then other species. I'm just saying...We are the dominant species. It would be silly to assume that all other forms of life are equal to us, not necessarily in importance, but in intelligence. I refuse to believe that I am equals with something like an ant for example. Just because it's another animal doesn't mean we're on equal footing. I don't think it's cruel to think this way. I'm all for respecting life and such but...Putting the importance of human life on the same level as any other animal seems silly.

But that's totally beside the point. I agree with that quote, but only if it's applied to situations involving humans. I mean, you can't treat an animal with amazing amounts of kindness and respect and have it return the favor (in most cases). And a lot of the times, animals don't have the brain capacity to care a whole lot. I'm not saying go out and torture animals just for fun, but if they are totally oblivious to the situation, what's the point in trying to respect something as if it were human that can't respect you back on the same level. Once again...not saying we shouldn't respect other forms of life. But for the sake of the argument on animal testing, it makes sense.

레트로
February 9th, 2009, 12:41 PM
Lol....if animal testing was so ineffective, then why would we do it so often?

Look at the big picture: It's the easiest way to test out new products for dangerous side-effects before they are used on actual people. Is it unfortunate for the animals?...Sure it is, but are there any other realistic options for us to use? The bottom line is that these companies aren't going to risk liability and test out new products on people right away. Even if someone willingly volunteers, they might end up getting sick (or worse), and then what happens? The company ends up getting sued, even if the company clearly states the dangers of the test. It actually costs less for these companies to settle the lawsuit instead of fighting it in court (which is why our law system is retarded).

So basically, if we want new drugs and other products, animal testing is a must. I don't think the companies enjoy doing it, but I know for a fact they won't enjoy not making money. And I'm pretty sure everyone else won't enjoy not getting new products and medicines. And I refuse to believe that this kind of thought process is animal cruelty. It's just common sense >.>

I'll double this.
As mean as it is, I don't think any company is going to risk losing money and going thru a load of crap, because some guy wants to get rich because the soap gave him acne.

I still think it's wrong to use it on the animals, but, that's the way it is. D:
Maybe we could genetically modify an arm or a scalp? Lol, no.

1KewlDude
February 9th, 2009, 01:44 PM
Here's my thinking, it's to put it into perspective:

We are all part of the Animal Kingdom. Like it or not, we are.
As part of the Animal Kingdom, or any other kingdom for that matter, we kill things for our survival/when necessary/when we deem it necessary.
IE. Lions will kill other lions when they feel they are being threatened.

If someone deems it necessary to kill another person, then they should do so without consequence. Same with if another animal deems it necessary to kill a human. Other animals do this to other animals, and humans can do this to MOST other animals.

Being in the same kingdom by natural law puts us on equal footing, like it or not. Humans don't necessarily think in superior ways, just different ways. Many different animals have survived for longer than humans have. Other animal civilizations have lasted longer. That is how I, and many other people, define superior in this situation. The ability to survive for longer. Other animals have...

I will sum up my opinion with this phrase/philosophy: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

No, I don't believe animal testing is morally right, or right in any other way for that matter.I agree with this 100%! Well said, J£¡zåя∂27!

Virtual Chatot
February 9th, 2009, 01:51 PM
You shouldn't eliminate animal testing completely, but there comes a point where it becomes inhumane. ( I.E. forcing monkeys to smoke cigarettes* )

*although I do realize how freaking funny it looks

Eucliffe
February 9th, 2009, 01:59 PM
Testing Products on Animals

The second I saw this title, I knew I had to make a remark. Keep in mind this is all my own opinion, so no lowering rep or flaming me just because you don't have similar views.

Let's start off with the basics now, shall we? Hmm, let's see... Testing on animals means somehow placing chemicals on or in the animal. And are many animals resistant against chemicals like we are? I think not. Natural selection has not yet allowed most creatures other than us humans to be immune to the kinds of chemicals we place on them.

What I see wrong with this is hey, the animals aren't as immune to the chemicals as we are. And the products we're testing on them are most likely for us, so shouldn't they be tested on us? After all, we are getting overpopulated; what better than to drop the number a bit? OK, I'm kidding. I don't want anyone to die, no matter how murderous or evil they may be. But we don't have many cures for the animals if they get poisoned from the chemicals while we have cures for humans that are perfectly safe for us to take.

Even if the product is for the animal itself, it's still wrong to test on the animal, in case it goes wrong. Now, people may wonder how to figure out if it's working then. I don't have a suggestion, but hey, our creator (or maybe even creators) gave us functioning brains, and we have discovered many things in our lifetime, so surely we can use the gift of knowledge to find a way around testing on animals. Am I right, or am I right?

