what are your views on animal vivisection?

Question

This is a very controversial question , i know. But do we approve of it or dissaprove? Remembering that animals get injected, sprayed & fed chemicals, diseases & antibodies on a frequent daily basis that kills and maims them every single time a test is carried out, all in the name of human survival!!! is this a good thing and should it continue? Remembering also that NO animal on the planet has EXACTLY the same kind of body structure as ourselves so how can this testing be classed as opportune & right and for the good of humans - should we not be testing OUR research work out on humans - rapists, murderers, peadophiles, the scum of our society that the animal testing is used to help......... i think you know my view - but i'm interested in yours.

Answer 1

Totally against it mate.

I have been on protests in the past but too busy to find time now (it's not really a place to take children).

There are many products that I dont buy because they test n animals. I'm sure a lot of people who claim to love animals would be shocked in they knew the full truth behind their washing powders, juice drink etc etc.

I think these researchers obviously haven't realised how much we have actually evolved - if you give a goat one certain painkiller, it will kill it, where as we can take up to 8 a day - therefore how can we test our medication on animals before we accept it as safe?

Vivisection is needless torture of animals as they can't tell the researchers to stop. It's sick & needless.

Answer 2

I totally agree with you. What has an animal ever done to hurt a human (okay apart from survival)? Yet we seem to think we have the right to do whatever we like to them. As you say, do the testing on rapists, murderers, people who are cruel to animals etc etc, they will have much better use in society than being locked up in prison getting all the luxuries they don't deserve the scum. And to be honest I'd rather have the choice of fewer products that haven't been tested on animals than the thousands on the market because it's way out of control.

Answer 3

I consider you, and the argument that the pursuits of human beings come first, and that it quite is totally justified to vivisect an animal, presented care is taken to get rid of/minimise suffering, if by employing doing so we'd advance human pursuits, which incorporate saving a life heavily isn't precise

Answer 4

Well, I am vegetarian, I know what are you saying, and most of the people eat that food. I t is valid, animal suffer but at final, Does the vegetables feel? I think so. I agree with testing in animal, if that avoid testes in humans.

Answer 5

I think it is barbaric and that the tests should be done on human volunteers or as you said, it could be part of the deal for people who get life in prison. It would suit them better than TVs, PlayStation's and all the privileges they get at the moment.

Answer 6

Honestly, I think there's a line which can be drawn between necessary and unnecessary animal testing.

On the one hand, do I believe in testing cosmetics and what not on animals? No. There's little danger such products would significantly harm or kill a human being, so there's really no point in not simply testing the product on willing volunteers who have to suffer a bad hair day or a rash.

Testing such products on animals has only a limited feasibility, anyway. Animal skin and hair is similar to human skin and hair, but not the same, so the reactions we see in animals may not necessarily be the reactions we see in people, especially when it comes to allergies.

So, there's no point in testing those things on animals. It costs very much and gains us very little. I don't support causing something to suffer unless we have to, and in the case of cosmetics, we don't have to.

That brings me to medical research, though. I do believe we have a perfect right to do medical research on animals since testing drugs and medical procedures from the ground up can very easily lead to lifelong trauma or death of the individual involved in testing.

That makes testing on other animals which are similar to us biologically, to limit or eliminate all the unsafe characteristics of whatever drug or medical procedure we are developing as possible, very important.

The thing about it is that in the case of medical research a trade HAS to be made. If we don't make the trade in animal lives, we make the trade in the lives of many more humans we're struggling to develop these treatments to save. This isn't an unnecessary expenditure of life. The life HAS to be spent in order to find what we need to know. One way or the other, living things are going to die, whether or not they are animals we sacrifice to research, people we sacrifice to research, or people we choose to sit idly by and allow to die because we don't research things to cure them.

One way or another, the trade HAS to be made. Something HAS to die. At that point, the question isn't whether or not the sacrifice is needless. The only question is what we're going to sacrifice, and unfortunately we simply can't do away with our "undesirables" in our testing. In order for the testing to do any good, we have to test it on people who are afflicted with the medical condition we are struggling to cure... and there's not only no guarantee our undesirable population will have the necessary condition to cure, but there is quite frequently every guarantee they won't. Which prisoners were you planning to pick to test treatment regimens for childhood leukemia and autism on, for instance?

Innocent people, by and large, are going to be the ones we need to test the treatments on, and I'm just not comfortable sacrificing them on the altar of knowledge for no greater sin than being a human being suffering if there's any way I can avoid it.

I'm sorry if other people are more fond of species outside the human race than I am, and I'll admit I'm biased because humanity happens to be my species, but I'm also not all that fussed about an animal having to die so I can eat.

The trade has to be made. One thing has to die so another thing can live. I see no reason why it isn't perfectly acceptable to suggest whenever possible, the trade be made outside the human race... if for no other reason than the fact it is much easier to suffer the loss of an animal than it is to suffer the loss of one of our own.

Whatever else can be said of humans, their grasp of reality is infinitely more complex than that of the animals we do research on, and the suffering and loss of people is felt much more poignantly and permanently by us. I'd rather see the bunny get it than explain to a mother and father why their child died in the quest to find a drug that was supposed to cure them.

Answer 7

Animals feel pain and have emotions similar to our own. Vivsection is torture and experimentation on feeling beings. Doing it on people who have no conscience would be OK by me.

Answer 8

I 100 per cent agree with you.They make excuses at the end of the day its for the drug makers to get filthy rich they make me sick

Answer 9

It is a necessary evil, to have the advancements in medical science that you would not want to live without.

Answer 10

totally against it. animals have feelings too