Anyways, that's all I have to say on the subject.

Agent Cobalt
February 9th, 2009, 05:30 PM
Are you saying that if you were driving a car and there was a baby in one lane, and a squirrel in the other, that it would be a tough decision as to which one to hit? By sentient, I meant having the ability to make conscious thoughts and understand abstract concepts on a near-human level.

Yes; I feel this way because of the world's human population. If there were 100,000 of us on the Earth, I would hold human lives in much higher regard.

I'm sorry, are you basing the worth of human life on quotas? I guess the Killing Fields of Cambodia were just a hunting session and Japanese whaling is the true holocaust.

Ignoring the self-destructive thinking behind that, don't you think there are a hell of a lot of squirrels out there?

Azonic
February 9th, 2009, 05:37 PM
I think it's totally wrong to test products on animals. Like it or not, all of us are part of the animal kingdom and all of us live. We're different species, and we are the dominant ones because of our progressed minds. However, we mustn't forget that anything living should be entitled to a regular life. What we're doing is that we're using them to hold tests because their not as "smart" as us.

Besides, not all animal tests have the same effects on humans. Take the polio myelitis vaccine; it had to be rectified so many times before it can be perfected. They tested the vaccine on the monkeys, and it worked fine. Test it on the humans, and the results were a disaster. :/

Stronkadonk
February 9th, 2009, 05:42 PM
I am 99.9% against it. That is just sick.

But I am for it when it is a product that could help save a species, or something else that is beneficial.

Spinor
February 9th, 2009, 06:33 PM
I don't care what the heck they test on, animals, plants, or heck even Martians, as long as the product fixes my damn face, then I'm happy.

...Hmmm... Now that makes me wonder how Martians react to anti-acne products...

Cassino
February 10th, 2009, 11:37 AM
I'm sorry, are you basing the worth of human life on quotas?
Humans only, yes.
Other animals and plants I am willing to treat equally to each other, and how much that regard extends is relative to the human population.

... Ooh, my mind works like a maths class. XD


Ignoring the self-destructive thinking behind that, don't you think there are a hell of a lot of squirrels out there?
I took it that squirrel was simply used as an example...

Cosmic Tyrant
February 10th, 2009, 12:22 PM
I don't know. Animals have rights, too. Humans go "Hey, we're on the pointy tip of the food chain, so we can do as we please!" We wouldn't want anybody doing something to us if we don't want them to, so what makes us think we can get animals to do what they don't really want to? Besides, animals aren't the ones using this product, humans are. Animals are exploited in testing entirely too much. If we're gonna test on something, then test on other humans; WE're the ones buying the products.

True Reign
February 10th, 2009, 02:50 PM
To answer the topic, companies only test on animals because the pre-medicine could be harmful to a human being. At the end of the day, would you have a worthless rat (I am going to use this as they use them most often) or a young woman/man (The younger people in their twenties tend to do this stuff for extra money for college)?

Tinhead Bruce
February 10th, 2009, 02:52 PM
That's the point.... As it's been pointed out in the Abortion thread, every life is sacred, whether human or not.

Frostbiteकर्म
February 10th, 2009, 02:56 PM
I don't believe it's ok. Just because we're at the top of the food chain doesn't mean we're the best. I mean if you think about it, if we accidentally kill off one species through testing or something else, then our whole food chain is unbalanced which could prove bad for us humans. I'm against testing products on animals, unless it is actually beneficial to the animal and not just to/for humans.

Tyrantrum
February 10th, 2009, 03:19 PM
I don't like that! :'<

I wish those animals would bite the hell out of those people, run away, and hide~ >:D

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 10th, 2009, 04:48 PM
I believe in animal testing as it has saved many many human lives throughout the years. For example, the polio vaccine was developed through animal testing and animal cells are used in preparing the vaccine.

Now, in 1988 there were 350 000 cases of polio. In 2007, that had dropped to 1300. That means that each year, 348 700 cases of polio are prevented, which could have devestated lives without the vaccine available. That means that since 1988, 7 322 700 cases have been prevented. Only 1% of cases reach the central nervous system, which can lead to severe paralysis. But this means that 73 227 serious cases have been prevented. And I think that its worth it.

Azonic
February 10th, 2009, 04:52 PM
I believe in animal testing as it has saved many many human lives throughout the years. For example, the polio vaccine was developed through animal testing and animal cells are used in preparing the vaccine.

Now, in 1988 there were 350 000 cases of polio. In 2007, that had dropped to 1300. That means that each year, 348 700 cases of polio are prevented, which could have devestated lives without the vaccine available. That means that since 1988, 7 322 700 cases have been prevented. Only 1% of cases reach the central nervous system, which can lead to severe paralysis. But this means that 73 227 serious cases have been prevented. And I think that its worth it.The Polio vaccine is also an example of how inaccurate the human vs animal results can be. The vaccine was tried over and over on monkeys, the closest relatives of humans. They seemed to be very effective on them, so then they moved onto humans. What happened? Almost all of the kids in the country took those polio vaccine, and the majority got infected with polio only weeks after. Animals =/= humans.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 10th, 2009, 05:05 PM
The Polio vaccine is also an example of how inaccurate the human vs animal results can be. The vaccine was tried over and over on monkeys, the closest relatives of humans. They seemed to be very effective on them, so then they moved onto humans. What happened? Almost all of the kids in the country took those polio vaccine, and the majority got infected with polio only weeks after. Animals =/= humans.

I assume you're referring to John Kollmer, who actually made a vaccine from polio that camefrom a monkey. However, his first tests actually involved more humans than monkeys :\

You may in fact be referring to Maurice Brodie, who tested on twenty monkeys. And lets face it, that's not enough to get accurate results.

So, yes these first vaccines sucked. But that was because the scientists were idiots when it came to testing them, not because the animal data was unreliable.

Gengarchomp
February 10th, 2009, 05:49 PM
I don't like that! :'<

I wish those animals would bite the hell out of those people, run away, and hide~ >:D

If they did that, they would all be euthenized.

Tinhead Bruce
February 10th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Exactly. Look at my post on the first page. Euthanizing them for that would be so wrong.

kissing. raindrops
February 10th, 2009, 06:17 PM
I hate it.. I think it's unnecessary and stupid, why test on animals? >_____>

.inLOVE
February 10th, 2009, 06:20 PM
It's hurting those poor animals. I'm really against it.

s0nido
February 14th, 2009, 01:51 PM
With medicine, yes.
With cosmetics, no.

It may be painful for the animal, but we need to survive. But killing an animal for us to look good?? No way!

Tinhead Bruce
February 14th, 2009, 02:12 PM
But the animal needs to survive as well.... It's a life, just like ours.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 14th, 2009, 02:54 PM
So we should put animal lives before human ones? Its natural instinct to put survival of our own species above the survival of others and I don't see a problem with that.

Tinhead Bruce
February 14th, 2009, 03:28 PM
No, not before. With. We should put them on an equal level.

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 14th, 2009, 03:58 PM
So, you're on a boat which is about to sink because there is one more person than it can hold. There is you, one other person and a pig. If you all stay on the boat, you will all drown. You, for some reason, cannot leave the boat. So do you throw out the other person, or the pig? answer honestly, please.

Tinhead Bruce
February 14th, 2009, 04:49 PM
You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

Tokin
February 14th, 2009, 04:55 PM
It depends on what is tested, if it is a medical product, which cannot be tested in anything else, then I support it, as for everything else(cosmetics, and other non vital products) I do not support it

Forever
February 14th, 2009, 07:05 PM
You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

"There is you, one other person and a pig."

That'd be three. :x

Saving the pig ftw.

Gengarchomp
February 14th, 2009, 08:04 PM
But the animal needs to survive as well.... It's a life, just like ours.

The animal was bred for the task. The species cannot be threatened if it dies. However, if it a cure for some pandemic for man, the human species could be threatened.

Tinhead Bruce
February 14th, 2009, 09:03 PM
MMk, well do you think when an animal species is threatened by something that we should experiment on humans?

I Laugh at your Misfortune!
February 15th, 2009, 01:01 AM
You said one more person. A pig is not a person. Please ask a question that makes sense first.

it was implied that the pig had the same sort of weight and therefore the same capabilities to sink the boat. Please stop dodging the question, now.

Gengarchomp
February 15th, 2009, 03:01 PM
MMk, well do you think when an animal species is threatened by something that we should experiment on humans?

No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

Yamikarasu
February 15th, 2009, 03:12 PM
I don't think they should test things on animals that could potentially harm them if it is just for luxuries like cosmetics, but I would rather they test them on animals than humans.

Humans > Animals, but animals still deserve to not be harmed.

Agent Cobalt
February 15th, 2009, 03:23 PM
No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

Exactly. Just like raising cows for meat and milk. As long as there's a demand for beef, cows will never go extinct. They're raised for the purpose of serving mankind and would die off without our system, and the same goes for those we test on; as long as we need to test, they'll live on.

beauty. proletariat
February 16th, 2009, 12:22 AM
What are your views on this?

I find it completely stupid, considering half the products are dangerous to animals. The companies that actually do this are clearly heartless because they don't realise the big difference between animals and humans. Society will never learn.

YES! LETS START TESTING POISONOUS STUFF ON HUMANZ.

lol XD [/sarcasm]

Some products don't do anything if they're tested on animals = Shampoo o.o


It actually helps them..

Maybe even deodorant should be tested on animals - just so that they don't smell

Forever
February 16th, 2009, 12:33 AM
Waaait what. o_o Animals should keep their natural scent. Human deodarent is bad for them y'know?

Guillermo
February 16th, 2009, 12:41 AM
All I know is that what people are doing is wrong. We shouldn't just use animals for our own benefit, that's just selfish. Just because we have the brain intelligence that animals don't doesn't mean we can just test all these different things on them that could harm them in fatal ways.

Those animal could have moms and dads, sons and daughters for all we know, and we're just taking them away from their families and testing stuff on them. That's hardly fair.

If anyone wishes to challenge me on this, please do so.

-;4348525']To answer the topic, companies only test on animals because the pre-medicine could be harmful to a human being. At the end of the day, would you have a worthless rat (I am going to use this as they use them most often) or a young woman/man (The younger people in their twenties tend to do this stuff for extra money for college)?

What the heck? o_o; They don't just test on rats. They test on bears, tigers, monkeys, cats, birds and all sorts of other breeds of animal. And why is a rat so worthless? Every animal is important in the food chain. If the rats were wiped out, the animal that ate rats would die out and so forth. Even flies are important, -[JD]- And just so you know, stuff has been tested on people.

Metatron
February 16th, 2009, 12:57 AM
No, just use a different species. Fortunately, the animals in question are bred for this purpose, and the people doing the testing would make sure the species would live on.

Oh, that's a great point of arguement. "They're bred for the sole purpose of our own selfish benefit, so it's perfectly okay." So you're saying that, because there is an abundance of the species we perform tests on, it's okay to test on them? You know, the world is overpopulated with humans, so by your logic, I guess it would be okay to start testing fatal products on other human beings as well? Tch...

I stand pretty strongly against animal testing, however, I do believe that another human's life should be valued more than an animals. If the tests are performed in order to develop any sort of significant medical advancement, then I'd much prefer those tests to be done on a lab rat than another human being. I don't, however, agree with the fact that, because a species may be heavily populated, it's okay to perform tests on them. Regardless of how large the population of that species is, individual animals still feel pain. I don't hold this view in fear that a certain species that are likely to become endangered because of human tests, but rather, because of the suffering endured by those single individual animals being tested on.

Gengarchomp
February 16th, 2009, 08:40 AM
All I know is that what people are doing is wrong. We shouldn't just use animals for our own benefit, that's just selfish. Just because we have the brain intelligence that animals don't doesn't mean we can just test all these different things on them that could harm them in fatal ways.

Right. We shouldn't use animals for our own benefit. All the animals that are used for farming, but aren't eaten, the seeing eye dogs, the elephants in India used as beasts of burden, et al, should be released right now. [/sarcasm]

Those animal could have moms and dads, sons and daughters for all we know, and we're just taking them away from their families and testing stuff on them. That's hardly fair.

So, is it better to do that to a human than to a rat? Rats don't even have a concept of family, so they hardly care.

What the heck? o_o; They don't just test on rats. They test on bears, tigers, monkeys, cats, birds and all sorts of other breeds of animal.

They don't test on endangered species like tigers, and if you're refering to the bile bears, I don't think that's really animal testing. but, mice, rats, rabbits, and other rodents make up a majority of the animals tested.

Oh, that's a great point of arguement. "They're bred for the sole purpose of our own selfish benefit, so it's perfectly okay." So you're saying that, because there is an abundance of the species we perform tests on, it's okay to test on them? You know, the world is overpopulated with humans, so by your logic, I guess it would be okay to start testing fatal products on other human beings as well? Tch...

That is not what I am saying. That is not what my logic is saying. My post is explaining that there is no threat to the species as a whole.